2010 FORD Ranger

Nice truck until March 31, 2012 when it burned completely up

Performance: 4 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 4 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 4 Reliability: 4 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 4

I purchased my 2010 Ford Ranger Super Cap in Mar 2010 and had 18K miles. It was a very nice truck with no problems. This past Saturday (March 31, 2012), while This is a 5 speed automatic. On 3/31/12, while driving, it caught fire and burned up totally. We got out of it before it was engulfed and we did not get hurt. The truck is a total loss. We smelled a burnt-match-like smell and stopped to investigate. The truck was already on fire when we got out and we were not able to lift the hood. There was no warning that something was wrong. . . no light lit up to indicate a problem. I'm curious if there are others who have experienced this as well.

Better than my S10

Performance: 3 Comfort: 3 Fuel Economy: 5 Fun To Drive: 4 Interior Design: 2 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 3 Performance Rating: 3 Interior Rating: 2 Reliability Rating: 5

Love the stiff suspension and handling. I love driving this little truck lots of fun in the dessert.

2010 Ranger Reg Cab XLT

Performance: 4 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 5 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 4 Reliability: 4 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 4

Reliability, I'm sure,will be well above average. MANY Rangers on the streets, roads and freeways of Oahu (Hawaii) of all vintages. I've never heard of anyone having a bad Ford Ranger, hence one of the decisions towards my purchase. That, and the value of the features offered on the Ranger, it's looks (I don't care if it hasn't changed much in 12 years!) and the fact that it's an 'evergreen' truck with a good reputation for economy and reliability were factors in selecting this truck over its competition. I am averaging 24-25mpg in mixed city/highway driving. I have the 5A. Great truck which will undoubtedly please me. Used for play, commute and work.

Better Than Expected

Performance: 4 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 5

Needed a smaller truck for use on homestead. We have an Expedition but it is not ideal for work intended. Power from the 4.0 L is good. Averaged 22 mpg on 800 mile trip at 75 mph. Mixed driving around area and average around 18 mpg.still a lot better than the Expedition. In the past I have had full size diesels, V-8s and one B-2000 Mazda (208,000 miles). This truck performs as well and gets the job required done with no problems.

Not as bad as they say!

Performance: 3 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 3 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 3 Build Quality: 4 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 3 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 5

I wanted a small 4 cyl truck with auto transmission. I bought on price and features, 4 wheel disc brakes, 5 speed auto, air, tow package, abs, traction and stability control all standard on my Ranger. On Tacoma air was extra and only drum rear brakes, Colorado also rear drum brakes. So far I've clocked 7,000 miles, average gas mileage is 23 mpg since new. Best gas mileage was 29 mpg on extended trip on the freeway. Handling feels very secure and traction control in the snow/ice really worked well-that was my main concern with a light weight rear drive truck. I don't carry very heavy loads but middling load doesn't seem to bother ride/handling acceleration.(although the preselect header says 5M I have 5A..

Poor Gas Mileage

Performance: 4 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 1 Fun To Drive: 4 Interior Design: 5 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 5 Reliability Rating: 5

Since buying the truck, I have recorded every gas purchase into an excel spreadsheet. Recording price per gallon, gallons purchased, cost, date of transaction, transaction number, etc. Then calcing mileage of last tank of gas & over all mileage. My overall mileage is very slightly over 16 MPG. I do not drive the vehicle hard and my driving is a mix of highway & city. When I have driven a full tank of almost all highway I only got 15.871 MPG.

Not bad for an old body!

Performance: 4 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 5 Fun To Drive: 4 Interior Design: 5 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 5 Reliability Rating: 5

In the past 5 years I have owned 3 trucks, a Honda Ridgeline, a Nissan Frontier and the new Ford Ranger. The Ridgeline and the Frontiers were both 6 cyl and gas guzzlers. I don't tow, so I wanted better mileage and a 4 cyl was the one I needed. I settled for the Ranger because I can get it pretty much with everything I want on the XLT model. It is a great small/compact truck and I like this. Mileage is very good and the 4 cyl has enough power for my needs. I was getting 14 MPG's on the Ridgeline and 15 MPG on the Frontier. I get way over 24 in the city with the Ranger and so far almost 30 on the highway. Nice truck for the price.

Old sheetmetal, new tech..Love it

Performance: 4 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 5 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 4 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 5

Only had the truck for 2 weeks, so can't comment on reliability. Had an 05 Colorado CC Z71 2WD(poor mileage, jolting ride) an 08 Frontier V6 ext cab(very poor mileage). Got the XLT for the options and the 2.3/5M for mileage. Am very pleased with the ride(much better than Colorado/not quite as good as Frontier)Fit and finish are as good as previous trucks. Brakes(4 wheel disc) are on par with others. Power and acceleration are down from others, but is acceptable.The mileage is light years ahead of others, about 10 MPG better than both previous city and highway. I only tow light loads(flat boat/utility tlr), eng. easily handles Based on build quality, ride, mileage. I highly recommend

Completely Satisfied

Performance: 5 Comfort: 5 Fuel Economy: 5 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 5 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 5 Performance Rating: 5 Interior Rating: 5 Reliability Rating: 5

Bought this truck to replace a 4 door with a 3.0 V6. I thought I would be sacrificing performance for gas mileage, but I was wrong. The taller gearing takes a little getting used to but the performance is as good or better than the 3.0 V6, and the gas mileage is much better. I can get 27 on the hi-way and 22 to 24 around town. The 16 valve engine likes to rev, and feels very snappy in town, while handling the hills quite well. I had no trouble at all pulling the Shasta/Siskiou grade on I-5 in 5th gear. I also had a 91 with the old 2.3 liter, and I think this compares quite well with that truck. The transmission and overall fit and finish is better on this one too. I am quite pleased.

Exactly what I wanted.

Performance: 2 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 5 Fun To Drive: 3 Interior Design: 3 Exterior Design: 3 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 2 Interior Rating: 3 Reliability Rating: 5

I wanted an inexpensive truck with the best mileage and bought it. Rowing gears for the 3 mpg bonus. Bought for commuting and occasional loads, and it is perfect. Fit and finish is very good. Ride a little too soft in the front, not enough valving in the shocks. Styling is dated, but I knew what I was buying. With the 4.10 gears, if this truck had a 6 speed, it could have been a cult classic. The NVH,(noise, vibration, harshness)of the motor could be better, but the 2.3 aluminum block Duratec design is 9 years old and not annoying. Shifting and clutching is nice; clutch takeup is light and intuitive, the shifter is precise, but this isn't a sports car.

First new car, LOVE IT

Performance: 5 Comfort: 5 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 5 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 5 Performance Rating: 5 Interior Rating: 5 Reliability Rating: 5

I have a 1987 Jeep Cherokee which I cherish, and only having 68,800 miles it's my baby. When I turned 18 I wanted a second vehicle because my Jeep had been wrecked and was in the shop getting repairs and some custom work done. I stumbled upon my beautiful Dark Shadow Metallic Ranger. I love it and drive it everyday, leaving my Jeep as my weekend car. I've had it almost three months and its only up to 1776 miles. LOVE IT and the gas is better than my jeep for being a 4x4 V6. Being 4'11" it is the perfect size for me.

Fuel economy and safety

Performance: 3 Comfort: 3 Fuel Economy: 1 Fun To Drive: 2 Interior Design: 3 Exterior Design: 3 Build Quality: 3 Reliability: 3 Comfort Rating: 3 Performance Rating: 3 Interior Rating: 3 Reliability Rating: 3

I recently purchased a 2010 Ford Ranger Sport, 6cyl, auto. Use it for mostly in town driving. Fuel consumption is 20 L per 100 km which equates to less than 14 mpg (CDN gallon). The truck revs at over a 1000 rpm until it has reached max temp. This means on the flat stretch it will do over 20 kph without putting your foot on the accelerator. Extremely hard on the brakes when going through parking lots and down any sort of an incline. I am usually at my destination before the truck has completely warmed up. I brought the matter to Ford's attention but they state it is the way these Rangers are built. Personally I find it annoying and dangerous.

Follow up of initial review

Performance: 5 Comfort: 5 Fuel Economy: 2 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 5 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 3 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 5 Performance Rating: 5 Interior Rating: 5 Reliability Rating: 5

I wrote the review titled by "John" 3rd Ford Ranger. At this point having owned the truck for about 6 months I can give a little better review. The brakes, they have squealed since day one. Fuel economy on this truck is absolutly terrible. The fit and finish of the truck leave a lot to be desired if one cares a lot about such things. For instance my bed is flush on one side when compared to the cab, but protrudes about 3/4" on the other side of the cab. The tailgate is flush with the bed rail on one side, but sits about 1/4" lower then the rail on the other side. Minor things, but obvious if you're looking, but it still gets the job done and is a dependable truck

X Mazda owner followup

Performance: 3 Comfort: 3 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 3 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 3 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 3 Performance Rating: 3 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 5

Having taken the Ranger on several trips I questioned the horsepower ratings made by ford. I took it to a dyno shop here in Sacramento and the truck produced 124 peak horsepower. This is about right counting drive train power lose. Ford claims 156 so at 20% drive train lose, this number, 124, is right on. Here is what I don't understand. The Ranger won't pull the same hills as the 1991 Mazda truck did. The Mazda got 27.5 miles per gallon. The ford Ranger gets 27.5 miles per gallon. So where is the progress? Ford has had 19 years to get the same gas mileage? Ford also chose to make the bed shorter, presumably to save money. I purchased the ford bedliner, now the bed cannot hold six feet.

B2200 Vs Ranger

Performance: 3 Comfort: 3 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 3 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 3 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 3 Performance Rating: 3 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 5

I drove a 1991 Mazda B2200 for 238,000 miles. I decided to buy a new truck and settled on the Ford, which is supposed to be the same as Mazda. The Mazda had 94 horspower, the Ranger claims 148. On the same trip I have driven a 100 times with the Mazda, the Ranger couldn't pull the same hills without slowing down. It has higher gearing so it can't pull like the Mazda did. On some sections of bad road it handles very badly, kinda like skips. Quality is a bit sloppy. there were burrs on the door handles, on the steering wheel, and down under where you grab the emergency brake lever. The cover on the steering wheel that covers the air bag, has a gap that caught my coat sleeve button, not good.

Like and Old Friend

Performance: 5 Comfort: 5 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 5 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 5 Performance Rating: 5 Interior Rating: 5 Reliability Rating: 5

I just bought my new Ranger, and I must say it is like an old friend all ready. The style is old but classic, and looks like a truck should. I was surprised at the power of the V6 engine, although the fuel mileage is a little disappointing so far. I understand that fuel economy will improve with break in. I hope Ford will keep this truck in its lineup.Its sales are as good as the F150.

Just like old times

Performance: 5 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 4 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 5 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 5

This is my third Ranger. It is just like my last one, however my last one was a 1994 model. Some may think this is a bad thing but I view it differently. I know that this vehicle will be reliable and when used as intended, it is not a disappointment. This truck was designed when trucks were to be used as trucks and not luxury vehicles. It isn't as refined as its competition but it will do a hard days work at a much more reasonable price. It is like driving a truck from the past but sometimes the past isn't so bad.

3rd Ford Ranger

Performance: 4 Comfort: 5 Fuel Economy: 3 Fun To Drive: 5 Interior Design: 5 Exterior Design: 5 Build Quality: 5 Reliability: 5 Comfort Rating: 5 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 5 Reliability Rating: 5

I just purchased the 4x4 XLT extended cab today, so I can't judge longterm on reliability. So far it's great, very comfortable, the 4.0L engine is responsive and powerful for highway driving. I think the ride is good, and the interior although the almost the same as my 98, is practical and easy to use. The styling is nice, and I like the fact that is indeed a true compact pickup. These little trucks are a good value for those not needing a huge rig, and the inconvenience that comes with large trucks, i.e. parking. Yes, this truck hasn't changed a lot in the past decade +, but I think the styling and overall design is fine the way it is, why mess with a good thing?

Ranger in review

Performance: 4 Comfort: 4 Fuel Economy: 4 Fun To Drive: 3 Interior Design: 4 Exterior Design: 4 Build Quality: 2 Reliability: 3 Comfort Rating: 4 Performance Rating: 4 Interior Rating: 4 Reliability Rating: 3

One would think that Ford Motor Co could and would know how to build a good quality Ranger truck by now since they have been building the same one for a number of years now. This truck vibrates (4 cyl). While driving several now, I find only one in five that do not vibrate ( from the engine) You will feel it in steering wheel, while power is engaging, and in the ride itself. I found out now that Ford knows about this and does nothing more than send out a notice to dealers that they have a couple of plates to stable the engine abit to keep it from vibrating as much as it is doing. The poor quality of workmanship of the people working for Ford (USA) and the Ford Motor Company is bad