2002 Ford Ranger Reviews - Page 2 of 14

2002 Ford Ranger 2.3L 4 cylinder from North America

Model year2002
Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 2.3L 4 cylinder Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.4 / 10
Distance when acquired1 miles
Most recent distance118000 miles
Previous carChevrolet S-10

Summary:

Best vehicle I have owned

Faults:

The interior light does not work.

Replaced radiator.

General Comments:

I bought this truck new. It gets around 24 mpg and around 30 on the highway (unloaded @ 65 mph).

This has been a great little truck. I use it for hauling everything. Mine is the standard white work truck with vinyl seats and rubber floor mat. I use this as my work truck, and for daily transportation.

Only the radiator and clutch have been replaced.

I am still using the original Ford battery!

Manual transmission shifts like the day I bought it.

The little Mazda 2.3 liter is a great engine.

The original tires lasted almost 90,000 miles.

CD player and speakers still sound great after 8 years also.

Air conditioning is still blowing really cold air.

This little truck has seen some hard work and has been heavily loaded quite a few times.

After nearly 120,000 miles, there is not one rattle!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 13th April, 2010

13th Apr 2010, 16:31

I believe it was Ford that made the 2.3. I recall someone saying that thinking Mazda made that engine is a common misconception.

1st Oct 2012, 11:29

These are amazing little trucks. Really the best on the market for the price. In my town, nearly everyone has one. They can withstand offroad use, heavy towing and hauling, and require very little maintenance. My brother has one with over 273k on it, the oil is still clean when you go to change it at 6000k. Very good little trucks for the money.

25th Oct 2012, 23:42

The DOHC 2.3's are Mazda builds, same as the Focus and Mazda 3's.

The SOHC 2.3's are Ford builds.

2002 Ford Ranger 2.3L from North America

Model year2002
Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 2.3L Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 0 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired1 miles
Most recent distance88000 miles
Previous carChevrolet Lumina

Summary:

Cheap and very reliable

Faults:

At about 10k miles the rear axle came apart. Ford towed the truck and delivered a loaner vehicle at no charge.

The boots on one ball joint has recently been torn, so it will need replacing soon, but affects nothing at this point.

General Comments:

My family bought this truck brand new when the Chevrolet dealer would not sell us an S10. From the time it was new, it has been great. Only problem ever has been with the rear end, and that's been years ago. The check engine light has never once been on.

At almost 90k miles the clutch still feels strong, the brakes stop great. I love the brakes. The air blows very cold and has never been serviced. The Continental tires still have tread left at 90k miles! Though they have dry rotted to the point that they need replacement, but still ride smooth, quiet, and not bad in the rain.

This truck is slightly under-powered, but gets great gas mileage. It has always been a highway truck and has always gotten consistent 28mpg.

I hate Ford cars. Our 04 Taurus gets 21 mpg highway, and doesn't know when to shift. But after this little Ford truck I think our family will continue to buy Ford (trucks at least.)

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st July, 2009

2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L V6 from North America

Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 3.0L V6 Automatic
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 3 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.2 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance194000 miles
Previous carFord Tempo

Summary:

It is a work/cruiser vehicle

Faults:

Radiator hoses burst on me because of poor design.

Cruise control had recall because they "Could" catch on fire.

The truck really has no other issues I have experienced.

General Comments:

It's a pretty good truck. It is safe if another car hits you. My truck was hit twice. Not my fault. But I felt safe and wasn't hurt. American baby!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 27th February, 2009

2002 Ford Ranger 2wd 4dr Edge Supercab 3.0 from North America

Model year2002
Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 3.0 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.2 / 10
Distance when acquired0 kilometres
Most recent distance80000 kilometres
Previous carToyota Corolla

Summary:

OK

Faults:

Ironically enough, after the warranty ran out, the serpentine belt started to squeal. I had it replaced, and ever since, I have had to replace the damned thing every 6 months or so. Ford tells me it will squeal when worn. Why does the original belt last 5-6 years, then new belts wear in 5-6 months.

My clutch slave cylinder blew at 80,0000 km. What a scam that is. Back, when this great technology was not available, all I had to do, was to replace a clutch cable, which was a cheap and easy fix. Now, it is a major job. How wonderful these auto manufacturers are at creating high-tech garbage.

I am very mechanically inclined, and can tear motors apart, rebuild, etc. The Ford Ranger was my first brand new vehicle. I took it in, according to warranty specifications for the first two years, but decided to do the work myself after a particular incident. I took my truck in for the usual tune-up, and so called 50 point inspection. They (Ford) wrote on the report that the front brakes had 5% pads left, and recommended brake servicing. That was 3 years ago, and I have just changed the front and rear pads, myself. When they wanted me to bring my truck in for brake service, I decided to do the job myself, as brakes are quick and easy to replace. I bought the front and rear pads, then jacked my truck up and removed the wheels. I inspected the pads, and to my surprise, the pads were in pretty good shape. There was no way that they were worn down by 95% as they quoted. So, I never took my truck in for servicing again, and that was over 3 years ago.

By the way, I assumed the brakes would have to be done the next summer, but after 3 years past their quote, I finally put the new pads on, even though the original pads would have lasted another year at the least. So, buyer beware. If you have a good local, honest mechanic, you will save thousands of dollars by having him or her do the warranty tune-ups and inspections, rather than having so-called Ford technicians advise you on unneeded repairs. I am sure that dealers make much more money on parts and service than they could in any other way.

General Comments:

Other than the dishonesty of dealer service departments, I have been happy with my Ranger. I believe that the Ford Ranger is the best of any domestic truck.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 16th December, 2008

23rd Jul 2010, 16:43

This type of repair is done under the guise of "manufacture recommended", so brakes with 5% left are actually 5% of the manufacturer recommended, which may be 60% of the brake pad. This is done because of liability. Really, we should buy a new car every five years and scrap the old one, because after 5 years the car is clearly unsafe? What a world huh. Why aren't we mad as hell, and why do we take continue to take it?

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 48 reviews