Hi, I am looking to buy a mid 90s to early 2000s 4 cylinder 5 speed ranger for commuting to work and the occasional load of landscaping mulch or craigslist furniture

any years or engines I should stay away from?

I have my eye on a couple:
2002 2.3 5 speed, 170k miles, owner says pops out of 1st sometimes $950
1996 2.3 5 speed, 180k miles, very well maintained mechanically (almost everything new including leaf springs but original engine and trans), not so good interior, pretty good body $3500

thanks everyone.

 

I keyed in the '96 Ranger on kbb.com for a little fun.

Assuming that these options are true, that ranger is worth no more than 2,114, a very far cry from 3500, and that is in excellent condition.

And that wasn't me deselecting every possible option. I was being fairly generous. 4 cylinder with manual transmission, 2wd (I don't believe a 4cylinder ever came in 4x4), the XL package, air conditioning with power windows and locks, power steering without tilting column or cruise control, AM/FM stereo with the cassette and single disk CD player, stepside bed, single cab, steel wheels, and the color green.

It's possible it's worth more than what KBB is saying, simply because I had to use my best judgement for these options, but I highly, highly doubt that it's worth 3500. Rangers hold their value, but you have to keep in mind, that truck has still been on the road for 21 years, old enough to buy a case of beer and a bottle of vodka.


Decided to do the same thing for the 2002. Assuming it's a regular cab with the short bed, 2wd, with ABS, power steering, no tilt or cruise, (the 4 cylinders I've seen are pretty basic), AM/FM with single disk, air con, power doors/windows with sliding rear glass to be generous, steelies again, and again assuming it's the XL model, but this time in gold.....

In excellent condition, it's worth $2,946 dollars. Even in fair condition, it's still worth a touch over 2 grand, at 2,148. AGain, this is according to KBB.com. I recommend entering in what you know about this truck into KBB and see what you get. Remember, I have to guess for a lot of it.

I would get a quote from a couple mechanics for the manual transmission to be rebuilt, which is likely the worst case scenario you could face. Wouldn't hurt to price a tranny off rockauto either, including shipping fees so you know what might happen to your wallet in the worst case.



That being said, from what I've heard around, there doesn't seem to be any particular problems the 4 cylinders had. But, know it will sound like a little rice burner and it will likely work it's guts out to get anywhere. That being said though, it still seems to get fairly good MPGs.

The 3.0 is a fairly rock solid engine, the major problem however with this engine is the cam syncro going out and bricking the engine, due to no oil pressure. Other than that they're pretty good engines, aside from the fact that it will still have to work hard to get itself going, especially with the 4x4 package, which is what my 3.0 from 99 has. In my city with stoplights abound, I average about 250 miles out of a tank, and that's with little to no highway driving.

The 4.0 OHV and SOHC (Ford swapped to the SOHC 4.0 in 2001) engines are one of the better options. The SOHC has a bit more power than the OHV. However, from 01 to 03 the SOHC had a tendency for timing chain rattle. New guides and chains are needed to fix the issue. The 4.0, in either case, has much more power than the 3.0, but I can't really speak about gas mileage on these, but I would imagine it would be a bit better than the 3.0 because it doesn't have to work as hard.


Overall, I'm not aware of many engine or transmission issues that the Ranger had aside from what I mentioned. They're solid trucks, really.

 

Mid-2001 and up 2.3l is a Mazda L engine, Ford calls it a Duratec, it is a DOHC 4cyl engine, about 135HP

1997 and earlier is a 2.3l Lima SOHC engine, no relation to the Mazda engine, about 105HP
1998 to mid-2001 was the 2.5l Lima SOHC engine, a stroked 2.3l, about 115HP

The Lima engines were very reliable but under powered, MPG in mid-20's on highway

2002 did have electric thermostat which was expensive to replace($100) and often failed once.

The 2.3l duratec was also a reliable engine, better power and same MPG

1990 and up Rangers all used the M5OD-R1 manual transmission, very reliable, if maintained.
It had an integrated bell housing so couldn't be swapped between engine sizes or models, i.e. a 2.3l lima transmission won't fit on a 2.3l duratec engine or visa versa