Those who have moved from an earlier year to later Ranger - build quality? - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 11-23-2005
JCS30TH's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradenton, Fl
Posts: 140
Those who have moved from an earlier year to later Ranger - build quality?

Do you see a difference? I know there are production variances, but my 2000 was tight as a virgin ***, while my 03
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-23-2005
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
i own two 93's my XLT is one of the first rangers build in the 3rd gen's my Splash is one of the later one's and I can tell differences just from those 2 its odd
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-23-2005
gatorblue92's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Delaware
Posts: 8,238
my 86 B2 was built like a tank... my 92 was too... my 02 is a great truck but i dont think its built (designed) as well as my gen I bronco II
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-23-2005
Bigwill41's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Navasota, Texas
Posts: 4,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCS30TH
tight as a virgin ***
haha...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-23-2005
GregsEdge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 283
i feel like its a peice of plastic sometimes
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-23-2005
Rangerboy03lvl2's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Colorado, Lone Tree
Posts: 891
my 88 b2 was a damn tank as well ...... loved that truck ... my ranger doesnt seem as solid ... but is damn close!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-23-2005
Morph's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 979
My 93 4x4 Seems like its built much more solidly than my 02. I dont know why, but it just seems more durable. Like mentioned above, maybe its the addition of 50% Plastic? I mean, I know the 02 can stand up to just as much, but it seems more likely to break. Maybe its the suspension change that threw me off? TTB to IFS? Or just the companies cheapening up?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-23-2005
HighRollerII's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 10,066
never owned another Ranger but my 96 nissan sure went through some mud holes pretty damn good..but nothin compared to the Ranger





Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-23-2005
volranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: OS ,Tennnessee
Posts: 47
Ive owned probably 10 I beam rangers over the years ,and this this is my first 98+. I really love the feel of the a frame suspension alot better,as far as quality,I had a 90 model 4cyl base,that was the best put together ranger I ever had.But overall Im very happy with my 02 .
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-24-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 638
Hey Man, i offered to take it off your hands earlier in the year, and I was serious too.

Last edited by TremorJon; 11-24-2005 at 04:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-24-2005
rangerxlt06's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woodstock,CT
Posts: 109
I had a 88b2200 and that was a beast. My G/f flipped it on its side, we pushed it back over (the cops came i got an infraction) and we started it up and when on our way. I think the newer rangers are comparable in build quality, obvioulsy there was less that could go wrong with the old 88 2wd then the new computer controlled 06 4wd.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-24-2005
JCS30TH's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradenton, Fl
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by TremorJon
Hey Man, i offered to take it off your hands earlier in the year, and I was serious too.

lol. I still love her though
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-24-2005
KnightRider's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 36
Yeah, I'd have to say my 92 Ranger XLT 2.3L Reg Cab LB, and compared to my 01 SC Edge....they stack up similarly. I would say my EDGE definatly has less interior quality to the seats and sound deadining, but build wise, both seem to be up to snuff. I always choose a no-option vehicle. WAY less electrical draw on the alternator, and less hassles down the road.

So far....I would have to complain about the ride quality of the Torsion beam suspension, the front end jars, compared to the softness of the TIB setup on ealier Rangers. Also, the tranny still has the same miss-shift/gear grind (due to driver error) quark that the ole' 92 had. Just one of those 'you get use to it" situations.

Build wise, I think the quality of both is pretty even. Everything is tight, works, fits well with little to no unrequired matinence due to factory defects.

So I would say I am very happy. Just wish I had a 4.10 in the rear......
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-24-2005
92 Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 1,229
my 92 is solid as concrete.. havent ever had an older one, i dont want one either! lol just playing...(not really)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-24-2005
rangererv's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dearborn Michigan
Posts: 4,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighRollerII
never owned another Ranger but my 96 nissan sure went through some mud holes pretty damn good..but nothin compared to the Ranger





wtf hahahaha




i guess im opposite then you all.
my 99 seemed cheaper then my 01.
but that a 2wd/ 4wd difference.
my 4x4 seems very sturdy and tough.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-24-2005
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
i think my 03 is alot better than my 92, but it was a 4cyl and 2wd, my new one is a 4.0 and 4x4 ext cab. both of mine have held up to alot of crap tho.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2005
JCS30TH's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradenton, Fl
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangererv
wtf hahahaha




i guess im opposite then you all.
my 99 seemed cheaper then my 01.
but that a 2wd/ 4wd difference.
my 4x4 seems very sturdy and tough.

word
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-24-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lexington, SC
Posts: 526
The door handles feel cheaper.... feels like I'm going to pull them off. The ones on my '96 Explorer were a lot more solid.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-27-2005
2004edge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 387
not taking traction and offroad ability due to 4x4 into consideration my 97 seemed way smoother offroad and creaked lots less compared to my 04. the truck was a tank and the stuff i did to it id be very afraid to do to my 04. However, i like the 04 way more. still a very tough truck.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-27-2005
FireRanger's Avatar  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 0
You know what I like a lot more about my '03 vs my '84 and '91?

Spark plugs and wires go 100,000 miles instead of 15,000 miles on plugs, wires, cap, rotor, etc etc. Actually, it seems the change interval on everything has gone up, some just a little, some a whole lot.

They ditched the front 4wd hubs for CV joints so no more messing around with those things. The auto hubs sucked and the manual ones worked great but were an inconvinience.

I would agree there is a lot more plastic and lot less beefy parts on the newer vehicles. It's all about costs and weight so the cut everything they can. The only plastic on my '84 was the instrument cluster and the grill. Now half the truck is plastic.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-27-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 11
Very disgruntle over my '02. Too many things going wrong or what not. My '00 was way better. Never a problem the two years I had it. Think this is my last Ranger.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-27-2005
FauX's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 992
My 87 was a cadillac when I first got it. The heater was amazing, the AC was amazing, The ride quality was amazing, The strength of the truck to go through everything I put it through over the years was spectacular. The motor on the other hand was just a 2.9L but it had over a quarter of a million miles on it and still ran as strong as the first day I got into it when I was 5. There is a big difference between trucks built back then and the ones built today. Back then, they were built to last. Now, they're built to be traded in it seems. I've had more problems with my 01 in the 3 years i've owned it then I had with my 87 in the 18 years it was in my family.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-27-2005
Swoop1156's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hanover, Maryland
Posts: 1,965
This is speaking with about two years with a 1994 Splash 4.0, 5-speed, Std Cab with 64,000 miles, and a brand new 2003 Level II FX4.

Overall, I believe the '94 to be built better, more solid and just "like a truck".

They were worlds apart, however. The Splash was a sporty ride with a 5-speed, wheras the Level II was a 4x4 with an auto. Both had the 4.0, one with the SOHC, one with the OHV variant.

I believe the SOHC engine to be far superior throughout the power band, yet the OHV had a tad more torque available...could have been the manual transmission making it feel that way.

Build quality -- I definately liked the interior on the 2003, as it was more creature comforty, and I never really had any interior problems. I never had any in the 1994, either...so I can't comment. The buttons, ***** and switches had a definate "click" on the '94, though. Kinda had to make sure you were where you wanted to be with the '03.

Shutting doors and tailgates.

I think that the '94 was a little 'tighter' in means of like, sealing out noise and wind...never had a leak on either truck. Shutting the tailgate is a thing I like to do. if it wobbles around when closed, vibrates, or just feels 'light', then I don't think I like that.

The '94 [once again] I think took the edge in the actual feeling of a "bam-and-latch" when closing the tailgate. The '03 didn't have problems, but maybe it was a lighter tailgate, or it was something to do with one being a step-side and the other not...who knows.

Like I said, I think the '94 took the cake, even after being older and used.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-27-2005
2004edge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 387
um yeh to add to my prior one my 97 never rolled the 04 floped right over n rolled back to its feet.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-27-2005
Swoop1156's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hanover, Maryland
Posts: 1,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2004edge
um yeh to add to my prior one my 97 never rolled the 04 floped right over n rolled back to its feet.
Wrong thread, genius.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale: MSD Factory Wires NOS for Earlier Ford Ranger 3.0 (IN) Hillyard Engine & Drivetrain 0 01-06-2015 07:23 PM
To those running coilovers: How did that affect ride quality? chucky2 Suspension Tech 0 11-16-2014 11:58 PM
Same pics-one year later VH5150 Snapshots 16 09-26-2011 11:50 AM
2003 3.0L - To Those Who Still Have Fan Clutches & Have Replaced Yours Already (pics) HELMUT RONER 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 41 06-21-2009 08:03 PM
One Year and alot of money later.... Diltzy Snapshots 19 11-13-2008 12:41 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:31 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.