Which is better - 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder

[ReddishPinko]

I'm buying a Ford Ranger. What I'm mainly concerned with is mechanical longevity moreso than power. I tend to drive whatever vehicle I have into the junkyard.

[HuckleB]

1. What are the specifics on the engines?

Who actually makes each engine?

[ReddishPinko]

2. Ford makes the engine (I presume)

I've not seen that listed anywhere.

[HuckleB]

4. You can't assume that, anymore.

One could be manufactured by Mazda, the other by Ford, or by someone else. It could make a difference in the overall quality. The general rule has always been more cylinders, more longevity. But that's not always the case anymore. Also, many four bangers have plenty of power these days. So its not a cut and dried question.

[dbt]

3. For reserve power when you need it, go for the six-cylinder

There will come that chilling moment when you miscalculate your velocity on the on-ramp and those two extra pistons will give you the edge you need to get into the traffic without getting a Suburban stuck up your tailpipe.

And over the life of the vehicle, I believe the six-cylinder will end up working less hard than the four-cylinder.

:hi:
dbt

[ReddishPinko]

5. Thanks

The only drawback I could see to having a V6 is more moving parts=more problems. Is that valid?

[HuckleB]

7. Not necessarily.

More parts doesn't necessarily equal more problems, but gas mileage is a drawback, too. Over the life a vehicle that you plan to keep forever, that can run into the thousands in terms of vehicle cost. For my money, I'd want to know the engine specifics, who makes it, what's its reputation, etc... For example, the six could be a piece of crap that Ford is limping along with until it can upgrade to something better, while the four might be along the lines of many a Toyota and Honda four, which can easily net you two to four hundred thousand miles. Or vice versa.

[ReddishPinko]

19. I'm getting the specs

From what I've read so far, the 4.0L engine was best in class in 2001 but can't find any info on the 3.0L.

[HuckleB]

24. Do you have a trusted mechanic or two?

You can get some good advice on engines, if you do. They can tell you what engines tend to cost more for service and which ones need more service.

[OldSoldier]

41. It's the same 3-liter engine Ford's used basically forever

There's nothing wrong with it.

[xJlM]

43. 3.0 liter is not that good

I've never owned one, but I've heard some poor stories about them.

I've got a 4.0 liter V6 in my Ranger (1994) that has 170,000 miles on it. Doesn't smoke, no real engine noise, and I've got all the power I need. Not nearly as much as a V8, but enough to pass or get on the freeway without much worry. And if I keep it tuned to the max, I average about 24mpg (if I keep my foot out of it).

[ArkDem]

44. No. The 4 banger works much harder

to deliver less power.

[Tikki]

6. Really depends on....

..how you 'might' use your Ranger. Simple commute transportation? Occasional trips to the hardware store? Even on vacation trips... The 4 cylinder DOES get better gas milage. Our four year old Ranger XLT is purring along, just fine. (Actually has great 'get up and go')...

Towing anything, EVER? We had to replace our 10 year old Ford F-150 ... that was 'totaled' in an accident...
We tow a tent trailer ....So we replaced our loss with a new Ranger 'Edge' 6 cylinder...so far so good, but I appreciate the 4cylinder...at the gas pump.



The Tikkis

[ReddishPinko]

8. Thanks-mainly commuting

I'm looking at 2 2001 'Edge' 3.0L V6 with around 37K on them. Whatever I get is going to have to last me at least 4 years. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but every V6 or V4 I've had caused me nothing but problems. Even new, nothing but headaches.
I hate cars. Such a waste of money and resources. But then horses aren't cheap either.

[tsipple]

13. Commuting in a Truck?

Are you involved in the building trades?

Serious question. I've found trucks to be awful commuter vehicles unless I've actually got to carry something. Even then, if it's groceries or other household things, I'd go with something like the Toyota Matrix. (That car has GOBS of space for carrying stuff. My Maine farmer folks have an old Ford pick-up and a new Toyota Matrix, and they just love it. Good gas mileage, incredible reliability, and tons of space.)

[ReddishPinko]

16. I work a ranch PT

So I have to carry fence posts, wire, hay, etc. Why are they bad commuter vehicles though? Noisy?

[tsipple]

18. Oh, All the Reasons You'd Expect

Noisy, poor ride, hard to park, problems with people taking stuff, poor gas mileage, rollover and crashworthiness, etc. Lousy vehicles for the city and suburban commuting.

But you just nailed why you'd need a truck: fence posts, wire, hay, etc. Makes sense.

[Overkil]

9. Look at engine displacement as well......

I have a ford '92 explorer with a 4 liter V-6 and a '99 Plymouth Breeze (2 liter 4 cyl). My explorer gets 17 mpg and the breeze gets 19 mpg. Both are automatics but the breeze is underpowered to the point that it spends it's life revving at about 3500 rpm most of the time. Explorer's engine is twice the size but works alot less to carry it's load around. I have had the breeze since it was new and it has always performed like this. Just a poor choice of engine by the manufacturer. My explorer has 180k miles and just keeps on purring. Don't focus on # of cylinders so much, focus on engine displacement as well as HP & torque. A few minor modifications and I could have my explorer in the low 20s as far as mpg (same as the v-6 ranger)

[ReddishPinko]

12. Thanks

You're right, it's all coming back to me now. Disp., HP and torque are more important.

[tsipple]

15. Good Advice Re: Engine Output

Frankly there aren't too many cars that are seriously underpowered any more, so it's less of a problem today than it was in the distant past. But if you're concerned about output, the number of cylinders is only one small factor. There were (are) some companies that stick lousy V6 engines in cars because "more cylinders is better."

To pick an extreme example, my airplane has four cylinders. It also has 360 cubic inches (almost 6 liters) of displacement and is rated for continuous duty 100% output (200 horsepower) at 2700 RPM redline. That would be a strange engine in a car to say the least, but the point is that the number of cylinders is just one variable in the engine design.

Mazda has a car with no cylinders, in fact. (Anybody know which model?)

[short bus president]

25. dunno if they make the rx7 anymore

it had the wankel rotary engine. Funky shit, man. But a rock-solid powerplant.

[Wonk]

31. The rx8 uses a Wankel as well. 240 hp from only 1.3L of displacement.

http://www.mazda.com/mnl/200306/renesis.html
http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/ieoty.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=renesis

I know this is a huge tangent to the original thread. I just think Wankel rotaries are pretty cool as internal combustion engines go B-)

[ProudGerman]

40. In fact, they are so cool that they are banned from Le Mans

Mazda went in there with rotaries and blew the competition away. Pissed off the status quo with their ability to generate 800+ horsepower from only 2.6 liters of displacement. With such a small engine making so much horsepower, it was hard for the rules committee to enforce class limitations on it. The engines were immediately banned from competition, heh.

[jmowreader]

32. RX8

The world's only four-door sports car. Don't ask.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi Overkil!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Tripper11]

10. we just bought a 98 Ranger

After searching high and low, test driving, meeting some nice sales people and almost coming to blows with another we settled on this Ranger.
I've only had it for 12 hours but it's a nice little truck, it's the 6 cyclinder, has good spunk, drives nice and it was easily in our price range.

I will say I have never been a huge fan of fords. This 98 only had 70K on it as well. Overall, I am happy so far.

Incidentally after talking to a couple mechanic friends of mine, Toyota trucks are awfully reliable trucks as well, if you were thinking about options.

[tsipple]

11. Mechanical Longevity: 4 Cylinder

Other things being equal -- which they seldom are -- the four cylinder engine will be more reliable. Quite simply it has fewer moving parts. And that's the direct and honest answer to your question.

The four cylinder engine will also cost less, burn less fuel, and thus be cleaner. It would also be less expensive to repair (if needed) and less expensive to replace (if needed). It's a bit lighter, too.

The six cylinder engine will have a little more power and a "V6" insignia on the back of the truck. And that's it really.

By the way, if you are concerned about mechanical longevity, you may want to look at the Toyota Tacoma instead. That truck has consistently ranked as the most reliable. The Ford Ranger isn't horrible, but it's middle of the pack. The Tacoma is built in the USA. Just be careful not to lard your Tacoma up with too many options, because those quickly add to the price. The Nissan Frontier is another possibility. There's currently $2500 cash back on that one if you're not financing with Nissan, so it's got a really great price for a nice, reliable truck.

[ReddishPinko]

14. Want to keep payments low

So I'm looking for used, betw. 2000 and 2002, less than 45k and less than $12k. I want a Toyota for precisely the reasons you gave but they hold their value better I guess.

[tsipple]

17. Seems Reasonable

With those parameters (and assuming you absolutely want a truck -- trucks are, other things being equal, less reliable than cars), I think there probably is a Ford Ranger in your future.

The Mazda B-Series truck is the same thing as a Ford Ranger for those model years, so if you see that truck any cheaper I'd go for it. (Ford owns Mazda and produces the same truck under both labels.)

The standard (full coverage) warranty is 3 years and 36,000 miles, so those trucks are going to be out of manufacturer warranty. The Nissan Frontier (and Toyota Tacoma) extend the drivetrain warranty to 5 years/60,000 miles. That and the Toyota's famous reliability are probably why they're fetching more money. The Nissan Frontier seems to be about the same price as the Ford/Mazda, though, so that may be worth a look if you can find one. But otherwise it looks like you've done your homework. Good luck!

[HuckleB]

23. Thoughts on mileage, age, and fiscal issues...

You could go with an older Toyota (to get within your fiscal parameters) and still expect to put on as many miles as a newer Ranger. There are no guarantees, of course. But my 1987 Toyota pick up has 280,000 plus miles on it and it's still going as strong as ever. I may finally get rid of it next year, as I want more safety features, but it will be difficult to let it go, simply because it goes and goes and goes and goes.

Anyway, good luck.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. The 6 cylinder will not work as "hard" and lasts longer

I know. I own one. and that advice is playing out after 106k miles.
and it's nice to have the power when you need it.

[ReddishPinko]

21. Thank you all

I'm out da do'. On my way to used car salesman hell. I'll let you know what I come up with-if anything.

[Overkil]

26. One more thing.....

Reddish,

If you end up not buying today, you should check out traderonline.com. They are part of AutoTrader and most likely you can buy a copy at the local seven eleven or circle K. I bought my explorer about a year ago this way from the original owner. I would avoid buying from a dealership, even if it is used. You'll end up paying more through a dealership. The other thing I would recommend is to check out www.rangerstation.com. It's a forum just like this but for ranger owners. Lots of good advice and help with trouble shooting issues that always come up. Best of luck.

[kyrasdad]

27. 6 v 4

You said you work PT on a ranch, hauling fenceposts, etc. Go with the 6. The extra HP and torque will by far come in handy. The 4 is great if you just want to look good in a P/U, but is fairly useless when it comes to routine grunt work.

Also, you might want to consider auto v standard transmissions. Standards can be a bit of a pain, but if you're hauling loads, a clutch replacement v a complete transmission replacement is a lot cheaper.

The mileage factor can be a bit of a difference. I think the 4s are rated for 24c/29h, 6s are a bit lower, 19c/22h. But again, it depends on what you need the vehicle for. Is it going to be the primary vehicle, the secondary workhorse, etc. From what you have described, I would go with the 6 with a standard tranny.

[ironflange]

28. I drive a '93 Aerostar with the 4.0 V6

It's built on the Ranger chassis. I've got over 240000 km (150000 mi) on it, and it still purrs like a kitten. Other than routine maintenance, the only problem I've had was the obligatory head gasket replacement, done just before the warranty expired. :) I tow a 3500 lb trailer all over the place every summer, this year during the heat wave in central Oregon, with no complaints. Not to mention logging roads and high clearance roads we like. Seems to be lots of low-end torque, drags that trailer up any hill with no problems. All this to the tune of 17 mpg. It's been a great vehicle, and I believe the 4.0 V6 hasn't changed much since '93, but don't quote me on this.

[ReddishPinko]

29. The Low Down on the lowdown

I looked all of these up on carfax-they're not too good to be true.

Went to the first place and looked at a 2001 Ranger 'Edge', 3.0L V6, 35K, for $9991 (this is all important). Nice ride, had power even with the AC cranked, great sound, CD player. Warranty was 2 mo./6k. Really liked it and left thinking this was the one to beat.

Before I left I was chatting with the sales guy (repeatedly called me 'baby'-seriously) and he said that the reason I hadn't turned up any Toyota's in my searches was that they cost more because the warranty is longer and the mileage I was using as a criterion was too low to be comparable to a Ranger. Disheartening because I'm already starting to get annoyed and spent a big chunk of time researching all this BS.

Second place was a 2000 Ranger XLT 3.0L V6 <37k-$8988!!!>, nice ride, noisy acceleration but I know how to solve that (turn up the radio). Extended cab, sound was comparable to the first one. It was pretty much the same truck performance-wise. BUT these guys will give me 5 yr/50k warranty. So the first guy has to beat that.

Drove around trying to find a place outside of town, got lost, wound up at a Ford dealer in the boonies and as it turns out the sales manager is a distant cousin of mine. Found a 1999 Nissan Frontier XE, 2.4L V4 <<$9100-26k>>, that's right 26k. Drives and rides as well as the other two but after seeing the difference in power I decided to head on home to do more research.

But ol' cuz wouldn't let me leave. He told me it had been on the lot since July and they were desperate to move it and he dropped down to $8500. I said no-I really didn't like the power and it was off warranty. So he dropped down again to $7900 and told me he could extend the warranty to 75k and let me drive it over the weekend. Before I left he gave me a sheet with the price and terms-$7941, $224/mo.@54 months=$12,100, that's with the warranty included in the payment.

And that's where I'm at.

[tsipple]

35. Congratulations!

Sounds like you got a good deal. And there's merit to buying from someone you know. Your cousin will have to put up with you. :-)

I don't know what that payment schedule works out to be in terms of an interest rate since I don't have my calculator handy, but I'm assuming you got a reasonable interest rate. Check with a credit union if you can to make sure.

[ReddishPinko]

36. Kelley Blue Book says...

that this make & model is worth $11,815 w/o warranty, (used retail market) which is a difference of $3,874. Still not sure if I like it or not. Don't get me wrong here, my idea of a good car is something that gets me from A-B and is paid for but there's just something about it I don't like. I think I'll do that thing Ben Franklin used to do when he couldn't make up his mind. The +/- lists on a sheet of paper.

[KG]

30. i have a 99 ranger XLT extended cab w/ 3.0 V6

it's an awesome ride. right after i bought it in jan, i drove it from FL to OR and back. what a pleasent riding and handling vehicle. best ride i've ever owned.

[salin]

33. and here I thought you made the trip

on a unicycle. :shrug:

[KG]

37. actually, it was a pogo stick.

:)

[yellowdog]

34. Since I have owned a 4 cylinder Ranger

take my word for it and go for the V-6. Ford's 4 cylinder, unlike the Toyota, is far too underpowered for the weight of the truck. The engine has to work far too hard just to run at highway speeds. Your gas mileage will suffer with the 4 banger and so will engine life.

[ReddishPinko]

38. What is the HP?

I need a comparison to what I've got now.

[hussar]

39. diesel diesel diesel

plenty power, engine longevity, lots of torque, miles to the gallon

[jobycom]

42. Depends. Highway or local, and what loads?

Four cylinders get better mileage in stop and go traffic with a light load. Rangers are a little heavy to start with, so if you are loading it, four cylinders probably won't get better mileage. Also, if you are driving it a lot at 60 or more, four cylinders will work harder, wear out quicker, and not get much better mileage. In fact, over the long haul, since they will lose compression faster than a six, they will burn more gas than a six if you drive it at full speeds.

If you drive it mostly locally, only occasionally load it, and NEVER tow anything, a four cylinder will get better mileage, have all the power you need, and last forever.

BUT if you load it, tow ANYTHING, or drive it mostly on the highway, your mileage won't be any better with that size vehicle, and you will wear out a four cylinder more quickly. Towing, especially. If you plan to tow almost regularly, your choce is between a six and an eight.

A lot of small 6es get as good a mileage as large 4s, and work better, because the large size of the piston in the large 4 makes it less efficient.

Personally, I wouldn't by any mid size or larger pickup with a four cylinder. You will wind up loading it up more than you expect (friends wanting to move, etc), you will wind up towing something with it... In short, you will wind up using it like a pickup, which it is. In that case, a four cylinder won't have enough power for some of your tasks, and if you overwork just a couple of times, you will begin the deterioration process much more quickly than you would in a six, which means that the engine will burn fuel less efficiently, use more oil, create more pollutants, and wind up in a landfill long before a six cylinder. All of that will override the fuel economy, especially since the posted fuel economies these days are geared for the 55 MPH limits of old. At higher speeds, fours work harder than sixes.

[ProudGerman]

45. That may be true on older 4 cylinders

Today's 4 cylinder engines are light years ahead of the ones that had the problems you state, especially Japanese 4 bangers. I beat the piss out of my 4 banger, and at 140,000 miles compression is still at factory levels, and I still get 30 plus mpg while crusing down the highway at 3500 RPM's or higher. If I were her, I'd take the cousin's offer to take the Frontier home for a trial. Get it home, load it up and see how it handles what you would usually be putting it through.

Horsepower and torque are nice numbers, but the numbers she should be worrying about are the weight limits for the various trucks. Compare the tow and haul limitations for each of the trucks. I'm sure she'd be well within the weight restrictions of each of them....unless she tries to haul a bed full of gravel. But these are pick up trucks, not dump trucks.

All in all, I'd go for the V6 powered Ranger, or a V6 powered Frontier (nissan makes argueably the best V6 ever). But then I always go for the bigger motors, I have nothing against 4 bangers. I'm sure she'd be happy with either a V6 or an I4 engine. The I4 may have less power, but that's what cold air intakes, performance headers, bigger exhaust and maybe a blower are for, heh. Now I'm getting silly, so I'll just end it here.

[jobycom]

46. You may be right

I haven't driven an American four cylinder much in a while.

To clarify, I was saying that about the specific truck she mentioned. Japanese four cylinders are indestructible in small cars, and even small trucks. I mentioned that I was talking about mid-size or greater. I've run Hondas into the ground and gotten unbelievable performance from them. I had a Civic with 235K that smoked like a chimney because I misused it so badly, and it still had better pickup than my wife's six cylinder Chevy.

If she wants a four cylinder, Nissan and Mazda make great small trucks. The four cylinder Rangers I've seen with some miles on them, though, don't perform as well.

[rjbcar27]

47. V8. Can't go wrong with a V8.

:-)

Go for the 6.