Hey Guys, first post and new member, might be buying a ranger tomorrow. Was hoping to get some quick input. Here are the two options.
1995 Mazda B3000 with 214k miles
https://wenatchee.craigslist.org/cto...427267190.html

or

1999 Ranger 4.0L with 128k miles
https://wenatchee.craigslist.org/cto...433736934.html

My concerns are, in order, overall dependability, towing, fuel economy.

I think I could get both of them for about the same price, $3K

Also, any advice for what I should look for? I'll be able to take them for a test drive but probably not be able to get them into a shop for an inspection.

Thanks
Shreve

 

If you're towing, the 4 litre would be a better choice.
None are great with fuel economy.
All get around 18 to 22 MPG.
The 2.3/2.5 will get better, but then you can't really tow.

Some of the 4 liters had timing chain guide issues that required the engine be pulled for repair.

The 3 litre is fine, but for towing and hauling the 4 wheel drive train around, it will be pretty gutless, but it will get the job done.
Oil pans and front timing covers will leak and it's a real bear to replace the oil pan gasket.

Will have to look up what years had timing chain issue later _ off to work.

Others will see my post and should tell you.

 

Both engines for their years are reliable

The 4.0l OHV would be the better of the two for just about any reason, lol, but yes better for towing.

4.0l OHV will get a cracked head if overheated, so before starting cold engine, remove rad cap and then start the engine, watch for it to overflow, bad sign, or constant flow of bubbles coming up at cap opening.

Automatics are better and have a higher legal towing weight than manual transmissions, but are also more expensive to service if you have a problem, so check trans fluid carefully, look at color and smell it.

 

Hey, update! The 99 automatic is actually a 3 liter as well. So question is automatic that is newer, has fewer miles, but unknown history, or 95 manual with more miles but it is reaalllyyy clean... Really just manual or automatic. I like the better mileage of the manual and shifting just feels dependable...

 

Go with Manual trans.
3.0l Vulcan engine is a HIGH RPM engine, and automatic shift points are too low to give you good power.

Most engines make best torque/power at 2,400-2,800rpm range
Vulcan's best torque is 3,400-3,800rpm so it was designed as a high RPM engine
If you drive it and shift under 3,500rpm then you too will say it is a "gutless engine", lol.

 

Great! Thanks! Last question, on the 95 what could be a reasonable lifespan for a well maintained truck. It's at 214k... Could I get another 80 out of it?

 

There is a different manual 3.0 95 for the same price with 142k on it but had some flaking rust on the frame (didn't appear deep) and a che​​​check engine light on that the guy said was because of a bad gas cap... I told him if he could get the check engine light off he should call me but I'm still leaning toward the one with 214 because it was so clean, had just gotten a new clutch, and had zero frame rust

 

Supposed to get 300K on the Vulcan.
If it's been maintained and run with highway miles.

 

No crystal ball here but I don't foresee a problem with 350k+ with engine and manual trans