Should I buy an automatic Ranger?
#1
Should I buy an automatic Ranger?
It seems like alot of people have problems with automatics in the rengers, I just wondered if I should stay away from them. I will be looking for a 2wd extended cab Ranger in the 95-2000 range. Is it worth it to get a 4cyl for mileage or should I go with a v6? Any opinions or hindsight out there?
TIA
John
TIA
John
#7
#10
#11
Thanks for all the replies, I am just tired of shifting because my last 4 trucks have all been 5 speeds. 3 of them were rangers. 2 of them were 4 cylinders and I agree that a 4 has to have the 5 speed to have enough power. My current ranger is a 4.0 5 speed and it runs great and I think an automatic would due fine behind the 4.0 but I was concerned about reliability. One thing I've noticed is that nobody recommends a 3.0, are they a problem motor?
Thanks John
Thanks John
#12
the 3.0L isnt a problem motor, just doesnt have as much pep out of the box as a 4.0L SOHC, but still has more power than the 2.3L DOHC.. A lot of guys complain, but a few simple power adders will make the 3.0L a peppy motor. If you get the 3.0L i'd get a stick, 4 cylinder i'd get a stick.. even the 4.0L I test drove wasnt that peppy with the auto.. I was in the same boat when i traded my truck, thought hard about going for a GTI 1.8T manual but ended up saying no to shifting gears this time around, im a lot happier. Good luck with your decision.
#13
#15
Thanks, It seems like the choices are definately a stick with the 4 cyl and either with the v6 as long as not into heavy hauling or going fast. I think the v6 auto will be my decision and engine will depend upon the deal and what I find. BTW I am just looking for a DD 2wd ext cab with as many options as I can get...lol I want mileage and comfort with the convienence of a truck for occasional hauling(mostly light stuff).
John
John
#16
Stick is the choice for speed, auto is the choice for hauling and and ease of driving. I have a stick and haul allot more than its rated for with no problems but I am not going to say this is ok. I don't mid a stick in traffic because to me it isn't hard. I also like the stick for gas mileage. The auto, is great too as long as you know its limits and take care of it.
I would say that for you, a 3.0 with the auto trans would be best. You will have decent power and decent mileage as well. Plus, as I said before, 3.0 are know to last a long time. My buddy has one in his 97 taurus with over 300,000 miles on it....
I would say that for you, a 3.0 with the auto trans would be best. You will have decent power and decent mileage as well. Plus, as I said before, 3.0 are know to last a long time. My buddy has one in his 97 taurus with over 300,000 miles on it....
#17
I have a manual 4.0 2002 ranger. I cant stand automatic cars, I would rather shift even if its stop and go. before that I had a 94 4.0 ranger. My 2002 ranger had what I feel like twice the power... I think their engines got more efficient with more power and better gas mileage. So I would say it depends on what year ranger you buy for the power, but I am a manual guy.
#19
#20
Lost in Nowhere
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 5,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My old truck was a 2000 3.0 auto. That motor is a great motor but around that time they just came out with the (i can't remember which one) but the tranny's that were used at that time. It was horrible. Had it fixed twice under warrenty and finally traded it in because it went out again like a year later.
The guys at ford told me that they were having a lot of problems with the auto tranny in 2000(but not enough for a recall...of course) but he said they were almost recalled.
Now I have a 2003 4.0 auto and I love it and haven't had any problems. I'm with Steve on the whole hunting thing and I love not having to mess with the stick in those situations.
So if you are looking for a ranger in the 2000 range, I would go with manual because the auto tranny has a lot of bugs they worked out later.
The guys at ford told me that they were having a lot of problems with the auto tranny in 2000(but not enough for a recall...of course) but he said they were almost recalled.
Now I have a 2003 4.0 auto and I love it and haven't had any problems. I'm with Steve on the whole hunting thing and I love not having to mess with the stick in those situations.
So if you are looking for a ranger in the 2000 range, I would go with manual because the auto tranny has a lot of bugs they worked out later.
#23
#25
I have a 4.0/Auto and in my 2wd lowered street truck it is a blast. I recently got the trans fluid changed at the dealer (they charged $150) but doing that every couple of years at least will hopefully keep mine healthy for a long time to come. ALot of people negelect to change this and wonder why their trans messes up down the road. I don't abuse mine (no power-braking) and have a Bama programmer that firms up the shifts and that is supposed to also extend tranny life. To be honest, I would have rather had a 5-speed stick but in '03 they weren't availible in a 2wd 4.0. I'm not disappointed though and at least my wife can drive when I don't feel like it as she can't and won't learn how to drive a stick. As for your engine choice, get the 4.0 with either trans or a 4-cyl 5-speed manual. The 3.0 is ok (I've owned one) but the newer 4-cyl is almost right there with power ratings and obviously will deliver better mileage. Remember that Ford brought back the option of a new 4x2 Supercab with the 4-cyl/5-speed stick option. That was not availible for a couple of years. And, you can also now get (unlike in '03 when I bought mine) a 2wd 4.0/5-speed stick option on the XL/XLT if you don't want a 4x4 or 4x4 looking truck (Like a Sport)