S-10 vs Ranger

AngryCorvair wrote: i heart me some 4.3/5sp/ZQ8 extended cab

My son just bought one of those. The 4.3 5spd works pretty well. He says it's good on gas, but I don't believe him.

I've had a 86, 2 87 S10's, and a 95 Ranger. Thinking about it, that 86 was one of my all time favourite vehicles and the 87 is close behind. The Ranger was as reliable, and probably as competent as a small truck, but I just wasn't crazy about the way it drove, the comfort, or seating position. I guess what I am trying to say is, drive both, and decide which one fits you best.

I had a ranger. It was dead reliable and a great truck. The auto trans started doing goofy crap at 156k. I had the 3.0 and it got 14-16mpg around town and 21(at best) on the highway. If they had a diesel one in the US, I would be driving one now.

Like this one..

http://blogs.fourwheeler.com/6459734/miscellaneous/new-diesel-ranger-debuts-in-geneva/index.html

I've never liked these, but suddenly I find this tempting

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=104450

That guy belongs here.

suprf1y wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: i heart me some 4.3/5sp/ZQ8 extended cab

My son just bought one of those. The 4.3 5spd works pretty well. He says it's good on gas, but I don't believe him.

in '02, '03, and '04, we used an '01 sonoma 4.3/5sp/ZQ8 short/short with an additional 2/3 drop and a bed cover to pull the challenge corvair on a tow dolly from MI to FL. down i-75 there are some stretches in KY and TN where we were pulling hills in 3rd gear, so it wasn't a hypermiler's dream. still managed 20 mpg for the round trip each year, which included back and forth from hotel to track. maybe the lowering and the bed cover help a bunch, maybe only a little. pulling a miata on the dolly, got 22 mpg on a flat highway run across MI.

I owned a '94 Ranger with the 4 cylinder/manual trans. and have driven several S-10s equipped the same way. Of these two, the Ranger is the more "bullet-proof". I can't say if one or the other outshines in fuel economy, but the Ford is currently the most fuel efficient gas-powered pickup truck.

For riding/driving? The S-10 strikes me as so car like you'd swear you were driving a 2/3rds scale El Camino...at least in V6 guise. The Ranger is DEFINITELY "truckier"(?)

I've also ridden in ahd driven a few Nissan minitrucks, the Hardbody model and the older 720 series. Again, nearly bulletproof and what breaks can be fixed easily thanks to Nissan dealers who are MORE on top of the parts situation (perhaps because of fewer models to support?) than either Ford or GM. The Nissans SEEMED to blend the best of the Ranger and S-10...with slightly LESS fuel economy.

If you are set on the 4 cyl versions of either, I would tell you to get the one that fits the best. All in all, they are the same basic truck- and if you get the manual version, the number of things that can go wrong are fairly slim. Both the S10 and Ranger are so old that all of the major things have been fixed over time. These are the workhorses that don't have major problems.

We've had 4 rangers in the past- 2 3.0's, and 2 4.0's, and really enjoyed them.

Still, even working for the Ranger company, I'd still suggest getting the one that fits you the best. Drive them both. Get the one that feels the best to YOU. It's your car, not ours.

Eric

I have had 3 rangers over the years, great little trucks. My current version is a 97 2.3 5sp. I average mid 20's on my daily commute and upper 20's on the highway. As others have said they are slow, but tough as nails. When I bought this truck I looked at both rangers and S-10's. I looked for the cleanest lowest mileage truck in my price range. It just happened to be a ranger. In my opinion the S-10 is also an excellent truck...

I'd rather have a lima-powered Ranger than the 2.2 in the S-10.

Yes, the 2.2 in the s10 is a gutless, hopeless little motor that will frustrate you on a DAILY basis, even with a 5spd.

On the other hand, if anyone is seriously considering buying an old ranger (pre 98), let me just say this: Noone with a shred of self-respect pays money for the privilege to drive a vehicle with twin i-beam front suspension.

I say go for the 4.3/5spd with the sport suspension. The driving fun may surprise you. They are very strong up to 60 or 70 stock too and respond very well to mods WHEN (not if) the bug finally gets you.

The 4.0 in a ranger is strong too. Either one of those is pretty reliable too, other than the fuel spider thingy on the 4.3. Its not fun to fix but its not the worst thing in the world either. Probly easier than a 4.0 headgasket. :p

If going for a 4 cyl i would go ranger just to avoid the gm 2.2.

I have a 97 Ranger that has 156,000 on it. I've owned it since 1998 and a few weeks ago, had to install shocks and brakes. I can't recall any other major expense items at all. Surely, I've had something, but it just seems to run and run. Now, I'm concerned that I'll ding it myself or have someone on the freeway bend it for me. I don't think that I could replace the reliability at any cost and sure don't want to have to give it a try. As for payload and hauling, it's a light truck and I treat it that way. Hope you find something that works for you as well as my Ranger has for me.

suprf1y wrote: I've never liked these, but suddenly I find this tempting http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=104450

epic

Rangers up to the mid 90s had the horrible twin I-beam front end. I'd steer clear of a Ford for that reason alone. The fours and small sixes in both are pretty underpowered. The Chevy 4.3 can be hot rodded and has good power stock so if towing is a priority thats the one I'd pick....plus V8 conversions are cake (I've done 3).

I would have to throw my vote in the ranger hat too...what generation are you looking at? I would advise staying away from the 87-91 V6 (i think 92 was the first year for the 3.0) the 2.9 eats head gaskets like crazy. The 2.3 is about bullet proof in my experience...one thing to watch for is the early 90's (93-97 the round ones) have a dummy oil pressure guage. it works like a light, this cost me an engine do to poor oil pressure.

Can't speak to the attributes of 4cyl S10's or Rangers.

But, I have a '96 S15 (4.3 v6) and my Dad has a '98 Ranger (4.0 v6). Both are 4wd, extended cab, automatic versions.

The Ranger has appreciably better engine response and acceleration; the S15 is more comfortable and more "luxurious". Mileage for the S15 is 19-20 around town and 23-24 on trips. The Ranger is about the same - I think.

Seems like the Ranger is better suited for around-town driving and short trips while the S15/S10 is better suited for those who prefer a little more comfort over other performance aspects.

Just my .02 cents worth.

Junkyard_Dog...I have always wondered what it costs to stuff a V8 into a S10 Blazer. Do you remember what you spent? Have you put in a LT1? Thanks.

MedicineMan...I think it was the 4.0 that was intoduced in 90 for the Ranger and 91 for the Explorer.

We used the JTR book as a reference. Most parts were bought used at swap meets or just was was hanging around so I think the conversion part cost was under $500. If you don't have or can't scrounge the drivetrain the cost will of course go up. The great thing about the JTR book was that it allowed you to use lots of stock parts from other cars so if you were good at getting deals at the junk yard you could do the swap very cheaply. We just used Hooker headers and fabbed mounts iirc.

Old thread, but now that I'm considering picking up a mid-90s Ranger to pull DD while the Jeep is getting an axle and suspension transplant, I'm interested in how the engines compare. Between the 2.3L I4 (not the 2.5), the 3.0L V6 and the 4.0L V6, how do they compare in terms of reliability? If anything, I'm eyeing the 2.3L I4/5 speed combo.

Oddly enough, I compared the NHTSA ratings for the non-airbag '94 and the dual-airbag '96 Rangers and the ratings for the passenger were actually better in the '94. Maybe has to do with those overpowered first-generation airbags they were putting in cars and trucks in the mid-90s?

DoctorBlade wrote: They're both pretty much equal, all things being even.

That sounds like something Yogi Berra said. So you are saying they are equal if they are equal?

I've had three Rangers so far - a 99, a 96 and an 08. The 08 definitely felt pepier, and the 99 and 96 could've been the same truck save for a different front end and interior. I'll buy another Ranger as soon as I have a need for one (house), as they're fuel efficient, reasonably comfortable and require very little effort to keep running well.

I generally got high 20s out of any of the 4 cyls. My dad bought a 4.0 4WD and got horrible mileage. He also bought an S10 at once point and had a lot of problems with it. It's a sample of one, but his experience with the S10, and my experience with the Rangers has put me firmly in the Ford camp.

As for the appliance comments, I have to agree. However, sometimes a good appliance is all you need, and the Rangers definiely get that done well.

I have always really liked the Ranger. It's not all that flashy, but it's a very honest truck.

billy3esq wrote: As between the Ranger and S-10, I vastly prefer the Ranger. I've never owned an S-10, but every one I've ever been up close and personal with either had all sorts of problems (admittedly not usually in the drive train), was falling apart, or both. Rangers, in my experience, are as reliable as anvils and tend to hold up much better.

If I had a Ranger in Texas I'd name it "Walker" after the coolest tv show ever.

I love my brother's 4cyl/5spd Ranger. It has about 160k and while it has some dents and dings it runs like a top and does almost anything we need a truck to do

cwh wrote: Vulcan V-6... at about 275,000 miles, it burns absolutely no oil.

That has been the case with every Vulcan powered vehicle I have encountered. Glorious appliance engine.

rangers make sweet prerunners. the old ones with the ibeam front particularly... but only good OFFROAD. they do funny things to front tires on road. newer ones are nicer as dd's. 2.3 w/ 5 speed i wouldn't mind as long as i could get it under a grand. 2.8 no thanks, 4.0 ill think about it. if you even think you hear, smell or spidey-sense anything that sounds like a4ld autotragic, run. i know these pretty well since one of my auto teachers had a bunch so he brought them in and told us to work on them. i have no knowledge about s10s

sorry i meant to say 2.9