What's M50D?

I'm googling and a lot of people said to stay away from the 4.2 because the F150 is too much weight of a truck for 4.2. I should get 4.6 or up. If that is true (I'm still looking), then I might just stick with the Ranger.

 

You just said that F150 had the 4.6L. And yes the 4.2L is underpowered.

 

Sorry about that. I just double checked and it is a 4.2.

 

Sorry bout that. The M5OD is the manual tranny's in the rangers and 150's. They are notorious for bad slave cylinders, weak input shafts and thus have roughly half of the tow rating of the same truck with an auto. Anything more than a 4 cylinder makes too much torque for it

 

Hm, how do I know if the 2002 Ranger I'm looking at has M50D?

 

It's the only trans that came w/a 4.0L for that year. Of the two you posted, I'd still stick with the ranger. 4wd is an asset even if you hardly use it.

 

Yeah, I don't see myself using the 4 wheel drive much but I'm sure it will come in handy if I find myself stuck on the beach or in the mud.

I was looking at fueleconomy to double check and was surprised that the MPG for this Ranger is 14/18. I thought it was 16/20 but that was only for the two wheel drive, 4.0L, manual. Frak!

I need a truck BAD and I don't know if I can keep looking. Ha.

 

It is also supposed to be my daily driver.

 

If you can't wait you can't wait. Go check both out (if your able to) and test drive both. See which you like better. I drove the 4.2 and never had an issue with it. The truck I was driving was reg cab short bed and got amazing mileage. Then next one was reg cab long bed and didn't notice any difference with weight.

 

Yeah, I wish I had the time to test drive them. I'm relying on my friend for a ride and I feel that I already asked enough from him. I just found another Ranger but it has 3.0L. Is the 3.0 really that underpowered? It's a two wheel drive and according to fueleconomy.com, the 3.0 (2 wheel drive) is up by 5 mpg on the highway than the 4.0L 4x4.

 

If your worried about fuel economy then get the ranger with the 3.0L or the 2.3L.

Also the 4x4 plays a role in the different mileage.

 

And to make sure, the 2002 Ranger 4.0L uses timing chain right?

 

Yeah, I am a little worried about the fuel economy but I think I'll bite the bullet and get the 4.0L. I drive cross country often and don't really want a pick up with low power when going through Colorado.

 

Yea, like my previous post mentioned. Ask if they've been done. 2001 and previous had issues with the guides. Should be ok since it's an 02' and the problem was solved by then.

 

Bummer, I didn't buy the truck. It was a fleet vehicle with four owners and who knows how many drivers. The interior is starting to fall apart. I'd prefer the truck in the picture. Oh well, gotta keep looking.

 

Don't settle is all I can say.

 

+1 on 4WD is an asset even if you rarely need it.

It's like this, as long as you have it and don't need it, it seems like wasted money. But at those times when you do need it, it is the only thing that will do.

Without a load in the bed any Ranger can feel "light in the ****," especially on wet pavement or a wet, grassy hill.

But with even a modest amount of stuff in the bed (dogs, tools, beach stuff, cooler of drinks ... you get the picture) the 2WD takes on a whole new personality. And with a couple of hundred pounds of stuff in the bed, it will pull a surprisingly big load on a trailer.

Regarding fuel economy, consider the following:

At a fill up, the difference between 17 mpg with a 4.0L engine and 19 mpg with a 3.0L engine will be just at 1.25 gallons of fuel based on 190 miles (my average weekly commute).

That extra fuel at today's price where I live will cost me + or - $4.05 per week. Across a year that comes to a little over $200.

But I live a day at at time and fill up a week at a time, so if I give up a Big Mac and go for the $1 chicken sandwich at the McDoggies drive through, I've justified the bigger engine and taken a load off my feet... Just saying.

Another angle on the discussion is at the point of wearing out a 3.0L at points where the 4.0L would give just enough margin that the wear and tear becomes a non-issue.

At this moment there is very clean 2000 model XLT 4X4 at a local dealership, but it has a 3.0L engine and I can tell from looking at the bumper that it was used to pull a trailer. It has 105,000 miles on it.

So, is it cosmetically clean but otherwise worn out? That answer will be something the next owner gambles on with a view to his or her towing needs.

 

I'm getting a consistant 22 mpg out of my ranger with the 4.0. I have 3.55 gears and 5 spd, I'm so happy I didn't get a 4 banger because I'm happy with averaging 22 mpg mixed driving. You'll never see that with an f-150 v8.