[lt1silverhawk]

Originally Posted by matt167

I had 3 of them. 4cyl was for sure a bit doggy, but 27 MPG out of a truck was sure nice.. Put a 4.0L behind them and there pretty decent, but then again, it's almost 10 MPG less, but even my '92 with the 2.9L was economical and had good performance, and all had great handling

What years did you own? It seems the 90's models had a pretty solid rep.

Originally Posted by Custom10

Traded it in on my frontier 4 door, completely in a different league, that is one nice "little" truck, no complaints other than Nissan service,,,puke

Nissan customer service is horrible. I had to fight 'em for a while before they replaced a faulty transmission in a brand new Sentra, but that's for another thread.

[Arrowhead]

A moment of silence for the Ranger............

I owned 4 of them from '85 - '98 and they all treated me very well. Maybe with the higher MPG from the F-150 Ecoboost, there's no justification for a smaller truck.

[matt167]

Originally Posted by lt1silverhawk

What years did you own? It seems the 90's models had a pretty solid rep.

1992 longbed. 2.9 V6 5spd 4x4 w/ 200k miles
1998 Short bed std cab, 2.5/5sp 2wd w/ 130k miles
1998 Extended cab 4.0L OHV, 5R55E, 150k miles

'98- 2011 are essentially the same except the 2.3 duratech came in 2001 and the 4.0L SOHC came in 2001-2002 in the Rangers ( explorers got it in '98 ). front ends and tailgates changed, and the earlier seats were a bit more comfy but pretty much, unchanged.. some parts interchange 1983-2011 also, like leaf springs

[lt1silverhawk]

Apparently today is the last day of production for the current Ranger.

"What the end of the Ford Ranger says about working in America"