26th May 2006, 13:17

I haven't yet had an opportunity to attempt a top-speed run with my new 2006 V-6 Ranger (I'm not fond of tickets!!). My previous Ranger (a 4-cylinder 5-speed) had a limiter on it that caused the engine to start cutting out at 105mph, and I'm pretty sure the new ones are similarly equipped.

27th May 2006, 08:29

Why anyone wants to go over 100 with a ranger... I have no clue.

2nd Jun 2006, 07:17

I am currently looking at the 2006 ford ranger and I am very interested in buying one. I really like the fx4 and the fx4 level II. I like ford trucks because they are very reliable. the ranger is the only truck that keeps its unique body style instead of turning a truck into a sports car.

10th Jun 2006, 11:08

To the top speed question, my brother's 2000 Ford Ranger has the 4.0L. It will hit 100 before the engine shuts off due to the governor. Without the governor, they might hit 120-130, depending on engine size.

15th Jun 2006, 06:28

I have a 2004 4.0l XLT 4x4 with manual transmission, and the factory speed limiter is set to 92 MPH. No idea why its so low, the tires are "S" speed rated, which is good to 112 MPH.

2nd Jul 2006, 22:35

I'm the original reviewer. Thus far no problems whatsoever, but I have noticed that unlike my 4-cylinder 5-speed Rangers (I've had 3) my 2006 V-6 automatic will kick in the governor under full throttle acceleration if the rear wheels break loose. I was recently getting onto a really tight-curving entry ramp to a freeway and floored it. The right rear tire broke loose momentarily, then the engine went into the cut-off mode. I suppose I hit the maximum RPM level briefly to kick in the governor, but I haven't had this experience with my other Rangers or my Dodge Dakota. I eased off a little and the engine roared to life again instantly, but it was a bit unnerving. Anyone else experienced this sort of thing? My other Rangers would only cut out at around 105mph, and the Dakota had a set RPM at which the engine cut out.

29th Jul 2006, 13:36

Original reviewer again. After 7 months of driving, my Ranger is beginning to feel even better. Initially the shifting was sort of jerky compared to my silky-smooth GM automatics. Now the Ranger is shifting smoother, and the ride is actually getting a little smoother. I guess it just had some initial stiffness that had to get worked out. The overall quality feel is better than any of my previous three Rangers. I drove a friend's Tacoma recently and there is just no comparison. The Ranger feels like a Lincoln compared to it. This is definitely the best Ranger Ford has built yet. My only regret is the EXTREMELY high ride height. I know most guys prefer trucks that sit high, but I got spoiled by my great-handling low-slung Dakota and this Ranger feels like I'm sitting high enough to get oxygen deprivation. This makes me afraid to really push it in corners, and it also screws up my speed perception. Sitting so high makes it seem like I'm going slower, and I'll be doing 85 or 90 on the freeway without realizing it. I guess I'll just have to get used to it. I've toyed with having it lowered, but it looks cool sitting way up there. My previous Rangers were XLT's with the smaller wheels and lower suspension.

2nd Sep 2006, 03:17

I have had a 2006 Ranger Sport extended cab two wheel drive. I liked the truck, but I found the 3.0 V6 underpowered at 148 ponies. I recently upgrade to a 2007 Sport 4x4 with some options. This is the truck that I was hoping for the first time around. Many individuals don't like the hard plastic look and lack of carpeting.. hey guys this is a truck not a Lincoln. I have had several Toyota Tacoma's. They were nice, but the new ones are not the compact truck that I was looking for.

9th Sep 2006, 20:08

No question about it, Ranger really is the ONLY choice in a small truck. There just isn't any competition for it out there. The new Tacoma looks like something out of a cartoon, as does the Nissan Frontier (and ALL Nissans, actually!!). I love GM vehicles, but the new Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon are just hideous. The Dakota has become a big, bloated, ugly mess with no economical engine option or regular cab. That pretty much leaves Ranger as the only REAL small truck left.

1st Oct 2006, 17:46

This is true. I love Chevys, but they just look jacked up, like something Isuzu would make. They ride OK, but I think I might just pick up a Ranger instead. Yes, the 3.0L is underpowered and gas hungry. BUT, it is by far the most reliable engine ever made. Iron block and heads, timing chain - what can go wrong? All of our 3.0s have gone well beyond 200k with just typical maintenance. The 3.0L used in the Mazda is different, since it has an aluminum head instead. I don't like that version one bit. It's just sad that it only offers about 5 more HP than the 2.3L DOHC. Basically, it boils down to gas mileage or reliability.

3rd Oct 2006, 14:55

Yes, I wish the 3.0 offered more power, but after changing to a Flowmaster muffler, K&N air filter and synthetic oil (all that Ford will let me do without voiding my warranty) I find that my 3.0 is reasonably peppy. I'm still missing the silky smooth and precise shifting of the GM automatics, but all in all I don't think I'd have been any happier with any other truck this size. I just don't like the styling of ANY of the new small trucks other than Ranger. I've had friends who drove the Ford 3.0's 250,000 to 300,000 miles without a single problem, so they are definitely the most reliable on the market. Of course the 2.3's I've owned never had any problems either, but the most I ever kept them for was 100,000 miles. I sort of like the Tacoma, but two friends of mine have them and they ride a lot rougher and both of them have already had mechanical problems with them.

4th Oct 2006, 21:36

I'm wondering if the 3.0 Ranger can be hopped up without voiding the warranty. Does anyone have any experience with that? I really don't know what I can do that won't void my warranty and since my truck is brand new that is important. Maybe a new computer chip? I love the bullet proof 3.0 engine, but like others have said, it's a little weak.

17th Oct 2006, 21:36

I just ordered a base model, no optioned, 2007 Ranger XL to replace my 93 Ranger XL w/135kmi. Look forward to getting it, should be in the 1st week of November.

I ordered it strictly for gas mileage and to use as a light duty truck for the cheapest possible price ($12500 after rebates).

I've never bought "new" before, but my last Ranger convinced me that this would be a worthwile thing to do; I plan to keep it for at least 10+ years.

I agree with all the comments above, except the 3.0liter comments (I have no experience with those). But the 2.3's are tried & true, and are know for great for mileage & dependability, for general light duty use.

I have an F350 dually for the tough jobs. It's great thing- these 2 trucks complement each other perfectly.

Kev, from upstate NY.