Road Tests: Long-Term Test

Our editors couldn't wait to explore the fresh, funky functionality of the 1998 Ford Ranger, the first compact pickup to offer four-door cab access on extended cab models (along with its Mazda B-Series twin). Finally, we thought, America's best-selling small pickup (red, white and blue pride flooding our chests), always perfect for moving furniture and firewood and single people, might cater to those who occasionally want to pack the cab with more than two bodies. We were determined, therefore, to feed our Ranger a steady diet of people, pets and cargo so that we could provide a report to our readers on the palatability of this feature.

Ultimately, we decided that the four-door configuration is an indispensable feature for extended cab pickup trucks, because it drastically simplifies the loading and unloading of cargo and people. After a long road trip, our executive editor, Karl Brauer, observed, "The four-door design proved invaluable for quick loading and unloading of all my crap during the drive. It was easy to toss my suitcase and laptop bag behind the seats before taking off in the morning. Since this is the most intimate, long-lasting time I've spent with a truck, I can't imagine having a club cab design without the rear doors."

But there was more to our relationship with the Ranger than our delight with the four-door convenience. Although the truck was a reliable servant (except for the flaky transmission) for two years, most of our editors would not want the Ranger for daily commutes, long trips or family excursions. But all of them would like to have one available for a spontaneous trip to the hardware store on a wintry day.

We ordered our Ranger with four-wheel drive and the off-road package (specially tuned shock absorbers plus cosmetic treatment) so that we could take it for frequent romps in rough weather and on rugged trails - our truck wintered in Denver one year and Detroit the next. And by ordering the off-road package, we avoided the chrome grille that comes standard on XLT models — some of our editors abhor it (It seems that not everyone shares our tastes, since all off-road trucks have been clad in chrome since 1999.).

Ford revised the front suspension in 1998 Rangers to improve the ride and handling and added rack-and-pinion steering for better response. Most of our editors noted in the logbook that the Ranger handled quite deftly — some went so far as to call it almost car-like — while maintaining a strong truck identity. Even our "non-truck" staffers liked the Ranger, because it was easy to maneuver in city traffic and easy to coax into U-turns and parking spaces — and no one would ever accuse our leather-lined, long-term GMC Sierra of having a pleasant urban demeanor.

One driver wrote, "I pumped up the air in the tires before leaving Denver, since I knew how twisty [Highway] 285 is. When I pulled up into Montrose for the night, a green Plymouth minivan that was driving next to me on the highway showed up. The driver was also checking into the Best Western and commented, 'That thing sticks to the road like glue.' I think he was surprised at how quickly the Ranger handled the turns. I told him the tires were at 35 psi and that the stiff suspension kept it from leaning too far around corners."

While we liked the overall steering and suspension package, the Ranger did not always handle flawlessly during our two-year lease. In early 1999, we noted that the truck was pulling to the right, sometimes more so during braking. Neither a dealer-prescribed alignment nor a tire rotation solved the problem (one driver even commented that rotating the tires made the problem worse). The pull was not severe, and we gradually became inured to it - until drivers began to complain about it again during the summer of 2000. We mentioned the problem at the Ranger's 30,000-mile service, and technicians at Santa Monica Ford blamed it on the all-terrain Firestone Wilderness tires. Our Ranger had the optional 16-inch tires - while the recall on Firestones currently includes only the 15-inch tires, Bridgestone/Firestone may replace certain 16-inch tires (or compensate customers who want to use another brand of tire) as part of the company's Customer Satisfaction Program. We hope the next owner of our Ranger will enjoy more competent handling after the truck is fitted with a fresh set of tires.

In addition, one editor wrote in the logbook on several occasions that the Ranger had a tendency to spin its rear tires when driven on muddy and/or snowy off-road trails or on wet road surfaces. This editor acknowledged that most trucks are susceptible to this problem, so our Ford was not to be singled out. We thought it was worth mentioning here in a cautionary manner, that is, use extra care when driving a Ranger (or any truck) on sloppy roads. Also, our photography editor, Scott Jacobs, expressed an affinity for this aspect of our truck: "In the sandy river bed areas in Hungry Valley, the tail would come out big time. It was a lot of fun swooping through the riverbed. It reminded me of a Slip and Slide [that I had] as kid, without the metal spikes that kept it on the lawn."

And while we appreciated the Ranger's off-road suspension during rough and tumble adventures, some drivers found freeway commutes to be rather jostling experiences. We uncovered the following logbook commentary from Liz Kim, our associate editor: "Every bump jarred the whole truck, and my teeth along with it. On the other hand, it was kind of fun as well, to be bouncing around and pretending to be in a big ol' dump truck, like those old kiddie songs." Some drivers also felt that the rear suspension grew exceptionally noisy before its time. Fifteen thousand miles into our experience, Jacobs remarked that the suspension was "squeakier than granny's walker." But comments about the suspension disappeared from the logbook within a few thousand miles - we suppose that a technician thought to lubricate the suspension or that drivers became accustomed to the squawks and attributed any excess noise to the Ranger's truck identity.

Our Ranger was equipped with the optional 4.0-liter V6 engine and the five-speed automatic transmission. While most editors thought the engine supplied adequate power in most contexts, several said that its passing power was too meager, particularly in mountainous areas. Our executive editor noted that a boost in horsepower would give the Ranger better passing ability. Ford has addressed this issue by offering the Explorer's 4.0-liter SOHC V6 — good for 205 horsepower — as an option for 2001 Rangers.

In May 1999, drivers observed the first "clinks" from the transmission during deceleration and when backing up an incline. Our executive editor suggested that there might be a problem with the transfer case, given that no other symptoms, such as driveline shudder or shifting difficulty, were present. Two months later, the "clinks" had become definite "clunks," and we decided that a trip to a dealer was necessary.

The problem was not resolved during the 15,000-mile service, so we took the truck back to the dealer in November 1999. The Ranger now had two distinct drivetrain issues: First, we observed that it clunked into gear when we moved the shift lever from "Park" to "Drive," "Park" to "Reverse" and so on. Second, shifts were hard and unrefined during acceleration. Hollywood Ford decided to lubricate the driveshaft yoke (a warranty repair), and drivers reported the transmission issues resolved.

But just before the end of the lease, our editor-in-chief experienced the harsh shifting again - and on one occasion, the transmission freewheeled when he turned off overdrive while coasting down a steep freeway descent. Wardlaw was a bit put off, since the Ranger was never asked to carry heavy loads or do any towing. Santa Monica Ford was unable to duplicate the Ranger's symptoms, so they did not pull out the transmission. We suppose the next owner will be left to confront these issues - take a nice long test drive before you buy a used Ranger. We suspect that a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) may even cover our disagreeable transmission, as we found several bulletins at the NHTSA Web site that specified buzzing, grinding, pings or thumps during acceleration.

There was a brief period when we could not persuade the Ranger to shift into 4WD Low. Somehow this problem went away on its own, though we found several more TSBs that covered this problem and its annoying inverse — it seems that some Rangers get stuck in 4WD Low.

A few drivers reported a loud, rough idle during the two-year period, but complaints were sporadic enough that we never sought a cure for this problem. At least one TSB has been issued for a rough idle (we looked at service bulletin number 0054 at the NHTSA site).

Toward the end of our lease, a couple of editors were dismayed by the amount of noise transferred to the cabin. Our Detroit editor, John Clor, previously owned at least a half-dozen Rangers, but he proclaimed our long-termer louder than all of them due to its tire noise, engine roar and wind buffeting. While he acknowledged that not one of the previous trucks was a 4x4, he insisted that the next truck he buys will have to be much quieter than our Ranger.

Our bright red truck (and the paint remained bright red after two years) was endowed with sassy flareside hindquarters - many editors found them alluring, but others deemed them frumpy. "I like the styling of our Ranger, and the image it projects in suburban Los Angeles," Editor-in-Chief Chris Wardlaw wrote. "It says I'm rugged and individualistic, with a flair for design." Another staffer said, "Its bright red paint, flared fenders, and tall stance give it a serious and imposing presence, not unlike an emergency vehicle." Our vice president of corporate development, Lev Stark, was not as enamored: "The flareside might look cool when viewing this truck's profile, but a view from the rear might make a reasonable person think that our truck had cosmetic surgery that went awfully wrong," he said. "It looks like someone liposucked its tush but forgot its thunder thighs." More importantly, editors noted repeatedly that this style element sacrifices too much bed space - clearly, the flareside design is not aimed at consumers with serious hauling concerns.

Despite its shrunken bed, the Ranger capably assisted numerous staff members who were moving to new homes or fixing up current homesteads. We also recruited it as a support vehicle for track days at Willow Springs and for an office move. And there were no complaints from the grateful staffers who used the Ranger for hauling.

The aftermarket equipment we added fell into disfavor, but only because it didn't age well. We put in a plastic bedliner, tubular side-step bars and embroidered floor mats. The bedliner began to warp and twist during the first winter in Colorado — it eventually receded far enough from the sides of the bed to allow rain and snow to seep down either side. One driver suggested that a spray-on type of bedliner would have been more suitable for the cold temperatures of Colorado. The pads on the side-step bars unfastened themselves when the screws holding them down were stripped; this too happened only a few months after installation.

Editors found many things to like about the truck's interior layout. We almost always found kind words in the logbook about the friendly design and simple placement of all controls — though nearly everyone found fault with the overdrive button on the end of the column shifter, that is, we all hit it inadvertently. And our editor-in-chief was disappointed that the power window and door buttons were not illuminated. Some made a case for larger stereo controls, but most were thrilled by the sound theater in the cab. One driver raved in the logbook, "Climbing into the [long-term] BMW today, with its upmarket Harmon Kardon speakers, proved disappointing; its much more expensive setup didn't match the Ford in sound quality." Another driver, who was also quite taken with the stereo performance as well as with the quality of the interior materials, said, "These standards are not matched by any other small pickup I've driven."

We did notice rattles coming from the dash and the intersection of the front and rear doors during the Ranger's first winter, but they seemed to be caused by cold temperatures. Once the Ranger moved to a milder climate, complaints diminished. During the Ranger's last few weeks with us, in clement Los Angeles County, we delighted in the absence of rattles and squeaks in the cab after two years of ownership.

The Ranger's seating was a bit of a sticking point. While some drivers, like Brauer, were able to make themselves comfortable in the driver's seat, others, especially taller drivers, became less tolerant as the months wore on. During his last stint with the Ranger, Wardlaw lashed, "The seats are horrendously uncomfortable, offering zero support for legs and back. The grippy fabric can, at times, hold your body in odd seating positions as it clings tenaciously to your clothing. What this truck needs is a good, six-way power driver's seat with firmer padding." Apparently, disgruntled owners are either too few in number or too soft-spoken to be heard by Ford's soft pink ears, because 2001 Rangers are still without even the most primitive seat height adjustment. The seats were passable for short jaunts, though, and many staff members appreciated the elevated seating position when navigating city traffic.

Fortunately, Ford made the front passenger seat hospitable to those who might wish to fit it with baby seat and baby by including a button that disables the passenger airbag. But since the front seatbelts are anchored to the rear doors, no one could enter or exit from the passenger side once the child seat was occupied. Further, a large windshield and small sun visors made it difficult for concerned parents to shield young faces. We also learned that four doors cannot make up for a small cab, as large strollers were forced to ride in the bed, even on snowy days.

Finally, a compact pickup truck with rear jump seats and four doors still does not constitute a family vehicle, unless one can reserve the jump seats solely for small children who are too big for car seats (though several staffers' children revolted). Consider a family with two parents and a baby: The baby seat can be installed only in the front passenger seat, so one parent must wedge himself in the rear. And those riding in jump seats fearfully observed the close proximity of their heads to the rear glass. Drivers decided that the rear seats were not for passengers for whom they had any fondness - one staff member wrote, "I felt like I was thrown into a sardine can. I had nowhere to put my arms and very little room for my legs." Another staffer noted, "[The Ranger] presents much the same sort of dilemma that a sports car does for the family owner, but isn't fun to drive."

Since 1998, of course, other manufacturers — realizing the genius hidden under the Ranger's jump seats — have created enhanced crew cab versions of their pickups: Nissan was first with its 2000 Frontier Crew Cab, followed closely by Dodge with the 2000 Dakota Quad Cab. Ford could not let its trucks be upstaged, and the 2001 Explorer Sport Trac was born — yes, we know it's really just a sawed-off Explorer. The 2001 Chevy S-10/GMC Sonoma and Toyota Tacoma Double Cab will be late arrivals to this group. But a larger, more comfortable cab means a shorter bed, so a four-door 2001 Ranger will still appeal to compact pickup buyers who care most about bed length (even the Dakota Quad Cab bed is 8 inches shorter).

Our Ranger attempted to ply us with tidy handling, last-minute hauling ability, winter weather agility and durable red paint, and, in most respects, it did. Further, Ford created an off-road warrior that seduces onlookers even when covered in clods of dirt. Drivers continually remarked on the thoughtful and substantial interior design. And when we totaled up repair costs for the two-year period, we were amazed to discover just how inexpensive it was to care for this Ranger. Nor did it spend any days out of service, except when a dealer let it sit for a week without bothering to call us. Even when you include these seven days, our Ranger tied with our dependable long-term Toyota Camry for the fewest days spent out of service (among all vehicles that have taken part in our long-term program). We hesitate slightly in lavishing praise on the truck by admitting that we wouldn't vouch for the continued health of its transmission - since we never did find a cure for its clunks. Owners may want to consider an extended warranty.

Some of us think that its four doors should have encased a more usable seating arrangement — we wanted to put four people in the cab and leave them there for 30 miles in some measure of comfort. As it was, not many of us could stand to ride in the driver's seat for 30 miles. But that sounds as though a few non-truck people are asking too much of an extended cab compact pickup, doesn't it? For buyers with consistent compact truck needs who usually travel alone or with one other person, we would recommend the Ranger, particularly with 45 extra horsepower available in 2001 models. And bear in mind that the Ranger is still the only extended cab compact pickup that you can buy with four doors, and it's among the roomiest trucks in this group — Chevy S-10 and GMC Sonoma offer comparable space but only three doors. If you still need more space in the guise of a small pickup, you'll have to get a crew cab.

What Edmunds.com says about the Ranger:

Pros: Excellent handling, four-door cab access, competent in winter weather and off-road, stunning exterior beckons voyeurs, user-friendly interior layout, favorable reliability record.

Cons: Needs more horsepower for authoritative passing, uncomfortable seats without height adjustment, clunky transmission may lack desired longevity, flareside design reduces bed capacity.

Best Logbook Quotes:

"I came to like the quirks in this truck. It was higher, so it gave you a nice view of the road, but it wasn't as big as some of the other beasts that are on the road these days. It was maneuverable, in other words, through the L.A. traffic. In fact, out of most pickup trucks, I really like the stepside design of the Ranger. It's fun, sporty and good looking." — Scott Jacobs

"I think the bed is too small to be truly useful for truck duty, and the rear seats are too small to be truly useful for passengers (though my 7-year-old nephew liked them). So, in the end, I feel like the Ranger is sort of a study in compromise. It's got hauling ability, but not a lot of it. It's got rear passenger seat ability, sort of. And it's got good torque, but not much useful horsepower. If I was going to buy a truck, the larger Dakota with a V8 would be my choice, or a full-sized Ram or Silverado. If I had to buy a slightly used one to equal the price of a new Ranger, that's the way I'd go." — Karl Brauer

"While flimsy, uncomfortable seats are better than none, I wish Ford would either look for another way to add seats in limited space, or that California would let passengers ride in the bed, like the rest of the civilized world." — Zach Helke

"Compared to the Titanic turning radius [of the Sierra], the Ranger was a steady tug, eager to handle any work that may crop up." — Josh Catalfo

"I can certainly see its appeal and its salability. You get most of the functionality of a truck without being a lumbering beast, or losing the parking space. I was totally able to fit it into my garage. I think that the [updated 2001 Ranger], with the refinements, will be a big seller." — Liz Kim

"... If this specific truck had the power driver's seat and more supportive padding, I'd probably buy it after our long-term lease is up and replace my Miata...." — Chris Wardlaw

"I didn't want to say it at first because I thought it may seem trivial, but it is driving me crazy. THE SEATS OFFER CRAPPY COMFORT. Were the designers at Ford absent from car-building school on the day ergonomics were being taught as an important design feature? There. It's off my chest now. Spending 45 minutes a day stuck on the 405 [Freeway] in this vehicle has allowed my chiropractor to buy his wife a new Jag." — Lev Stark

What owners say about the Ranger:

E-mail Commentary

"I read the test on the 1998 Ranger with interest and could hardly believe that you were talking about the exact truck I am driving. I purchased my Ranger equipped just like the test vehicle from Thoroughbred Ford in Kansas City. I did have the driveshaft lubed as per the recall, and a door fit adjustment, but as of this date and over 40,000 miles that is the only work that it has needed. I tow a 3,600 lb. Bass Boat, in the Ozark mountains, with this truck and have never experienced any trouble with the transmission or any other component. I get 20 miles per gallon on the highway with the 4.0-liter engine. Pulling the boat knocks that down to about 12. The seats are quite comfortable even though I often drive 4 or 5 hours home after fishing a bass tournament all day. At this time the paint looks as good as it did when I first brought it home. I have been extremely satisfied with my Ranger and fully intend on replacing this one with another one when the time comes. I had 185,000 miles on my previous, 1990 Ranger and 150,000 miles on the one before it, 1985. There was nothing wrong with either of those trucks when I sold them but I did have to replace the heads on the 1990 2.9-liter engine. I have been very satisfied with the service of these great little trucks. I haven't even had any howling from the Firestone tires and I got 98,000 miles out of the original ones on the 1990 Ranger. I was trying for a 100,000 but a flat changed my mind. My wife drives a 1996 Ranger Super Cab, 4.0-liter, 4X2 which she loves. My dealership, Thoroughbred Ford, is top of the line. They do what they say they will and are very courteous from the time I arrive at the door. I feel that Ford Ranger trucks and Thoroughbred Ford are quite good and would be very hard to beat." — L. Dexter, Smithville, Mo.

"I have a 98 Ranger XLT Extra Cab 2WD with the 3.0/auto. I picked the truck up used a month ago. I really like the truck. This [is] my first Ford product as I have ALWAYS owned Chevys. I test-drove the truck and I liked it. So what the heck I figured I'd keep an open mind and try another make. So far, I have put 3K miles on. My only complaint is that the passenger seat rattles when it is unoccupied. There is nothing to tighten it up with either, I looked at all of the mounts and brackets. I'll attribute it to the fact you have to move it back and forth a lot to gain access to the rear of the cab. I guess I should have picked up a truck with the extra door! But so far, so good. I am happy with my truck." — S. Silvia, Fall River, Mass.

"I currently have 35,000 miles on my 1998 extended cab, four door with the 4.0-liter engine and five-speed auto transmission. I have made several trips cross country and have been routinely driving to Oklahoma City. First, overall I really like the Ranger and hope to keep it for a long time, barring no major mechanical problems. I, too, have been very disappointed with both my Ford dealerships and Ford. I have also heard many complaints from other Ford owners, including the use of poor fitting non-Ford parts, poor service and lack of warranty support. Personally, I had front-end problems that dragged on for several months and, before my first oil change, the material on the driver's seat had severely wrinkled up. The seat foam and cover were replaced with no improvement. I personally inspected several dealerships over the past few years and found this to be a common problem. The upholstery shop the dealership sent me to said this was a flaw and that horizontal stitching was needed to fix. Note: The new Ford Rangers and those that were made before 1998 have this stitching. I contacted Ford through the Internet over a year ago; my warranty is about to expire and I have been ignored. I have also noted a rattle when I brake that sounds like a clock ticking, I hope to get it into the dealer here in Oklahoma. Bottom line, at 41 years of age and making enough money to buy just about anything on the market, and being a faithful Ford customer, I no longer plan to purchase a Ford product in my lifetime. As a customer I do not expect or demand perfection, I just expect a company to stand behind their products." — P. Shaffer, Wichita Falls, Texas

"I have the Ranger's twin, the Mazda B2500 SE, and have driven it 50,000 miles since new. Sloppy assembly when new; [I] had to have the dealer adjust the hood and front fenders, which were seriously misaligned. Persistent rattle in the glove box that the Mazda dealer has been unable to correct. Clutch slave [cylinder] was defective and replaced under warranty at about 8,000 miles. Other than this, the truck is very reliable and just keeps going. This vehicle is quiet and smooth for a truck, which makes a good commuter. It was chosen because of the simple drivetrain, which should make it cheaper to repair (compared to a FWD) as the mileage piles up. Although I love the simplicity and great mileage of the four-cylinder, I would not purchase this four-cylinder again, as it is just struggles at times here in San Diego, where the average freeway speed is 80+ mph. (A new larger four-cylinder is due out in December, I understand.) I have the five-speed and with this engine only developing 119 horsepower, it is the only choice - as an automatic would die. I have had eight Fords in a row, but decided on the Mazda because of the better warranty and the Mazda service has turned out to be far superior to any Ford service I have received in the past -- although not inexpensive (estimate for the 30K service was $735.00 — yikes!!) I would buy this truck again." — T. Belgard, San Diego, Calif.

Town Hall Commentary

"Can only speak for the 4.0-liter Ranger but in my opinion, it is the better engine if you have a choice. Reasons: 1.) Economy about the same. Just took a trip to southern Colorado, cab loaded with five trees and tools, hauled 1300+ lbs. of water 20 or so miles to my property, worked on the property in four-wheel drive, drove to Nat Forest to hunt grouse using four-wheel drive some of the way, 350 miles total on 18 gallons of gas. I use the cheap regular 85 octane and for me it works well at Colorado's high altitude. Understand though that I changed to 31X10.5X15 tires, which lowered my mpg, due to, I think, the extra work required to move the tires. With the [235/75/R15] tires I was getting 21-23 on the same trip. 2.) Torque curve better. 4.0-liter develops max torque at 2,700 rpm vs. 3,700 rpm for 3.0. Torque 225 ft-lbs. vs. [192 ft-lbs.] for 3.0. 3.) 16,500 miles on my 99 SuperCab, so far engine maintenance free. 4.) 4.0-liter has been around a while, so it is a proven engine. Not sure of the 3.0 history. ... If you can choose and do not mind the extra 600-700 bucks, go with the 4.0." — cpousnr, "Ford Ranger," #500 of 665, Sept. 5, 1999

"I have a 98 XLT super cab with four doors and I had the same problem with a strange thumping feeling or thunking sound when I would start off from a dead stop or while coming to a stop. So under warranty I took it to the dealer and explained the problem, before I even finished he said it's the driveshaft and ordered a new one. From what I could get out of a mechanic, in the Rangers with the extended cab, there is a flexible extension to compensate for the added length of the extended or super cab. [I]t's like a CV joint, and I guess they have had some problems of premature wear with it. I was told I have a newer design and so far no thumping feeling. If you have a '98 or a '99 it should be covered under the basic warranty." — hciaffa, "Ford Ranger II," #11 of 527, Oct. 22, 1999

"I leased a 1999 Ranger in January of 1999. Within that almost one-year span, I have had a number of problems with it. Including the infamous driveline clunk. The driveline has been replaced three times now, and the clunking noise remains. I also have had a problem with the transfer case. It would not shift into 4 Low, no matter what I tried. What would finally work one time, would not work the next. A new transfer case was installed, and so far, no more problems. Next, it was the windshield wipers. They would come on at random times while driving down the road. I could play with the switch enough that it would finally shut off, just to have them come on again 2 seconds later. I have a manual transmission 3.0 V6, every time that I would shift up into third gear, it grinds. This problem got progressively worse, until the dealership had to replace the synchros and bearings. Then, it was the passenger side door sensor. It seems to be delayed a minute or so. The dome light and 'door ajar' light stay on a few minutes after the doors are shut tight. I do not like this truck at all. Is anyone else having these problems? Should I shop around for an import, or should I stick it out with the Ford, and hope things get better? Maybe get a different Ranger? It seems this one was made by a guy on his 14th day after giving a two-week notice..." — aring, "Ford Ranger II," #106 of 527, Dec. 13, 1999

"I drive my '99, 3.0-liter 4x4 mainly as a commuter vehicle, about 45 miles one way to work at about 80-85 miles an hour. It now has about 18,000 miles. I have been using Pennzoil 5/30 and Fram PH3600 filters with change of both oil and filter at 3000-mile intervals. The engine runs great, sounds great and runs better now at 18,000 than it did at around 10,000 miles. I love this truck as it serves my commuting needs and also does great as a hunting/fishing vehicle on the weekends. I am shooting to get 150,000 to 200,000 miles on the engine/drivetrain before getting another one." — brewster3, "Ford Ranger II," #150 of 527, Jan. 16, 2000

"... The stepside does diminish carrying ability. I have however had no problem carrying the yard of rock, dirt, topsoil when needed. The stepside makes the Ranger look great, in my opinion of course. I have always liked stepsides. I have P265/75/R16 8-ply all-terrains on it along with some nerf bars, and a rock guard. I have a spray-in liner also. I get compliments on the truck quite often when out and about. And, you don't see very many stepsides around either! I guess I wanted to stand out a bit. The stepside bed has in no way hampered my off-road outings or towing ability, either." — vince8, "Ford Ranger II," #158 of 527, Jan. 17, 2000

"I can't help but wonder if I had ordered my 1998 Ranger 4X4 (4.0 - five-speed auto) with a manual transmission if I would not have been happier. Personally, [I think] the 4.0-liter is underpowered. I guess the 3.0-liter is more underpowered — but it at least gets good gas mileage. I would consider the manual transmission on either of these trucks - you can learn the power band and learn how to grab it. By the way - I may never own another six-cylinder engine. I had the old inline six in a Bronco and I had the 4.0 in the Ranger - was never happy with either. All of the Ford V8's that I have owned — and it is a few — have been so much better. — ckitchens, "Ford Ranger II," #159 of 527, Jan. 17, 2000

Summing Up:

Current Market Value: $17,045*
Depreciation: $6546 (or 28% of the original MSRP)

Final Odometer Reading: 30,955
Best Fuel Economy: 23.7 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 9.4 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 15.9 mpg
Total Body Repair Costs: $571.91
Total Routine Maintenance Costs: $352.47**
Additional Maintenance Costs: $432.95 (including $50 for a locksmith)

Warranty Repairs: 5
Non-Warranty Repairs: 2
Scheduled Dealer Visits: 5 (we missed the 20,000-mile service)
Unscheduled Dealer Visits: 4
Days Out of Service: 7 (stranded at a dealer for a week)
Breakdowns Stranding Driver: 0

Recalls:

1 — Potentially defective cruise control cable that could have interfered with the speed control servo pulley and thus not allowed the throttle to return to idle when a driver disengaged cruise control. A stuck throttle, of course, could result in a collision.

Problem History: