Other fuel system problem on the 2000 Ford Ranger
1 fire 1 injury 2 of the 11 reports for this failure mention a crash, a fire, an injury or a death. Those are the owner's words on the complaint form, not a verified finding, and one report can mention more than one.
Only 3 reports for this mode came with an odometer reading, which is too few for percentiles to mean anything. The page is here because someone linked to it; treat the figures as anecdotes, and see the full report for this year instead.
When other fuel system problem gets reported
There are 11 reports of other fuel system problem on the 2000 Ford Ranger, 3 with a mileage attached. That is too few to place the failure on the odometer with any confidence.
A part like this is normally expected to survive 90,000 miles. It is the 22nd most-reported problem on this model year.
The whole distribution
| 10th | 25th | Median | 75th | 90th |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | 82,000 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
Of these reports, 1 a fire and 1 an injury are mentioned. Owners write their own complaints and the agency does not verify them, so read this as what the reports say happened rather than as a confirmed count.
Putting it right typically runs $300–$2,200 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 13 model years of this car. It shows up earliest on the 2019, at a median of 10,000 miles, and latest on the 1996 at 115,000 miles.
By volume the 2005 carries the most reports, with 26; the 2000 has 11. 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.
Problems with gauge reading on 2000 ford ranger.*mr when the consumer started the vehicle in the morning the gauge would read 20% above full. After driving less than 10 miles the gauge dropped to the true reading 1/4 of a tank. The float in the tank seem to stick causing this problem. *nm
Dt*: the contact stated the check engine light illuminated, even though the vehicle drove normally. The vehicle was taken to a dealer because it would not pass the state inspection. The dealer discovered the flexible fuel sensor deteriorated which may be due to the road salts used in the state of new york. It was taken to an independent repair shop for replacement of the flexible fuel sensor. This vehicle was manufactured by the california emission standards.*ak updated 01/25/06. *jb
I have a 2000 ford ranger,the sending unit on the fuel line is made of plastic,this is the most dangerous part of the vehicle. It should be stainless steel or brass, I cant drive the truck because not only is my life in danger but also cars around me,this is not a drip it gushes out .they say to cut cost but they raise the price thousands of dollars each year. Please don't say its just my vehicle, I called junk yards in maryland,virginia,delaware and pennsylvania,they cant be found. How in gods name can you approve this 50 cent fitting .I can only guess someone was paid off by ford to get this passed. Shame on you,you are paid to protect the people of this country,instead you get rich and we die, I won't stop, im going to the press,and any one who will listen. I hope you or your family drive one of these vehicles, and I hope it explodes right in front of you and you can watch your family burn alive. Shame on you. Your supposed to look for these problems,if its not a problem why can't any be found in junk yards. I did nothing,just started to smell gas. Im on disability,I have to pay for this ranger every month while it sits. And…
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
This page is kept out of search results because 11 reports is not enough to publish percentiles from. It stays reachable because somebody looking at this exact car would rather see the reports than be told there are none.
Complaints are voluntary, so 11 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 other fuel system problem happen on the 2000 Ford Ranger?
Across 3 owner reports that included an odometer reading, half were filed by 80,000 miles. A quarter were filed before — and a quarter after —. These are the mileages owners reported when they complained, not a prediction for any individual car.
How common is other fuel system problem on the 2000 Ford Ranger?
11 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