Jeep vs. Ford Ranger - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > General > General Discussion > Jeep vs. Ford Ranger

GEARSHADE Pocket Tops in stock and available at ROCKRIDGE Engo winches available at www.rockridge4wd.com! Free shippFS: 2007-2013 Jeep Wrangler "HALO" Angel Eye Kit

Reply
Unread 05-10-2005, 04:19 PM   #1
Jeepin_XJ_101
Registered User
1992 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: , Colorado
Posts: 866
Jeep vs. Ford Ranger

My brother and I have repeated conflicts over which is the most capable vehicle. Ford Ranger or my Jeep Cherokee. I defend Jeeps in general (CJ, YJ, TJ, XJ, etc...) and I say that they are a lot more capable off road than his Ford Ranger ever will be. A properly built Jeep vs. a properly built Ranger... I'd go with the Jeep. He makes the defense that there is always something wrong with my 89' XJ (16 years old) and he performed just as well up at our elk hunting territory (with his Stock 04' Ranger) which is mild mudding (stock trucks can make it through as long as they have 4wd, but will bottom out without a lift, at least until we hit our spot. After that it gets major and we havent taken our vehicles back there yet. My dad takes his side because he has a 78' F150 and a 94' F150. Dont get me wrong, I love superduties F250-F350 TurboDiesel but its the Ranger I am iffy about. Ok enough blabbering, Im looking for some solid basis of why Jeeps are better than Rangers, because he says he might believe me if he saw some proof, and what better proof than from the guys that know jeep best. I will have his Ranger beat down in no time Thanks in advance...

__________________
"When in doubt... Floor it"
1989 XJ 4.0L I6 - AX-15 Swap - NP231 - 4" RC - 33x13.50 MT Claws
*SOLD*

2005 WK 4.7L 3.5" RK, 255/75R17 on Rubi Wheels
1992 YJ 4.0L 5" ProComp on 35x12.50 Trxus MT
Jeepin_XJ_101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 04:22 PM   #2
JoeHo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 293
I'd say just take them both back into the serious stuff... whoever gets stuck first loses.
__________________
AIM: xMoNsTeRLoBsTeRx

2001 XJ - commuter for a while
JoeHo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 04:38 PM   #3
sjlplat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,226
IFS vs. solid front axle? I don't think there should be any question as to which is more capable.
sjlplat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 04:40 PM   #4
JungleLarry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjlplat
IFS vs. solid front axle? I don't think there should be any question as to which is more capable.
It depends on if you're talking about jumping dunes or crawling over boulders. There are other forums of off-roading out there besides rock crawling, you know...
__________________
[size=5]Look at my monkey.[/size]
JungleLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 05:01 PM   #5
Lud04X
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 799
I had an '88 Ext Cab 4x4 Ford Ranger with the 2.9L V6 in high school. I bought it with about 100,000 miles on it and put an additional 60,000 on it only having to get brakes for it and regular maintenance in five years. I took that thing everywhere I wanted to go and it never broke down. I sold it in 2001 and bought an '01 Ranger XLT Ext Cab 2wd..needless to say I was disappointed and had all sorts of things go wrong with it...and it was only 2WD.

Bought a YJ in '03 with 140,000 miles on it and hardly ever drove the Ranger since. Sold the YJ in '04 for what I paid for it , sold the '01 Ford Ranger for a loss and bought an '04 TJ Wrangler X and will never go back.

The first Ranger I had was great but I don't think the new ones are all that capable compared to the Wranglers.

A question...did the older Rangers have solid axles??? I never thought about that.
__________________
Khaki 2004 Wrangler X
OME HD Kit,JKS BMML,1.25 JKS BL, adj. control arms
RE Generation II Quick Discos
35x12.5x15 Goodyear MTR's w/ Kevlar, MT Classic II's
D44 rear axle w/ ARB, alloy shafts, 4.56 gears
Dana 30 with ARB, 4.56 gears, alloy shafts and ujoints
Lud04X is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 05:11 PM   #6
sjlplat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by JungleLarry
It depends on if you're talking about jumping dunes or crawling over boulders. There are other forums of off-roading out there besides rock crawling, you know...
Prerunners are 2wd. We're talking about 4x4's here.
sjlplat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 05:30 PM   #7
Tri_X_Troll
Registered User
1986 MJ Comanche 
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lebanon, Ohio
Posts: 569
that ranger will out tow any jeep. nuff said. at least mine did. it had the 8.8 with 4.11 gears and could white smoke them all day too.
__________________
Ryan- "I went from one crap-tastic drive train to another. At least the engine is the weak link this time"
Tri_X_Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 05:44 PM   #8
sjlplat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri_X_Troll
that ranger will out tow any jeep. nuff said. at least mine did. it had the 8.8 with 4.11 gears and could white smoke them all day too.
Bet a Ranger won't out-tow a Wagoneer or a J-10. There's no replacement for displacement.

Nevertheless, the question is: Will a Ranger outperform a Jeep on a typical 4wd trail. My answer is: No way, no how. How do I know? Because I wheel with several guys in Rangers on the trail. They have never been able to complete the obstacles that Jeeps are tackling.

Solid axles get better traction, and they're more durable than IFS.
sjlplat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 05:48 PM   #9
jeverett
Member
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 125
the ranger does have a much better axle out back, it is not to big, decent after market, I would say it would be a close compititon honestly. I am not a huge ford fan, but my friend can take his tuck anywhere. Hell he takes it out and beats it up more on the trails than he does his new toy (rubicon unlimited), although afte teh upgrades he did in teh last few weeks that he just sent me pic of today that may change. Hmm, I will ask him what he thinks is the better trail rig and let you all know.
__________________
04 TJ sport 4.0 automatic. Stock, for now.
jeverett is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 05:50 PM   #10
Jermy01
Registered User
1978 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, ca
Posts: 205
ask him how many rangers have done the rubicon. lol. it depends, all trucks are good for somthing, some are better than others at specific things, just depends what your into. jeeps seem to do well all around. great in the rocks, great in mud, can go just about any where. even if you wanted to make a pre runner, im sure you could with a scrambler with enough money. people prefer different trucks, who cares and just have fun.
__________________
-Jeremy

1978 CJ7, front and rear locker, 31'' BFG mud Terrain, superior axles. RE 2.5" lift. 304 V8. Warn M8000.
Jermy01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 06:12 PM   #11
Lurch77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oconto, WI
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri_X_Troll
that ranger will out tow any jeep. nuff said. at least mine did. it had the 8.8 with 4.11 gears and could white smoke them all day too.
The '05 Ranger is rated at 5980 pounds max, when properly equipped. The 2005 Grand Cherokee has a max of 7200 pounds. So there goes that "out tow any Jeep" nonsense.
__________________
2001 WJ Laredo
4.0L, Quadra-Trac II
Lurch77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 06:51 PM   #12
982doorxj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boothbay, Maine
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjlplat
Bet a Ranger won't out-tow a Wagoneer or a J-10. There's no replacement for displacement.
I'm guessing that regardless of displacement, a late 80's 360 would be putting out power in the same ballpark as the newer Ranger v6 motors. I don't have any numbers because I'm too lazy to go find then, but technology does great things in 20 something years....
__________________
[COLOR="Red"]
===============*SOLD*===================[/COLOR]
98 2-door Base model XJ 4.0 | AW4 | NP231| 31x10.5 Cooper Discoverer STT's on 15x8 Cragar Black Soft 8's
Daystar Spacer and Shackle Lift | Quadratec HD Leafs |Surco Roof Rack w/ spare mount
[COLOR="Red"]
===============*SOLD*===================[/COLOR]
982doorxj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 07:06 PM   #13
90lerado
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manchester, nh
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjlplat
Bet a Ranger won't out-tow a Wagoneer or a J-10. There's no replacement for displacement.

.
what about the late 70's early 80's f250 rangers? those either had the 302 orsome even came with the 460's. heres a link http://www.usedfordautoparts.com/new...405-01977.html
__________________
"Few men are killed by the bayonet, many are scared by it. Bayonets should be fixed when the fire fight starts"
- General George Patton Jr, "War as I knew it" 1947

Wife's/my vehicle: 06 Pontiac vibe awd
Hopefully a jeep sometime in the future
90lerado is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 07:07 PM   #14
sjlplat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by 982doorxj
I'm guessing that regardless of displacement, a late 80's 360 would be putting out power in the same ballpark as the newer Ranger v6 motors. I don't have any numbers because I'm too lazy to go find then, but technology does great things in 20 something years....
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. When it comes to towing, torque is what you want. 254lb/ft @ 3700RPM in the 2005 Ford 4.0L, as compared to 295lb/ft @ 2900RPM in a 1973 AMC 360. I'd go for the 360.

2005 Ford 4.0L SOHC
Displacement 4.0L (245 CID)
Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 210@5,100
Torque (lb.-ft.@rpm) 254@3,700
Compression ratio 9.7:1
Bore x stroke (in.) 3.95 x 3.32
Main bearings 4
Valve lifters Hydraulic lash adjuster with roller follower
Fuel delivery Sequential multi-port electronic fuel injection

--

1973 AMC 360
Bore x Stroke 4.08" x 3.44"
Displacement 360(5.89L)
Compression Ratio 8.5:1
Horsepower (net) 195@4400
Torque (net) 295@2900
Main Bearings 5
Valve Configuration OHV
Fuel 4bbl

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90lerado
what about the late 70's early 80's f250 rangers? those either had the 302 orsome even came with the 460's. heres a link http://www.usedfordautoparts.com/new...405-01977.html
That's an F250. Frankly, I'd still take a Wagoneer or a J-10 with a 360 over an F250 with a 302. Like I said...There's no replacement for displacement.
sjlplat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2005, 07:12 PM   #15
Tri_X_Troll
Registered User
1986 MJ Comanche 
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lebanon, Ohio
Posts: 569
well my TJ's 2.5 liter inline four will kick a CJ-2a's inline four's *** any day
__________________
Ryan- "I went from one crap-tastic drive train to another. At least the engine is the weak link this time"
Tri_X_Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Suggested Threads





Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.