Hey guys,
I have decided to pick up a Ford ranger. I know that I wanted to get at least an extended cab. My question is should I get a 5-speed or automatic? Is one stronger than the other? Does one seem to be more problematic? I know I would like to get the six cylinder four-wheel-drive but would you prefer the 3.0 or a 4.0 motor? Are there any years to stay away from? my budget is not very high, but it seems like $2 to $3k would get you a pretty decent truck with about 150,000 miles on it. I am going to read as many stickies as I can, but any input would be great thank you!

 

i have a stick and it does better on gas than my friends. If the transmission breaks down its 10 times easier to work on than an automatic. I've always liked sticks cause it feels like your actually driving the car but its really preference. i'd also go with the 4.0l engine, it actually gets better gas milage than a 3.0l and has way more hp than the 3.0l. for me (i own a 2.3l) I've never gotten the point of the 3.0l because they're kinda stuck in the middle with nothing great to offer. i think the 3.0l gets 180hp at 17 mpg and the 4.0l gets 217hp at 20 mpg, a stick 4.0l might even get better

 

Hi and welcome to the site. I think you are making the best decision ever by purchasing a Ranger. I have owned two of them. My first one was a 2010 XL single cab 4x2 with a 2.3L engine and a 5 speed manual transmission. Like Bazman2008Ranger said a manual transmission is easier to fix and way better own fuel mileage. My second Ranger which is my current Ranger is a 2008 XLT Super cab 4x4 with a 4.0L engine and an automatic transmission and it makes a little less gas mileage but has way more get up and go. Also a 4x2 suspension has less stuff to break but a 4x4 can get you out of a bind. In my opinion get a 4x4. My single cab was a bit small where as my Super cab has room for me to tilt my seat way back and added room for speakers and other storage. In my opinion a FX4 Level II is the best but I couldn't fine a used one in my area. Hope you get a great Ranger because you will sure love it.

 

I think it's going to be harder to find a stick with the combo of V6 + 4x4, but if you can, get the manual for sure. More reliable, better mileage and more fun to drive imo. Also, I believe 1997 and earlier offered the 4 cyl with 4x4, so that would be another way to get a manual and 4x4 if you were ok with a 2.3.

 

just sold my Ranger. my advice would be get a 3.0 liter manual. I had the 2.5L auto and the motor left a lot to be desired in all aspects, and the transmission was missing teeth on the 1st gear and had problems parking. way less problems with manual trannys.

 

150k is a lot for the 4.0 if you want the power go 4.0 but the 3.0 will last FOREVER if you maintain it properly they are notorious for getting 3-400k miles. Also be cautious of a 4.0 at 150k they are know for timing chain issues at higher mileage and a lot of times require pulling the motor to fix. My 3.0 gets about 20mpg with the 5 speed but when it was auto it got about 16-17mpg

 

I agree a manual transmission is easier to fix than an automatic. My 93 is a 3.0 liter with an automatic; I bought the truck used in 1998, 122,000 miles. It now has 281 k plus miles and has been dependable. I get 20 mpg average. The engine has had no problems.

 

This is assuming the 4.0 SOHC correct? I thought the old OHV 4.0 was supposed to be pretty rock solid closer to the 3.0. I believe the old 4.0 was produced until MY2001 according to TRS library.

In my opinion, all of the old style motors are pretty darn reliable if maintained at all. That would be 2.3/2.5's up to 2001, 4.0's up to 2001, and 3.0's up to whenever they stopped making them. As anecdotes, my 97 2.3 and my dad's 97 4.0 definitely fit that mold with well over 100k on them.