12th Sep 2006, 17:51
As a former car company employee I have to take issue with the "You get what you pay for" myth. Yes, the base engines don't have as much power as the larger engines, but dollar for dollar, you are WAYYYYY ahead with the basic model of ANY vehicle. The options are marked up SEVERAL HUNDRED percent, and you will usually not get one penny of that back when you sell or trade. I bought a bare-bones basic 2001 Dodge Dakota Sport in October of 2000 and sold it in January of 2006 for $943 less than I PAID FOR IT NEW. The truck was mint, with low mileage, but I can assure you if it had been a fully loaded SLT V-8 I would have gotten VERY LITTLE more for it. As for the Ranger 4, it is NOT that bad. I'd much rather get 30mpg and save 5 grand on the purchase price it it means taking an extra 100 feet to pass a semi.
26th Apr 2007, 22:52
I totally agree with the second reviewer. I have a 2002 ford ranger edge with a 3.0 ltr V6 with 65k miles on it and it is seriously slow. I can see people at the back getting frustrated after I pick up from a red light. It pings really bad whether its 30 or 70mph press on gas and it starts pinging. very very annoying. Driving it on rougher roads is a gut jiggling experience. However, it handles good and is very sporty Mileage is 21hwy and 15 in city.
Wind noise is high., seems like there is little or no insulation under the roof. engine is noisy like most ford V6's are. CD player is excellent. Ford does an excellent job on cd player and speakers on all its cars. AC is excellent. All around visibility is good. Seats were uncomfortable at first (coming from a cadillac), but now I feel they are the most comfortable ones.
This might be my last ford ranger. Would probably not buy it again. I mean, although it is good and reliable(no problems till now), but overall quality leaves a lot to be desired.
13th Apr 2010, 03:43
Well an automatic behind a 140 hp engine isn't going to give great acceleration in a vehicle shaped like a pick up. It's a truck!
I have a 5 speed 4 cyl and it has plenty of acceleration. I have owned fast cars before, when I bought this, I wanted and needed a truck. Hauls everything you can think of putting in one, and it gets 30 mpg @ 65 mph. No it does not go 150 mph or pop wheelies like my Mustang did, but I couldn't haul plywood and dirt in the Mustang!!!
Remember that automatic transmissions soak up far more horse power than standard transmissions, affecting mileage and performance.
28th Jul 2010, 11:09
I have a 2002 Edge (Ranger) 4.0L, 2WD, 5spd ordered new, not on the lot.
I love it and have done a few mods including JBA cat-forward and back exhaust (stainless including the shorty headers). I guess I can live with the stock front brakes but it puzzles me how such a popular vehicle has no aftermarket big brake kits. Some are available for earlier years. Looks like for too much money such could be custom made? I have nice looking 17x8 Cragar summer rims that could easily accommodate a big brake kit, if one were available.
I sent a query to Brembo stating such. They acknowledged my e-mail and said they would get back to me. 3 months later I am still waiting.
So what to do? Brembo and many others do have drilled rotors for it, disc brake pads, lots to choose from but which is the best to simply give strong long-lasting brake performance? And the flexible rubber part of the front brake lines can be replaced with aftermarket ones that do not expand as much when the brakes are applied. Proper choosing of these things would presumably give you better brakes, but I sure wish there was an affordable big brake kit option out there. After all we are talking about a vehicle that changes little over the years and always sells in big numbers, an aftermarket suppliers dream you would think. John, Canada.
29th Jul 2010, 18:08
"but it puzzles me how such a popular vehicle has no aftermarket big brake kits."
Most companies don't want to invest money in a product that very few people will buy. Few people find a need for enhanced braking on the Ford Ranger, whereas many do on a modified Mustang GT. I've owned 4 Rangers, and all were really great, well-built and reliable trucks. I never felt any real need to upgrade the already excellent factory discs.
These vehicles are stable at speed, but few people really use them as sporty vehicles.
10th Nov 2004, 10:31
My 2002 Ranger has a 4 liter v6, which pumps out far more power than is needed when the weight of the truck is taken into consideration. If you went for fuel economy, you got what you paid for in a small engine. You will save money at the pump, but you will make up for it in your loss of dignity when you can't pass a semi in under one mile. I have not had any transmission problems, shuttering or harsh shifting, to speak of. The off road package is also fantastic on my Ranger. I have taken it to every mud hole and back trail I could find, and it just would not get stuck. The moral here is "you get what you pay for." Do not expect a great deal out of the low cost option of any vehicle. A vehicle that performs cost more for a very obvious reason.