Those who have moved from an earlier year to later Ranger - build quality?
#1
#2
#7
My 93 4x4 Seems like its built much more solidly than my 02. I dont know why, but it just seems more durable. Like mentioned above, maybe its the addition of 50% Plastic? I mean, I know the 02 can stand up to just as much, but it seems more likely to break. Maybe its the suspension change that threw me off? TTB to IFS? Or just the companies cheapening up?
#9
#11
I had a 88b2200 and that was a beast. My G/f flipped it on its side, we pushed it back over (the cops came i got an infraction) and we started it up and when on our way. I think the newer rangers are comparable in build quality, obvioulsy there was less that could go wrong with the old 88 2wd then the new computer controlled 06 4wd.
#13
Yeah, I'd have to say my 92 Ranger XLT 2.3L Reg Cab LB, and compared to my 01 SC Edge....they stack up similarly. I would say my EDGE definatly has less interior quality to the seats and sound deadining, but build wise, both seem to be up to snuff. I always choose a no-option vehicle. WAY less electrical draw on the alternator, and less hassles down the road.
So far....I would have to complain about the ride quality of the Torsion beam suspension, the front end jars, compared to the softness of the TIB setup on ealier Rangers. Also, the tranny still has the same miss-shift/gear grind (due to driver error) quark that the ole' 92 had. Just one of those 'you get use to it" situations.
Build wise, I think the quality of both is pretty even. Everything is tight, works, fits well with little to no unrequired matinence due to factory defects.
So I would say I am very happy. Just wish I had a 4.10 in the rear......
So far....I would have to complain about the ride quality of the Torsion beam suspension, the front end jars, compared to the softness of the TIB setup on ealier Rangers. Also, the tranny still has the same miss-shift/gear grind (due to driver error) quark that the ole' 92 had. Just one of those 'you get use to it" situations.
Build wise, I think the quality of both is pretty even. Everything is tight, works, fits well with little to no unrequired matinence due to factory defects.
So I would say I am very happy. Just wish I had a 4.10 in the rear......
#15
Originally Posted by HighRollerII
never owned another Ranger but my 96 nissan sure went through some mud holes pretty damn good..but nothin compared to the Ranger
i guess im opposite then you all.
my 99 seemed cheaper then my 01.
but that a 2wd/ 4wd difference.
my 4x4 seems very sturdy and tough.
#17
#19
#20
You know what I like a lot more about my '03 vs my '84 and '91?
Spark plugs and wires go 100,000 miles instead of 15,000 miles on plugs, wires, cap, rotor, etc etc. Actually, it seems the change interval on everything has gone up, some just a little, some a whole lot.
They ditched the front 4wd hubs for CV joints so no more messing around with those things. The auto hubs sucked and the manual ones worked great but were an inconvinience.
I would agree there is a lot more plastic and lot less beefy parts on the newer vehicles. It's all about costs and weight so the cut everything they can. The only plastic on my '84 was the instrument cluster and the grill. Now half the truck is plastic.
Spark plugs and wires go 100,000 miles instead of 15,000 miles on plugs, wires, cap, rotor, etc etc. Actually, it seems the change interval on everything has gone up, some just a little, some a whole lot.
They ditched the front 4wd hubs for CV joints so no more messing around with those things. The auto hubs sucked and the manual ones worked great but were an inconvinience.
I would agree there is a lot more plastic and lot less beefy parts on the newer vehicles. It's all about costs and weight so the cut everything they can. The only plastic on my '84 was the instrument cluster and the grill. Now half the truck is plastic.
#22
My 87 was a cadillac when I first got it. The heater was amazing, the AC was amazing, The ride quality was amazing, The strength of the truck to go through everything I put it through over the years was spectacular. The motor on the other hand was just a 2.9L but it had over a quarter of a million miles on it and still ran as strong as the first day I got into it when I was 5. There is a big difference between trucks built back then and the ones built today. Back then, they were built to last. Now, they're built to be traded in it seems. I've had more problems with my 01 in the 3 years i've owned it then I had with my 87 in the 18 years it was in my family.
#23
This is speaking with about two years with a 1994 Splash 4.0, 5-speed, Std Cab with 64,000 miles, and a brand new 2003 Level II FX4.
Overall, I believe the '94 to be built better, more solid and just "like a truck".
They were worlds apart, however. The Splash was a sporty ride with a 5-speed, wheras the Level II was a 4x4 with an auto. Both had the 4.0, one with the SOHC, one with the OHV variant.
I believe the SOHC engine to be far superior throughout the power band, yet the OHV had a tad more torque available...could have been the manual transmission making it feel that way.
Build quality -- I definately liked the interior on the 2003, as it was more creature comforty, and I never really had any interior problems. I never had any in the 1994, either...so I can't comment. The buttons, ***** and switches had a definate "click" on the '94, though. Kinda had to make sure you were where you wanted to be with the '03.
Shutting doors and tailgates.
I think that the '94 was a little 'tighter' in means of like, sealing out noise and wind...never had a leak on either truck. Shutting the tailgate is a thing I like to do. if it wobbles around when closed, vibrates, or just feels 'light', then I don't think I like that.
The '94 [once again] I think took the edge in the actual feeling of a "bam-and-latch" when closing the tailgate. The '03 didn't have problems, but maybe it was a lighter tailgate, or it was something to do with one being a step-side and the other not...who knows.
Like I said, I think the '94 took the cake, even after being older and used.
Overall, I believe the '94 to be built better, more solid and just "like a truck".
They were worlds apart, however. The Splash was a sporty ride with a 5-speed, wheras the Level II was a 4x4 with an auto. Both had the 4.0, one with the SOHC, one with the OHV variant.
I believe the SOHC engine to be far superior throughout the power band, yet the OHV had a tad more torque available...could have been the manual transmission making it feel that way.
Build quality -- I definately liked the interior on the 2003, as it was more creature comforty, and I never really had any interior problems. I never had any in the 1994, either...so I can't comment. The buttons, ***** and switches had a definate "click" on the '94, though. Kinda had to make sure you were where you wanted to be with the '03.
Shutting doors and tailgates.
I think that the '94 was a little 'tighter' in means of like, sealing out noise and wind...never had a leak on either truck. Shutting the tailgate is a thing I like to do. if it wobbles around when closed, vibrates, or just feels 'light', then I don't think I like that.
The '94 [once again] I think took the edge in the actual feeling of a "bam-and-latch" when closing the tailgate. The '03 didn't have problems, but maybe it was a lighter tailgate, or it was something to do with one being a step-side and the other not...who knows.
Like I said, I think the '94 took the cake, even after being older and used.