I've been wanting a Ranger with good MPG for a daily driver and really wanted extended cab with the 4 doors. I've been looking a 2004 up 4 cylinder but they aren't to be found with 4 doors.


I just ran across a 2000 2.5L auto 2wd 4 doors with power windows clean condition with 116K. I've already made plans to look at it tomorrow but after checking MPG on Fuelly it looks like 20 MPG overall average is about it so near 3.0L numbers Looks like the newer Duratec 2.3 lands in the 24 MPG overall average which would be acceptable in my books for it's performance but 20 MPG and even less power


Is this about what you guys see from such a setup? Is the 2.5L and 4R44-E a good reliable and low maintenance drive train?

 

Well I tried pricing this Ranger on KBB and NADA and neither shows the option of 4 door with a 4 cylinder so either the seller doesn't know what he has or???

 

Stay away from the 2.3 litre DOHC Duratec engine.
Here's why.

https://www.ranger-forums.com/dohc-2...e-help-151268/

Post 7 has a video, the engine has no woodruff key to lock up the timing chain sprocket gear and there's no keys on the cam gears either.
They're just held in place by the bolts on the cam shaft and crank.
If they come loose (and they do) the valves come in contact with pistons.
IMO, it's a **** poor design.

Mazda made a 2.3 with an extended cab for a bit, but it was underpowered for that, so there are very few around.

The 3 litre is the simplest/easiest to work on and most reliable IMO.

Some of the 4 liters (depends on what year) had timing chain guide issues which required the removal of the engine fix.
Some years also couldn't tolerate being over heated, not even a bit, the small space in-between the valves would crack.

Don't know about the 2.5.

 

Thanks for the info on the Duratec there, I wasn't aware of it and was thinking the 2004 up Duratec was the 4 cylinder to have.


My first two vehicles were Rangers 1988 extended cab manual 2wd 2.3 with no A/C, can't go that route again, no A/C that is LOL.


Second was a 1994 4.0L manual extended cab 2wd, really quick truck and had good service from it. Towed a lawn mower around more than it ran empty.


I'm about to give up on the Ranger here. I have a larger heavy duty vehicle to take care of towing needs but was sure hoping to find a small pickup that could get good MPG for daily driving. My last truck was a 2003 F150 extended cab with the 4 doors and that configuration really grew on me. I used the extended cab portion for a tool box instead of eating up bed space with a single lid box like I used to run on my pickups. That 4 door made really easy and quick access to my tools and stuff behind the seats. The F150 was my tow vehicle which got replaced with a heavier duty vehicle but the F150 was way too bad on fuel to keep as a daily driver so was hoping for that same configuration in a Ranger getting near 25 mpg overall average.

 

OK, seller just got back to me after he changed his mind of his truck not being a 4 cylinder. He now believes it to be a 3.0L V6. LOL


I'm now under the conclusion that the Ranger never was built with a 4 cylinder and 4 doors. What a shame :( Can't please everyone's needs or wants in a vehicle right?

 

I just watched the video and am in full agreeance with you, I don't feel good at all about not having a positive locking device between sprockets and shafts. I don't want to bet my money on those "friction washers" never slipping enough to cause some timing issues.