Ranger/S10 ?

Godslayer · 09-10-2001, 07:33 PM

The time has come for me to get a decent car now that I have retired fom the "home user support" area of food service. I am getting a loan and don't want to borrow more than 4k. Anyway, I am looking at a 92-96 Ranger or S10. I want to get a truck because I will have a way to haul my bike (93 KLR 650). I will also use it to haul the occaisional motor. I need something that is reliable. Anyone with experience, what motors should I avoid. I would prefer a V6 and manual tranny but nothing is in stone. Thanks guys, this place is like my second home. I miss you guys!

Bob

Mustang: RIP sold to pay for school

1BAD89 · 09-10-2001, 08:59 PM

I have a 89 S-10 and it was very reliable. But I would say stay away from the 2.5-4 cylinder automatics, and the small 2.8 V6. But it sounds like you want a newer style, but my opinion doesn't change. The 4 cylinders are REAL dogs, auto. or standard. I would definately get a V6, the newer s-10 V6's have some pep. The ranger's are also nice.

------------------
1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now.

2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock.

1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

Unit 5302 · 09-11-2001, 01:52 AM

The S-10's rust like nobody's business. They've also got front end problems with the 4x4 versions. Talk about expensive to fix! The parts alone will set you back a grand, and the labor is a total PITA too.

Slide under the S10s and grab the front half shafts on the 4x4 models. Give them a solid tug back and forth. I'm betting you'll feel play. That means a very expensive fix.

I would go with the Ranger, myself. The 4.0L has had some head gasket issues from what I've heard, I would bet the 3.0L, even though it's a little doggy is probably a more reliable mill.

Oh, and just on a side note, Chevy 4wd stinks.

Eubee · 09-11-2001, 06:19 AM

The 60* 2.8L was a big P.O.S. in my opinion (and many other's). Personally, I would take the 4 cyl before the 2.8.

------------------
===Eubee===
2000 GT Black/Black leather, 5spd
Stock ...for now
"If you expect the unexpected, was it really even unexpected in the first place?"

1BAD89 · 09-12-2001, 04:16 PM

S-10's don't necessarily rust like nobody's business. I have an 89 Ex. cab and it has NOT ONE SPOT OF RUST ON IT, it's been driven int he snow, ice, etc...It just depends how they have been taken car of, and treated. Any 10-15 year old ABUSED/NEGLECTED truck will probaly have rust.

***Oh, and just on a side note, Chevy 4wd stinks.

Hopefully your talking about the older S-10's? And not all chevy's....because my dad's 2000 4x4 chevy is awesome...

------------------
1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now.

2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock.

1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

fiveohpatrol · 09-12-2001, 07:31 PM

I have owned 2 92 rangers and neither gave me a single problem, one was a 4.0L and the other was a 3.0L v6, the 4.0 had aLOT more power than the 3.0, both had well over 140K miles and didnt burn a drop of oil
both were 2wd so i cant shed any light on the 4x4 system, but even with 2wd and about 400lbs in the back they handle great in the snow
i take it back, i did have one problem with my most recent 92, theres a bracket on the right front framerail that holds the top of the shock and spring, it had rusted out and cracked, so thats one thing to look for, thats it though
i've heard good things about the S-10's 4.3L v6, but also heard bad things about the 2.5L 4cyl
why dont you buy a 90-92 ranger and drop a blown 347? tell me that wouldnt be fun

------------------
88 Notch, B&M Ripper, 3.73's, Ported E7's, Explorer int. w/ ported lower, pulleys, 1.7RR's, BBK headers, off-road H-pipe, flowmasters, subframes, 65mm TB, March ram air ,MSD coil, U/L control arms, 155lph f/p, Crane Adj.FPR, Nitto drag radials, best 1/4--> 13.76@101.4 on a 2.17 60ft

09-12-2001, 07:32 PM

I just bought a 98 Sonoma 2.2 auto w/70k miles Saturday. It is slow and so far I'm only getting alittle over 18mpg. I put a K@N in it today trying to help the mpg and a tune up is soon to follow. I think it would be ok for hauling a bike, I plan on getting one soon. It's slow but its perfect for getting me back and forth to work, although I wish it had a manual. I couldn't past it up for $4500.

------------------
Rick
My 89lx(updated 7/20/2001)
Sold

Godslayer · 09-12-2001, 07:54 PM

Thanks for all the replies.

I don't really need 4wd so that's not a necessity or even something I'd want. Decent gas mileage would be fine, anything around 20MPG would be fine.

Again, thanks for all the replies. It helps to know a bit about what you will be buying

1BAD89 · 09-13-2001, 07:09 PM

Don't get a 4 cylinder unless less it's a good deal. I had one, and I had to keep it floored 100% of the time to even move, that equaled bad gas mileage.

------------------
1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now.

2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock.

1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

88PONY · 09-14-2001, 10:24 AM

1BAD89...Are you forgetting this is a Ford website? You seem to be favoring the "GAY MAN CRUSIN". I have an 86 F350 (a real truck). Mine has rust, but noting i've seen when I have gone 4wheelin and seen GM trucks. They are crawling with rust. New or old. You can't even say GM trucks are practically built with rocker panels. They only last about 5 years till they disappear I had an 83 Ranger with a p.o.s. 2.8l 4x4 5in lift. I burried that truck in so much mud. You couldn't kill it, and thats what I was tring to do.

Good luck on you decision. As long as is American who cares, and remember....
"FRIEND DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE MOPARS"

Unit 5302 · 09-14-2001, 08:20 PM

Well, I wouldn't really expect a lot of rust on an Oklahoma truck.

Here where roads are salted any S-10 pickup older than 1995 has rusted out at the bottom back of the cab at the rocker panel. I'm talking holes. Big ones. It's not that it's just common, it's a very good rule of thumb. It's also not that people haven't taken care of them, it's that they have shitty drainage, and they were poorly constructed.

As far as the 4wd system, yet it sucks, hard core. I'm sure the 4 wheelin you do in the snow and what not down there in Tulsa is exciting, but the Caravan rentals we had at Fed Ex 1998's put the 4x4 Blazers to shame, and if you think a pickup has SUV traction on the snow and ice, you're nuts. Quite frankly, the 4wd performed marginally better than most FWD cars. Just plain sorry. Drive a Ford truck with 4wd and a Chev with 4wd back to back in the snow here and then give an opinion.

Since Godslayer doesn't require a 4wd, it's a semi mute point anyway.

09-14-2001, 10:35 PM

I love a ford truck but I must say, I'd rather have a Z71. Last year this time I had a 99 extended cab Z71 and that thing was sweet as hell. It would go all over the beach, much easier than that POS Dodge I had before it. I know nothing on the small trucks except that I got a deal on a little 4 banger sonoma. Like I said, I love a ford truck (full size), but I'd put a Z71 up against one any day as far as the beach is concerned. I would think the snow and ice would be much the same as the sand but I really don't have any experience in that area.

1BAD89 · 09-17-2001, 08:03 PM

***1BAD89...Are you forgetting this is a Ford website? You seem to be favoring the "GAY MAN CRUSIN".

Yes I know it's a ford website, hence www.mustangworks.com. But he asked Ranger or S-10? Why didn't you say that comment to him? Anyway, I'm just telling my experience with them, there both nice trucks. Intelligent reply might I add. =P Geez...

Unit-Yeah not to much salt down here, just sometimes in the bad winter, which I bet isn't considered a bad winter to you! =P

------------------
1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now.

2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock.

1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

1BAD89 · 09-17-2001, 08:08 PM

Oh by the way Unit, I don't do much wheeling. But my dad has a 2000 4x4 Chevy, and in the snow and ice it seems awesome to me, maybe because my car would hardly go? lol
2 wheel drive it ran 16.9, 4x4 it went 15.7. I've never really compared 4x4's, but the 4 wheel drive mag's that I subscribe to have only good things to say about them.

Unit 5302 · 09-17-2001, 10:04 PM

I have a copy of one of the latest issues of Motor Trend where they did some off roading through death valley. The Explorer was unimpressive in the sand there, seems as though it was a little underpowered compared to some of the other vehicles though. No ranger or S10 in the comparison that I can recall.

09-10-2001, 07:33 PM	#1
Godslayer Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Largo, FL USA Posts: 274	Ranger/S10 ? The time has come for me to get a decent car now that I have retired fom the "home user support" area of food service. I am getting a loan and don't want to borrow more than 4k. Anyway, I am looking at a 92-96 Ranger or S10. I want to get a truck because I will have a way to haul my bike (93 KLR 650). I will also use it to haul the occaisional motor. I need something that is reliable. Anyone with experience, what motors should I avoid. I would prefer a V6 and manual tranny but nothing is in stone. Thanks guys, this place is like my second home. I miss you guys! Bob Mustang: RIP sold to pay for school

09-10-2001, 08:59 PM	#2
1BAD89 Tubbed and Juiced Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Posts: 1,861	I have a 89 S-10 and it was very reliable. But I would say stay away from the 2.5-4 cylinder automatics, and the small 2.8 V6. But it sounds like you want a newer style, but my opinion doesn't change. The 4 cylinders are REAL dogs, auto. or standard. I would definately get a V6, the newer s-10 V6's have some pep. The ranger's are also nice. ------------------ 1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now. 2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock. 1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

09-11-2001, 01:52 AM	#3
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	The S-10's rust like nobody's business. They've also got front end problems with the 4x4 versions. Talk about expensive to fix! The parts alone will set you back a grand, and the labor is a total PITA too. Slide under the S10s and grab the front half shafts on the 4x4 models. Give them a solid tug back and forth. I'm betting you'll feel play. That means a very expensive fix. I would go with the Ranger, myself. The 4.0L has had some head gasket issues from what I've heard, I would bet the 3.0L, even though it's a little doggy is probably a more reliable mill. Oh, and just on a side note, Chevy 4wd stinks.

09-11-2001, 06:19 AM	#4
Eubee Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: McGuire AFB, NJ 08641 Posts: 7	The 60* 2.8L was a big P.O.S. in my opinion (and many other's). Personally, I would take the 4 cyl before the 2.8. ------------------ ===Eubee=== 2000 GT Black/Black leather, 5spd Stock ...for now "If you expect the unexpected, was it really even unexpected in the first place?"

09-12-2001, 04:16 PM	#5
1BAD89 Tubbed and Juiced Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Posts: 1,861	S-10's don't necessarily rust like nobody's business. I have an 89 Ex. cab and it has NOT ONE SPOT OF RUST ON IT, it's been driven int he snow, ice, etc...It just depends how they have been taken car of, and treated. Any 10-15 year old ABUSED/NEGLECTED truck will probaly have rust. ***Oh, and just on a side note, Chevy 4wd stinks. Hopefully your talking about the older S-10's? And not all chevy's....because my dad's 2000 4x4 chevy is awesome... ------------------ 1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now. 2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock. 1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

09-12-2001, 07:31 PM	#6
fiveohpatrol I'd rather be basketweaving Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,551	I have owned 2 92 rangers and neither gave me a single problem, one was a 4.0L and the other was a 3.0L v6, the 4.0 had aLOT more power than the 3.0, both had well over 140K miles and didnt burn a drop of oil both were 2wd so i cant shed any light on the 4x4 system, but even with 2wd and about 400lbs in the back they handle great in the snow i take it back, i did have one problem with my most recent 92, theres a bracket on the right front framerail that holds the top of the shock and spring, it had rusted out and cracked, so thats one thing to look for, thats it though i've heard good things about the S-10's 4.3L v6, but also heard bad things about the 2.5L 4cyl why dont you buy a 90-92 ranger and drop a blown 347? tell me that wouldnt be fun ------------------ 88 Notch, B&M Ripper, 3.73's, Ported E7's, Explorer int. w/ ported lower, pulleys, 1.7RR's, BBK headers, off-road H-pipe, flowmasters, subframes, 65mm TB, March ram air ,MSD coil, U/L control arms, 155lph f/p, Crane Adj.FPR, Nitto drag radials, best 1/4--> 13.76@101.4 on a 2.17 60ft

09-12-2001, 07:32 PM	#7
rbatson Guest Posts: n/a	I just bought a 98 Sonoma 2.2 auto w/70k miles Saturday. It is slow and so far I'm only getting alittle over 18mpg. I put a K@N in it today trying to help the mpg and a tune up is soon to follow. I think it would be ok for hauling a bike, I plan on getting one soon. It's slow but its perfect for getting me back and forth to work, although I wish it had a manual. I couldn't past it up for $4500. ------------------ Rick My 89lx(updated 7/20/2001) Sold

09-12-2001, 07:54 PM	#8
Godslayer Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Largo, FL USA Posts: 274	Thanks for all the replies. I don't really need 4wd so that's not a necessity or even something I'd want. Decent gas mileage would be fine, anything around 20MPG would be fine. Again, thanks for all the replies. It helps to know a bit about what you will be buying

09-13-2001, 07:09 PM	#9
1BAD89 Tubbed and Juiced Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Posts: 1,861	Don't get a 4 cylinder unless less it's a good deal. I had one, and I had to keep it floored 100% of the time to even move, that equaled bad gas mileage. ------------------ 1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now. 2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock. 1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

09-14-2001, 10:24 AM	#10
88PONY Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: INDIO CA USA Posts: 141	1BAD89...Are you forgetting this is a Ford website? You seem to be favoring the "GAY MAN CRUSIN". I have an 86 F350 (a real truck). Mine has rust, but noting i've seen when I have gone 4wheelin and seen GM trucks. They are crawling with rust. New or old. You can't even say GM trucks are practically built with rocker panels. They only last about 5 years till they disappear I had an 83 Ranger with a p.o.s. 2.8l 4x4 5in lift. I burried that truck in so much mud. You couldn't kill it, and thats what I was tring to do. Good luck on you decision. As long as is American who cares, and remember.... "FRIEND DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE MOPARS"

09-14-2001, 08:20 PM	#11
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Well, I wouldn't really expect a lot of rust on an Oklahoma truck. Here where roads are salted any S-10 pickup older than 1995 has rusted out at the bottom back of the cab at the rocker panel. I'm talking holes. Big ones. It's not that it's just common, it's a very good rule of thumb. It's also not that people haven't taken care of them, it's that they have shitty drainage, and they were poorly constructed. As far as the 4wd system, yet it sucks, hard core. I'm sure the 4 wheelin you do in the snow and what not down there in Tulsa is exciting, but the Caravan rentals we had at Fed Ex 1998's put the 4x4 Blazers to shame, and if you think a pickup has SUV traction on the snow and ice, you're nuts. Quite frankly, the 4wd performed marginally better than most FWD cars. Just plain sorry. Drive a Ford truck with 4wd and a Chev with 4wd back to back in the snow here and then give an opinion. Since Godslayer doesn't require a 4wd, it's a semi mute point anyway.

09-14-2001, 10:35 PM	#12
rbatson Guest Posts: n/a	I love a ford truck but I must say, I'd rather have a Z71. Last year this time I had a 99 extended cab Z71 and that thing was sweet as hell. It would go all over the beach, much easier than that POS Dodge I had before it. I know nothing on the small trucks except that I got a deal on a little 4 banger sonoma. Like I said, I love a ford truck (full size), but I'd put a Z71 up against one any day as far as the beach is concerned. I would think the snow and ice would be much the same as the sand but I really don't have any experience in that area.

09-17-2001, 08:03 PM	#13
1BAD89 Tubbed and Juiced Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Posts: 1,861	***1BAD89...Are you forgetting this is a Ford website? You seem to be favoring the "GAY MAN CRUSIN". Yes I know it's a ford website, hence www.mustangworks.com. But he asked Ranger or S-10? Why didn't you say that comment to him? Anyway, I'm just telling my experience with them, there both nice trucks. Intelligent reply might I add. =P Geez... Unit-Yeah not to much salt down here, just sometimes in the bad winter, which I bet isn't considered a bad winter to you! =P ------------------ 1989 GT, 3:55's, full exhaust, 4 in. hood, Pro 5.0, Have many other parts 4 sale. All parts for sale now. 2000 Camaro SS-A4, 13.7's bone stock. 1989 Chevy S-10, EX. Cab-383(500+hp on motor), trick flow heads, trick flow pistons, etc... autometer phantom gauges, "built" 700R4, roll cage, lexan back window, corbeau seats, R.H.S. 5 harnesses, Fuel cell, convo pro wheels, 15x14's with 29x18.5 M/T'S on back, 15x4's on front, nitrous, and so much more!

09-17-2001, 08:08 PM	#14
1BAD89 Tubbed and Juiced Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma Posts: 1,861	Oh by the way Unit, I don't do much wheeling. But my dad has a 2000 4x4 Chevy, and in the snow and ice it seems awesome to me, maybe because my car would hardly go? lol 2 wheel drive it ran 16.9, 4x4 it went 15.7. I've never really compared 4x4's, but the 4 wheel drive mag's that I subscribe to have only good things to say about them.

09-17-2001, 10:04 PM	#15
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I have a copy of one of the latest issues of Motor Trend where they did some off roading through death valley. The Explorer was unimpressive in the sand there, seems as though it was a little underpowered compared to some of the other vehicles though. No ranger or S10 in the comparison that I can recall.