Anyone,
One of my daughters is going to soon start driving and her "request" is a Ranger extended cab, 4WD. My question is, which engine (3.0, 4.0 or ??) and transmission (auto or 5 spd) is the most dependable? She would prefer the auto transmission but if its prone to issues then she can learn to shift...
I am not looking to buy new, but somewhere between 1999 and 2006.
Any assistance is greatly appreciated in regard to these question or any other suggestion/ concerns.
Is the gas milage between the 3.0 and 4.0 alot?

Thanks
romeodz

 

Depending how it's driven, the 4.0 Colonge OHV or SOHC would net better fuel mileage. The 3.0 Vulcan OHV is almost imposible to kill. The 4R55E automatic or the M5OD-R1HD manual transmission are both very good transmissions. Definately go with a S/C model. The extra room comes in handy. The 1999-2001 models could have the 4.0 Colonge OHV or SOHC engine, so if you're looking for a 4.0 check to ensure it has the one you're looking for.

 

I wasn't aware there were different 4.0 engines in the same year. I prefer dependability then gas milage (within reason). I have read the 3.0 is a bit weak? I have test drove a 2001 Ranger, 4 door with the 4.0, manual trans with 179500 miles and was amazed how tight and a nice drive it was compared to my F150 4.2, 4X4. Asking price was $6900.
Also, will the manual transmission get better gas milage than the auto by much?
As far as the 4.0 Colonge OHV or SOHC, which is better?

Thanks

 

Couple of tid-Bits...You know...Personal prefernce and observations...

A manual transmission would probably net you more MPG as you have better control over the engine RPMs. But that also depends on the driver. My wife and I are night and day drivers. She's on and off the throttle (terrible MPG), while I'm a cruise user (Better MPG, so I can have my "BLOW THE CARBON OUT" moments). I personally prefer the 4.0 SOHC over the 4.0 OHV as it has more HP/Torque thus provides a better HP/WEIGHT ratio. The 1997 and 2001 Explorer Sports that I had owned with the 4.0 SOHC w/5-speed auto would average 21-23 highway. Granted different animals than the ranger, but close in weight. The 3.0 is only weak in that it has less HP then the 4.0's. The report on it being weak are mostly from people that didn't couph up the extra coins for the 4.0, then wished they did after getting the 3.0L. When maintained properly, the 3.0 is a 300,000 mile+ engine. We had the 3.0 in our 1992 Aerostar extended van and it was no power house, but would average 30MPG on the highway. Heck, even my 1988 Ranger XLT S/C 4x4 with the 2.9 w/5-speed manual and 3.73 gears would get 29MPG. Most of it has to do with the way the computers are programed from the factory. Look at the HP/Torque RPMs for the 4.2 in the F-150 and the Freestar. Same engine, but different RMPS for the HP and Torque. Different programming for different applications.

I can go on and on, but I'll let you chew on this for a few...

 

I like the manual transmissions better they usually last longer in most cars. But my friend has a ranger 6 cylinder and it has 300K same engine and transmission and it is a automatic so I am guessing they are reliable.

 

Now-a-days, reliability and longevity is mostly based on how one treats and maintains a given item. The original clutch in my 88 Ranger only lasted 57,000 miles. I never abused my Ranger. But the constant shifting that I had to do because of hills/turns/traffic increased the wear on the clutch. The replacement clutch faired mutch better, but kelvar will do that. Heavy stop and go traffic will increase clutch wear, so one needs to determine what type traffic they'll be driving in and then make their decision on which type tranny would suit their needs best.