Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61
A few minor things have plagued this truck, most of which you will not be surprised by, having read the previous entries. These include:
- Incessant door chiming / dome light
- "Quirky" wiper blades
- Check engine light
- Headliner has deteriorated to the point where looks as if someone has held an angry wet cat to it.
Some other things which have been repaired which fall under normal mechanical repairs for high mileage vehicles:
- Replaced alternator (around 100K)
- Rear brake work (around 80K)
- Cooling system work (around 130K)
If Jesus Christ himself was cruising the used car lots in search of a small truck, I would have no reservations about insisting that he not rest until he finds a '95 Ford Ranger. This truck has been totally dependable and unbelievably mechanically sound.
I'm 27 years old, and it's the only vehicle I've ever owned. Everyone else I know has had anywhere from 3-6 cars, and people that I haven't talked to in awhile are always shocked that I'm still driving the same truck. But I am, and I will continue to drive it until it is no longer drivable. By my estimates this will be sometime around never.
My girlfriend gets annoyed because every time we're out driving, I still can't help but get excited when I see another Ranger out there owning the road. The timeless styling of this classic beauty still sends shivers down my spine, and I can't help, but feel a common bond with other Ranger drivers out there. I look at them, and there's a connection. "Hey," their eyes say, "Doesn't it feel great to know that you're behind the wheel of one of the greatest feats of American engineering since the Industrial Revolution?" "Yes," I answer, "It certainly does."
The Ranger is, by far, the best small truck on the planet...PERIOD. Even the biased Consumer Reports rates it equal to the grossly over rated (and overpriced) Tacoma. Most guys I know who have owned Rangers have never had a single problem, and many have over 300,000 miles on them. The company my in-laws owns uses Rangers as company vehicles and some in the fleet are '93's and '94's. They don't come any more rugged or reliable than the Ranger. You did good for a first vehicle.
Wrong on all counts. They do come more rugged and more reliable. It's called a Tacoma, and it's worlds ahead of the over-priced, flimsy Ranger.
Well, here we go again. A Ford owner stating facts based on experience, a comment based on experience and factual data, and yet another mindless rant of "IT'S BETTER BECAUSE I SAY SO" from a Toyota owner. Nothing like objective data, huh?
Sorry, but when a poster uses "Jesus Christ" as a discussion point the entire post is suspect.
Rangers FLIMSY?? Oh, PLEASE!! If you have no valid facts to base a dislike of a vehicle on, please be courteous enough to not comment at all. 2 years ago I came upon a very serious accident involving a Ranger and a Toyota Camry. The driver of the Camry (who had veered into the path of the Ranger) was being airlifted by helicopter due to the severity of her injuries. Her car was hardly recognizable as a car. The Ranger had one broken headlight, a broken grill, and a slightly buckled hood. It could easily have been driven home (and most likely was). The driver was completely unhurt and was standing by the scene as the med crew moved the severely injured Toyota driver. Flimsy?? Obviously the commenter needs to do a bit of research. All Ford trucks, large and small, are much more ruggedly built to withstand crashes than any Import trucks on the market.
Here's some objective data. In a study by CNN and Edmunds, the '06 Tacoma was just named "Best pickup truck"; it is also their top pick for "Best used truck to buy", every year from '99 to present. It is also in the top 10 trucks and SUV's to hold their residual value. The Ford Ranger was named #8 in a list of the 10 WORST. By the way, the Ranger does not appear anywhere on any of the "10 Best" lists in any category that I read. But, I suppose, in typical Ford-owner fashion, you will still claim that Rangers are the best truck just because YOU like them the best.
Care to back that up with actual research? NO Ford truck has ever scored highly in crashworthiness tests, regardless of your personal experience. And if you extend the term "truck" to include SUVs it gets worse as the first two generations of the Ford Explorer caused more death and injury due to design flaws than any other vehicle sold in America.
I'll take a car with ABS, a full complement of airbags, and a safety cell over any Ford truck any time.
If Toyotas are so safe, I wonder why studies show you are TWICE as likely to be killed in a crash in a Camry than in a comparable domestic car.
Camry's are great cars: this review is about Rangers. Rangers are not great trucks. Maybe some are, I don't know, but the few I've had contact with, as well as the one that I owned for a while were very problematic vehicles. I gave Ford a fair shake, and I kept mine until my patience and my wallet could take no more strain.
NOT GOOD TRUCKS!!!??? I've had my ranger for almost 6 years now and it has over 325,000 miles on it and I have not had any major problems!!! the only things wrong wrong with it are things that happen over age! Such as lights in the dashboard goin out, headliner, worn seats and such! ABSOLUTELY NO MECHANICALS WHATSOEVER!!! and I beat the crap out of this thing, up in the mountains, towing, hauling, etc.
I would NEVER try this in a Toyota, granted they are wonderful vehicles, but they just aren't as rugged as my FORD. I will drive this thing till it dies, and like the reviewer said, may likely be NEVER!!!
FORD POWER!!!
Is the Toyota poster reappearing again? I want to read about Rangers... My company has utilized them for years as delivery vehicles and for salesmen calling on job sites with great results.
To the commentor on 2nd Dec 2006, 17:23:
The primary reason that people are so seemingly hung up on resale value these days is because they are flipping vehicles at record pace. They buy something that they think is great and then get bored in a year or two, so having a good residual resale/trade in value is important. Fine. But it's a terrible habit to get into and this, does not, I repeat, does not, mean a car is worth less (not worthless).
A vehicle's value doesn't come from how much higher the bottom line is when you trade it in for your next one year-short-attention love affair. A vehicle's value comes from reliability and its ability to do the job and do it well. If this reviewer feels that his Ranger has done what it is supposed to do, and continues to, then it is no worse than a Tacoma that does the same thing and retains more of its value in the end.
Vehicles are for driving, not trading in. Kudos to this guy for keeping his attention span focused and keeping his vehicle too. There's nothing wrong with loyalty to a vehicle. After all, Toyota fanboys are pretty loyal about "their brand" and it'd be awfully hypocritical to give someone grief over something you do everytime someone talks about automotive ingenuity.
I flip properties and need to use trucks. Fix them up and sell. The money I make from this enables me to not lose on trade ins.
Basing ANY evaluation of ANY vehicle on surveys and magazine reviews is a very poor way to determine how well suited the vehicle will be to your needs. Magazines and survey companies are VERY political, which means they are subject to incentives offered to them to give glowing reviews to particular models. This should be very obvious in the case of several leading automotive magazines, which are virtually owned by Honda and Toyota. As a mechanic I can assure you the Ranger is every inch as reliable as the Toyota, and is generally cheaper to maintain in the long run. Look at the overwhelming number of service companies that use the Ranger as company vehicles. Some of these companies put 300,000 miles on these little trucks with virtually zero problems. I know of 2 companies that still have some '93 and '94 Rangers in their fleets. That's 14 years of service that usually involves being abused and mistreated by drivers who have no concern for harming their employer's property. The Tacoma is not a bad truck, but it is over priced and over rated, and overall maintenance costs will generally be higher for the same length of use as a Ranger. I hate to see people making unfounded (and untrue) comments. This reviewer is very obviously (and justifiably) proud of his Ranger. Let him enjoy his truck and maybe in 300,000 more miles when it is beginning to show some wear, he might be more inclined to look at the Tacoma if so much disrespect was not shown to his choice in vehicles. I honestly think the insults from Toyota owners are an incentive for many people to avoid looking at a Toyota. I know several people have said that very thing, and have bought other brands because they didn't want to be identified with a brand that seems to be based on ad hype and illogical loyalty to a brand that is basically nothing to rave about.
The Tacoma is a better truck than a Ranger in every way. It is illogical to buy a Ford Ranger when you could buy a Tacoma used, and it will still outlast and outperform the new Ranger.
Why? Because there is no comparison between a Toyota engine and a Ford engine. The Toyota engines are better every time, as is the rest of the truck.
I would gladly pay for a Tacoma with 70,000 miles on it rather than buy a new Ranger, because the Tacoma will still be running when the Ford goes to the junkyard.
And for every person here that writes in about the 300,000 miles their Ranger got, there are 30 Toyota truck owners that have gotten that much or more.