Disc brake noise isn't unusual. Some pads are more prone to it. There is a product (high temp grease) they sell at NAPA that you put between the piston and pad. Permatex has a product you spray on the back of the pads. I wouldn't guarantee either of those to do much. What's always worked for me is having the rotors and drums machined. Cutting the glaze off of them always worked for me. FWIW my son's Ford PU was squeeking bad. It had a bad axle seal and the pads and shoes were getting low. Fixed all that last weekend for him except he didn't want to spring for the $60 to have the drums and rotors machined. They were quiet last week when I was done with it, but he says they're starting to make noise again. Told him that might happen without the machine work. Odds are the gas guage inaccuracy is due to the sending unit in the tank. Unfortunately, I believe it's combined with the fuel pump. I'd bet it's an expensive part, and the tank has to be removed to install. I wouldn't consider either of those issues a big deal. Those minor things are surely not enough to consider the vehicle a lemon. I'd just drive it if it were me. Have the rotors turned if he just can't stand a little brake squeek. The gas guage isn't worth messing with imo while it's working at all. jmo

As I said, I liked the Ranger drive a bit better than the Colorado, but the Ranger they had for me to drive was a V6, I'm looking for a 4Cly. Interestingly there are many 2.3L 4Cly manual trans Rangers available. They all come with the "employee price" minus a $2,500 cash back (have to pay sales tax on this rebate), and they are giving the A/C ($850) away for free, and on the base XL model. Now we're taling some real savings. The Colorado has a similar, but less, program, and the A/C is standard. But the end result is a very competitive price with the Ranger. I am leaning toward the Colorado as I can get it with Stability Control and the Locking Differential, almost as good as 4WD without the weight and cost. I can't say I know how well it works, but in theory it looks good.The 2.8L Colorado is also more powerful, I've look it is 175hp@5+K while the Ranger is 143hp at a similar rev. And the torque: 185@2800RPM Colorade and 154@3750 for the Ranger. This says a lot more "pull out of the hole" for the Colorado. Another reason to go with the Colorado, especially if one pulls a trailer at times. Funny, I have been defending Consumer Reports in a couple of threads and now I find CR telling me the engines in the Colorado are: "a bit crude and noisy" a negative and "Cabin is fairly quiet, and the ride and handling are more accomplished than in other compact pickups." a positive. My tests left me thinking the Colorade rides like a truck too (frame) and the engine (the 5cly in this case) wasn't particularly noisy, and I have not idea what CR means by "crude". So, there is a big question in my mind on CR in this case of their testing.

GoodOleBoy...I agree with you. Luckily we are not using the little Ranger for hauling a bunch of stuff. We have an Exolorer with a V8 for towing whatever and use a utility trailer for lumber, trash, gravel, beauty bark and the such. My commuter car is an 83 Civic. The Ranger is for our daughter (who is away at college). She is studying veterinary medicine with an emphasis on large animals so the Ranger is something she can use if she needs hay, grain or who-knows-what. Thus, having a spacious bed is not #1. Ruled out tonneau covers (hard or soft) and caps. Either too limiting on the size of what can go into the bed or too cumbersome in trying to load something heavy or large. Since I am spending the money for college and the Ranger I am trying to keep some costs down and this is why I did not get her an F350 diesel with four-doors (would be nice). I have the honor of driving the Ranger around for awhile for a break-in period to work out any kinks before our daughter takes it back to college with her. So not looking for anything fancy, but something strong, weather tight and not a cheap paperthin thing. Hoping that another set of eyes out there are seen something I might of missed. Thank you, Casey

Typo, or otherwise simply a poor communication occurance. $49 for an alignment likely means a Rear Thrust Angle Alignment was performed. This means the heads are installed and compensated on all four wheels. Similar to a four wheel alignment, except adjustments are only performed in the front of the vehicle. This gives the machine the ability to measure the thrust angle of the rear wheels and aids the technician in centering the steering wheel while the front wheels are aligned. In many way's you can probably chalk this up to a non technician service writer getting tongue tied as he/she attempted to communicate the services that were performed.