1992 Ford Ranger Reviews from North America - Page 6 of 9

1992 Ford Ranger XLT 2wd 3.0

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1992
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 3.0 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 1 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance64133 miles

Summary:

A tiny TOUGH truck

Faults:

I broke off the light nob and had to get a new one.

The stock shifter handle came off so I bought a new one.

The truck has been very reliable and good on gas mileage.

I just wish the oil was easier to change!

General Comments:

My dad bought this ranger new in 1992 and we have owned it since. My dad gave it to me for my first vehicle. It has been a very reliable and a good learner truck. It is a work truck, but looks ALMOST as good as when we got it. We do all the tune ups and servicing. It has the 3.0 motor and it has enough power to be fun. The top speed isn't that great, (95mph) but it is good on the highway. Overall it has and will be a good truck for almost everyone.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th January, 2004

1992 Ford Ranger XLT 2WD Regular Cab 2.3 SOHC I-4

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 2.3 SOHC I-4 Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Distance when acquired79550 miles
Most recent distance100625 miles
Previous carJeep Wrangler

Summary:

Good Compact Pickup

Faults:

Thankfully, not anything too expensive.

The rear brake line cracked at 82000 miles, luckily it was in my driveway. Cheap to fix.

Had a bent rim from previous owner, needed replacement rim and tire.

Starting to show rust on bottom of driver's door.

Oil pressure gauge was faulty, installed an aftermarket gauge where the 4wd switch would normally go.

Exhaust starting to leak.

Otherwise, normal maintenance.

General Comments:

The above complaints are relatively minor. It has been very good to me, one of the better vehicles I have owned.

The 2.3 engine isn't very strong, but it runs excellent.

Transmission and clutch are still in very good shape, firm shifts with no clutch slipping.

I like the layout of the dashboard, everything is where you expect it to be.

Surprisingly good sound from the 4 speakers.

Has enough room for me, I'm 6-5.

Excellent highway mileage, about 26, although it could use a larger fuel tank.

All in all a good purchase, would recommend it to anyone looking for a small truck. No wonder these were the best selling vehicle of its type.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th January, 2004

1992 Ford Ranger Custom 3.0L 6 cylinder

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 3.0L 6 cylinder Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Distance when acquired75000 miles
Most recent distance85733 miles
Previous carFord Mustang

Summary:

Surprisingly safe

Faults:

Brake calipers replaced at ~84500, along with pads. Rotors were machined, and the master cylinder broke when the system was re-pressurized.

In 2003 this was about $400, very affordable.

General Comments:

I want to start off by saying this truck handled and performed in my opinion better than either the 2002 Ford or 2003 Toyota I've driven regularly for work.

It was a single bench short-cab and short-bed, but for the 10000 miles I had it it was great. It could always handle passing on the freeways, even with a passenger and a full load in back.

Unfortunately the brake work caused the ABS system to fail at 55 mph two weeks after it was done. The truck was totaled when the brakes locked and would not respond, and I was struck by a Nissan going 60mph.

The entire frame was twisted, the front corner nearly sheared off, and the bed was halfway knocked off the frame. The only part that stayed in nearly perfect condition was the passenger area, which is what mattered to me. The ashtray was the only part of the interior with any problems, and other than a bruise from my seat belt (which may have saved my life, I'm not complaining) I was fine.

My biggest concern when I purchased this was my own safety - but the looks were deceiving. I'm genuinely disappointed that the damage is too bad to repair it, but at least the cab stayed together perfectly.

The gas mileage was the only big problem, but it was a 3.0L truck so 18 miles/gallon (+/- 1) is pretty good.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th November, 2003

23rd Jul 2006, 12:47

I wondered why the review had a "frowny face", when it is such a positive review, but I understand that if you indicate that you wouldn't buy another vehicle from the same manufacturer that (for some insane reason) invalidates your review. I, too have had very good service from the Rangers (I'm currently driving my 4th one since '92) and am amazed at how safe they are in crashes. I've seen two really bad wrecks involving the Ranger that left the other vehicles totalled and their drivers badly injured while the Ranger and its driver were hardly hurt at all.

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 37 reviews