My first Ranger was a 1989 base model with air conditioning and a standard transmission. We were so pleased with the Ranger that we bought several more in the following years. At one time I drove a new black 1991 4x4 Ranger while my wife drove a new extended cab Ranger and my daughter drove a new blue Ranger. In 2003 we traded a 2002 base model Ranger in on the 2003 FX4. Obviously, we believed that the Ranger pickup was a good choice.

        Perhaps my one and only complaint about the Ranger pickups has been the uncomfortable seats. The Rangers handled well, had plenty of horsepower, got good gas mileage, they were always 100% dependable, the heating and air were excellent, and there was never a problem with anything except the seating. Not only were the seats so uncomfortable that we could not endure traveling more than a couple hundred miles, the seat height caused my legs to rest at an awkward angle which caused knee pain. My business was servicing electronics and appliances, and I had originally thought that my knees burned constantly due to my having to frequently crawl around on my knees. The 2003 FX was the first Ranger to have comfortable seats, and my knee pain almost completely disappeared within a few days of driving the FX. The knee pain never returned except recently while test driving a newer Ranger, which verified to me that if I ever buy another Ranger I will also buy an aftermarket seat.

        The FX's V6 engine had good performance, but the gas mileage was rarely better than 15 miles per gallon. The 5 speed automatic transmission was excellent at first, but it appeared to be developing a slip by the time we traded the pickup off a year later. Minor problems included an ill-fitting rear door, which was so unimportant that I never bothered to adjust the latch.

        For several reasons the truck was traded in on a 2005 Ford Focus. Of the reasons, I wanted lower payments and higher mileage. The current Focus has half the payments and twice the mileage, which was most welcomed during last year's $4.00+ gasoline prices. Too, the mud tires that came stock on the Ranger had worn unevenly which caused the tires to vibrate and be noisy. Rather than spend the $600.00 or so for new tires, it seemed like a good idea to save the money and apply it towards a new car. I suspect that a good set of all season radials would have enabled the FX to get 18+ mpg.

        In my experience a Ford Ranger will be an excellent buy if there are no obvious problems while test driving (i.e. blowing blue smoke or the transmission slipping). My 1991 4x4 Ranger had a gear ratio much higher in the front axle than in the rear axle, which resulted in the four wheel drive not being much useful in snow, but the 2003 FX had a closer ratio and it handled very well on all surfaces. All of my Rangers with a four cylinder engine got 30 miles per gallon on the highway, but the 4x4 models had mileage in the 15-19 range.

        I drove Nissans for a company I worked for, and I was not pleased, not at all. Of the many different trucks that I have owned over the years, the Ranger has always been the better choice.