On a whim, I googled the HP on my current base 94 ford ranger (getting the fit in the summer) and I found that it has 98 horses! I guess I am one of the few people that are going to get an upgrade on hp when transferring to a fit. I thought it was a little amusing and wanted to share.

The Ranger's mpg is 22/28
The future FIT: 30+

 

Haha nice! You actually found a car with less HO then the Fit!

Tyler

 

The 2.3 in the Ranger is anemic. However, they don't have to rev much and have adequate torque. Overall, they do a good job of moving a mass that shouldn't be moved by a 4 cylinder and they last FOREVER!

I had a 2000 Ranger 4.0 4x4 offroad pack supercab. I got such a good deal on it that I bought it figuring I'd make do (was coming from a full size Chevy). I actually really liked that truck and miss it often. Was one of my favorite vehicles of the 13 that I've owned.

 

A Ford lasted forever?

Wow, first time for everything... one in a million. Hmmmm, do you play the lottery much?

My friend had a Ford Ranger, we tried to go 4x4ing when I had my Jeep and he overheated the engine and blew out the clutch.... on the way through a farmers field to the start of the trail.

 

my civic when brand new stock had a horsepower rating like 45-50 so i will get an upgrade as well whenever i get mine haha

 

Anything can break...worst car I owned was a 1980 Honda Prelude. By the time it had 100,000 miles there was nothing left of the original car.

I tried SO hard to break the Ranger, but the 4.0 and 5-speed auto in the newer ones are very durable. With factory 4.10's, skid plates, offroad tires, bilstein shocks, etc. it was a capable offroader. Not to the degree of my budies Jeep Rubicon, but much better than our other friends z71 Chevy.

 

BTW, they use the 2.3 from the Ranger in dirt track cars. They run them near redline for entire seasons without failure.

The 3.0 v6 that's in some of the Rangers is garbage. Lots of head gasket problems.

 

This is the weakest car (hp numbers wise) I've owned. My previous cars were Escort ZX2 (130 hp), Mustang GT (260 hp), Civic EX (127 hp), Civic Si EP3 (160 hp) and Impreza 2.5 RS (160 hp).
I miss the torque on the Mustang (302 ft-lbs)... I don't miss the MPG (17-18). I miss the overall quickness/sportiness of the EP3 Si, but I'm very happy with my Fit.

in regards to the 4-cylinder ford ranger... when my brother was buying his first vehicle, he was looking at the '98 ranger and saw that it had much less power than the 4-cylinder nissan frontier. he still has his good ol' 1998 nissan frontier (only 60,000 miles!). but he's looking to sell it now since he has 2 other cars (RSX-S and '67 Mustang fastback). I was driving the truck inbetween some of my cars after I sold them. Drives like a dream still over 10 years later.
Frontier > Ranger

 

I had a 2002 Saturn SC1 that was only rated for 100 hp (114 lb/ft torque). That was a 1.9L engine.

 

Yeah I have no idea what engine was in my friends truck, but whatever it was I was not impressed. We had to tow that stupid thing like 3 times, he would get stuck or break down out in the middle of nowhere and then call for help.

 

Yeah, I like Fords, GM's, Honda's, Nissan's...you name it.

The domestics get a bad rap (and deserve it) because some of their drivetrains are horrible. The 3.0 in Rangers and Aerostars have major problems including head gasket failure. The 2.9 wasn't much better. If you're buying a Ford (unlike Honda) you have to do your research and choose the right engine option. Not that it should be that way, but it is.

Worst part is most people buy a low end Domestic when they're young, have major problems with it, and then switch to Japanese cars and spend the rest of their lives bad mouthing Domestics. I don't blame them. Had their first car been a Buick with a 3.8 v6 for example...they'd be Domestic for life. The Domestics need to get their act together and produce good inexpensive cars. GM started with the Saturns, but they're not what they once were.

I put over 200,000 miles on two different Taurus SHO's without ever removing a valve cover, replacing a water pump, alternator...nothing!

 

BTW, sorry for the threadjack...you're going to love your Fit. It makes the best use of it's 109 hp that it can. Around town it's almost quick and is a lot of fun to drive!

 

[QUOTE=Sugarphreak;267533]A Ford lasted forever?



Rangers tend to be very reliable because they are rebadged Mazdas.

ed

 

[quote=ezduzit;267577]It's actually the other way around. The Ranger's were around way before Ford purchased the majority share of Mazda. The Mazda b-series trucks are rebadged Fords.

Exception being the manual transmission. Ford has a long history of using Mazda manuals in many of their vehicles. Including Taurus SHO's.

 

funny that you're upgrading in hp numbers.


but then again, dont just look at the numbers cause my previous
06civicEX AT (140hp?) is only about as quick as my 08FitS 5MT.

 

The fit is gonna be awesome! I test drove it twice without the salesman and it sure is, uh, peppy(?)


The ford has 136k right now, was mostly a daily driver for my dad, but hauled a bunch of stuff when I was in the scouts. So far it had zero engine/drivetrain problems and I drove it to it limits quite a bit when I was in high school. The only problems were because I tended to hit things (garage, bushs, jersey barriers, which do not move at all...) I forsee 200k, easy.

 

I think I have a winner - My 1965 Mini had 36 hp from an 850cc engine. Did 0-60 if you were lucky.

 

You definitely have me beat. The least powerful car I ever owned was the 1980 Prelude. It sure seemed faster than this excerpt from Edmunds would lead you to believe...

"The Prelude's sole power plant was a 1,751cc version of the Accord's CVCC SOHC four producing 72 hp at 4,500 rpm and 94 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm, backed by either the Hondamatic two-speed automatic or a five-speed manual transmission. That sounds pathetic today, but back then the Prelude was peppy compared to some of the competition — Motor Trend measured an early Prelude completing the quarter-mile in 18.8 seconds at 70 mph."