Fuel tank, filler or EVAP failure on the 2000 Ford Ranger
When fuel tank, filler or evap failure gets reported
Owners of the 2000 Ford Ranger report fuel tank, filler or EVAP failure at a median of 132,500 miles. A quarter of the reports come in before 92,500 miles and a quarter after 150,000 miles, from 25 reports that carried an odometer reading.
A part like this is normally expected to survive 88,000 miles. It is the 8th most-reported problem on this model year.
The mileage distribution
The reported range runs from 67,500 miles at the tenth percentile to 175,000 miles at the ninetieth, a spread of 107,997 miles across the middle 80% of reports.
When the reports scatter this far, the mileage is telling you about how these cars were driven more than about the part itself.
0% of the dated reports were filed under 36,000 miles.
The whole distribution
| 10th | 25th | Median | 75th | 90th |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 68,008 miles | 93,000 miles | 133,000 miles | 149,000 miles | 176,005 miles |
Read the 10th percentile as “one report in ten arrived this early”. Exact figures are shown in this table because it is the table of record; everywhere else on the site they are rounded to the precision the sample can carry.
What a percentile can and cannot tell you here
These five numbers describe the readings owners gave, in order. The median is the middle one: half the reports arrived below it. The 10th and 90th are the edges of the bulk of the distribution, and the distance between them is the part worth reading. A tight spread — say 70,000 to 95,000 miles — points at something that wears out on a schedule, and the schedule is knowable. A wide one, 20,000 to 190,000, points at a fault that hits some cars and never troubles others, which means the mileage on the listing in front of you tells you very little about your odds.
What these figures are not is a survival curve. Every reading here comes from a car whose owner filed a complaint, so the sample contains only failures: it cannot say what share of the fleet made it past 150,000 miles untouched, because those owners had nothing to report. Nor is the mileage the moment of failure — it is the odometer reading as recalled at the time of filing, which may be weeks later and is sometimes rounded to the nearest ten thousand by the person typing it.
Percentiles are shown at all only once 8 readings exist for the vehicle and mode. Below that the middle of a handful of numbers is noise wearing a decimal point, so the figures are withheld rather than dressed up.
What happens, and what it costs
Putting it right typically runs $250–$1,800 at an independent US shop. That range is an editorial estimate held in this site's failure-mode catalogue, not a figure from NHTSA, and it is a repair cost rather than a diagnosis cost.
The same failure on other years
The same failure is reported on 11 model years of this car. It shows up earliest on the 2005, at a median of 60,000 miles, and latest on the 1998 at 155,000 miles.
By volume the 1999 carries the most reports, with 46; the 2000 has 29. A mode that appears across most years of a model is usually a design choice rather than a bad batch.
If one year stands out to the left, that is the year to avoid; if the whole line sits at a similar mileage, this is wear rather than a defect in one production run.
Tick median reported mileage Solid middle half of reports Faint 10th to 90th percentile Colour how bad the failure is when it happens
What owners wrote
Verbatim from NHTSA complaint narratives, trimmed for length. The mileage is the one the owner gave.
My 2000 ford ranger frame has deteriorated in an unbelievable short period of time. In the last 3 year especially the frame has gotten holes through it and somethings have broken and fallen off. The following items have broken off the frame during driving the vehicle: spring shackles,shock mounts,gas tank strap & brake lines.this vehicle was a very well kept & carefully scrutinized for every detail mechanical & cosmetic.this vehicle was purchased new & although 11 years old it should not have rusted to this extent at all. Dangerous to say the least. I was not aware that so many owners of this year ford ranger had the same problem until I did some research. *tr
My 2000 ford ranger xlt supercab with a 4.0l v6 motor with 93000 miles has extremely severe rust and corrosion on the frame, underbody, suspension, and fuel tank straps. I didn't know how severe it was until I noticed the left rear side of my truck sagging noticeably. I looked underneath and saw the suspension components had rusted and corroded so badly that they are no longer physically connected to the vehicle and the underside of the bed of the truck is now resting on the disconnected suspension components. A massive amount of the frame has corroded away, about a 6x6 square portion just in this particular area. I also noticed at this time that one of two straps holding up the fuel tank was hanging completely loose. The mount for the strap which is welded to the frame was also completely corroded away. If the other strap were to fail in the same manner the fuel tank would no longer have any way of staying attached to the vehicle. I can only imagine the amount of physical harm and damage this could cause to myself and/or other motorists if I were driving on the street or highway when that occurred. The suspension components on…
Tl* the contact owns a 2000 ford ranger. The contact stated that while having the vehicle examined by an independent mechanic for routine maintenance, the mechanic noticed one of the fuel tank straps was fractured due to corrosion and the other was cracked. The fuel tank was also partially detached from the vehicle. As a result, the fuel filler neck was cracked. The mechanic stated that the fuel tank straps needed to be replaced. The dealer was made aware of the failure and stated that replacement straps for repair were not available. The vehicle was not repaired. The approximate failure mileage was 138,000.
Also reported on the 2000 Ford Ranger
Other wheel or tire problem
Other body or interior problem
Other suspension problem
Other powertrain problem
ABS module or sensor failure
Other speed control problem
How far this goes
Complaints are voluntary, so 29 is a floor and not a count of affected cars. Mileages are typed in by owners and cluster on round numbers. And the mode itself is assigned by software reading the complaint text, which is reliable in bulk and fallible one report at a time.
Questions this page answers
At what mileage does fuel tank, filler or evap failure happen on the 2000 Ford Ranger?
Across 25 owner reports that included an odometer reading, half were filed by 132,500 miles. A quarter were filed before 92,500 miles and a quarter after 150,000 miles. These are the mileages owners reported when they complained, not a prediction for any individual car.
How common is fuel tank, filler or evap failure on the 2000 Ford Ranger?
29 reports have been filed with NHTSA, about 0.0 per 1,000 vehicles. Complaints are voluntary, so this is a floor rather than a count of affected cars.
What this is and is not. These are the mileages at which owners chose to complain to a federal agency, which is not the same as the mileage at which the part fails on every car. It skews toward failures that happened outside warranty, cost real money, or frightened someone. It is still the only public dataset that carries failure mileage at all, and the shape of a few hundred readings is informative even when a single one is not. Methodology · JSON · this failure on other cars
Source Owner complaints and recall records published by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, model years 1996–2027 Figures rebuilt Published by AtWhatMileage How every figure is computed