Runabout Truck: Ranger vs S10 vs ?

[fdcg27]

As so many others have noted, set yourself a budget, as you have, and then go out and winnow the wheat from the chaff.
Somewhere along the way, you'll find a little truck in good condition that's worth taking home with you.
Condition matters far more than brand, since you won't be buying something late model or low miles for what you plan on spending.
IMO, the S-10 is a more comfortable little truck to drive while the Ranger appears to be better as a truck, but that's only my opinion.

 

[Win]

I have a '99 S-10 and in the 16 years I've had it, it's needed a couple of sets of tires, an alternator, and an a/c compressor. The 2.2 / 5 speed combo is gutless and not much fun to drive. Gas mileage is mediocre.

When I had my used car business, I had Rangers for sale, and not much impressed me about them, frankly. These are commodity vehicles.

I've had Rangers for employees to drive, and while they managed to dent every body panel, including roofs, they were never able to kill one.

Either will likely be fine for a household work truck. Flip a coin.

 

[Tdbo]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
It's hard to go wrong with any small truck that is priced right and in good condition. Don't get hung up on S-10 vs. Ranger...if it's clean and the price isn't crazy, go for it.

I personally like Rangers, and have never had an unreliable one, but the S-10 is good too. I could do just as much with S-10s, I just like Rangers more for subjective reasons (prefer the interior, suspension, etc.).

If you don't have a specific preference of make/model/configuration, try everything out that seems like it will be worth your time. Condition trumps everything with older used trucks unless you are after something specific.


Fully agree with this.
The Ranger in my signature is the fourth that I have owned.
My first was a 1993 regular cab XLT with the 2.3 and a 5 speed that I bought new.. Only option was A/C. Got into some first year problems with a restyle but put 40K on it in 15 months. Traded it off on a 1994 Explorer.
Bought a new 1995 Ranger XLT Supercab after I discovered my contempt for the Explorer. Set up the same as the 1993 (but had a 2.5 in it) and got in on a promotion that got Cruise and Tilt thrown in for free. Had that truck 10 years and 165K. Reliable as all get out. My favorite of the four by far.
Replaced it with a new 2004 Ranger Supercab with a 4.0. Thing was a hoot to drive. However, it was the worst riding one of the three and my least favorite. Sold it and put the proceeds toward my Mustang.
I now have a fairly basic 2003 Supercab with a 3.0. that I picked up used because I got a good deal on it. The 3.0 is probably my least favorite of the engines because you get nothing with it. no power or good mileage.
You can have virtually anything you want with a Ranger. With the 2.3-2.5, you get economy but it is as slow as a snail. With the 4.0, wou get power, but lower fuel economy. With the 3.0, you get no power and lackluster fuel economy.
However if you are looking at trucks of the vintage that these are, buy the nicest truck that you can find for the least money, regardless of what it is.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: Tdbo

Bought a new 1995 Ranger XLT Supercab after I discovered my contempt for the Explorer. Set up the same as the 1993 (but had a 2.5 in it) and got in on a promotion that got Cruise and Tilt thrown in for free.

No it didn't. The 2.5 didn't even exist until 1998. Your 95 Ranger had the exact same 2.3 as your 1993.

 

[Lyman]

I have owned two rangers. First was a 1990 with the 2.9. Sold it with 300k on the clock and the engine and trans had never been cracked open. it still ran great when I sold it. My current 1999 ranger has the 4.0 auto. I drive around 80 miles a day and get around 19mpg. Plenty of power for my needs. Very reliable truck for sure. Keep in mind that in 2000 they went to the OHC 4.0 that is a completely different animal than the pushrod engine that I have. It had timing chain issues early on but were cured around 2006 I believe.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
I had a 94 sonoma rustbucket, I bought it knowing it was.

It was fun, the 2.2 had a good axle ratio and it drove like the cavalier with the same motor.

If you've never had a "top loader" stick shift transmission with the stick directly connected to the guts, you've missed something in life. Very positive shifting.

I've also had 2wd dakotas, the 3.9s are hot rods and the 2.5 a dog. They're "just right sized" except the 3'10" between wheel wells in the box.

If any 4 cyl in a truck blows its head gasket you have tons of room to work.


Thing about the 3.9 Dakota's is that they suck gas like a V8. But they do move out well enough. I wouldn't quite call them a hotrod, but they are definitely peppier than the 4-banger small trucks.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Blkstanger
It had timing chain issues early on but were cured around 2006 I believe.


And I suspect most early ones with normal miles have had the revised chain/guides/cassettes kit installed. It's probably mostly low mile grandpa or municipal trucks that would be suspect for that.

A couple other things to note on the Ranger...

- In 1998 the regular cab was lengthened by 3", which does help. Super Cabs are always best for comfort though.

- Also in 1998, the front suspension changed from Twin I Beam/Twin Traction Beam to IFS. You may prefer one or the other, test drive both if you can. The TIB/TTB setup should not be taken to Pep Boys for alignment and will eat tires alive if anything is out of whack (lots of negative camber is a sign something is up), but when everything is right it's a great suspension and is extremely durable. I think they actually handle a little better than the IFS trucks on curvy roads. I have an IFS truck too, and it's better behaved on the highway (no "darting"), but can't turn as tight and feels kind of generic compared to my TTB truck. With the TTB, you know for sure you are in a Ford truck.

- Starting in 1999, you could get the half doors on the back of the Super Cab, but they were optional through the end of production. If you will use the back of the cab a lot, they might be a nice feature to have.

 

[Lyman]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl


- Starting in 1999, you could get the half doors on the back of the Super Cab, but they were optional through the end of production. If you will use the back of the cab a lot, they might be a nice feature to have.

My 99 has the rear doors and I love em.

 

[Tdbo]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: Tdbo

Bought a new 1995 Ranger XLT Supercab after I discovered my contempt for the Explorer. Set up the same as the 1993 (but had a 2.5 in it) and got in on a promotion that got Cruise and Tilt thrown in for free.

No it didn't. The 2.5 didn't even exist until 1998. Your 95 Ranger had the exact same 2.3 as your 1993.


Yes and no. I had a typo, it was a 2.3; however, it was a reworked 2.3 which added about 10 HP and 4 additional plugs.

http://www.rangerpowersports.com/ford-ranger-specs/

 

[aquariuscsm]

If I was getting a mini truck,it'd be either a Nissan,Toyota,Mazda,or Mitsubushi. The Japanese mini trucks seem to last forever. I always thought the Japanese had the "niche" when it came to these kind've vehicles.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Win
I have a '99 S-10 and in the 16 years I've had it, it's needed a couple of sets of tires, an alternator, and an a/c compressor. The 2.2 / 5 speed combo is gutless and not much fun to drive. Gas mileage is mediocre.

When I had my used car business, I had Rangers for sale, and not much impressed me about them, frankly. These are commodity vehicles.

I've had Rangers for employees to drive, and while they managed to dent every body panel, including roofs, they were never able to kill one.

Either will likely be fine for a household work truck. Flip a coin.


When I was younger, I used to ride to the ports in NJ with my father in the 18 wheeler. They all had fleets of rangers. Those things were BEAT TO DEATH. Once that you could tell were months old, didn't have a single in-tact body panel or lense.

They kept running.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
If I was getting a mini truck,it'd be either a Nissan,Toyota,Mazda,or Mitsubushi. The Japanese mini trucks seem to last forever. I always thought the Japanese had the "niche" when it came to these kind've vehicles.


Keep in mind Mazdas from 1994 on are Rangers. Sometimes you can still find the 1993 and older B-Series pickups in the South, but they are probably close to non-existent in the OP's area due to rust.

Mitsubishi would probably be the one brand of small truck to actively avoid, though that shouldn't be hard to do since they sold about five of them. The Mighty Max was okay, except for head/head gasket issues that took many off the road early. They were also way behind everyone else in features/refinement, even for the time. The Mighty Max was by far the most outdated small pickup on the market when it left the US in 1995/6. The main reason to avoid a Mighty Max these days isn't the head gasket issue as much as a complete lack of availability on many other parts. If you break something like a mirror, light, or door handle on a Ranger, S-10, Toyota, or even Nissan, just go to the parts store, Certifit, Amazon.com, etc. and buy another one. With a Mighty Max, you'll probably just have to live without it or rig something up.

The Raider is just bad news. It's nothing more than a Dodge Dakota that will be totaled if any Raider-specific part is ever broken or damaged. The only good thing about Raiders is you can use Dakota mechanical parts. God help you if you smash a headlamp or something.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

There is a 2001 pinto-engine 5 speed ranger on CL locally for $1250!

I kind of want it.

 

[01rangerxl]

My first Ranger was one of those early run 2001s that got the old 2.5L. Great truck, from a reliability perspective. Nothing ever went wrong with that truck. No leaks, never a CEL, nothing. A friend ran the VIN through Ford's OASIS system or whatever and found that the truck never had a single warranty claim either.

The main thing I didn't like about it was the school bus bench seat. From 1998-2003, Ford put the flattest, most basic vinyl bench they could come up with in regular cab XL trucks unless the seat with an armrest/console was optioned. The seat wasn't even used in Super Cabs because it didn't have enough movement to access the back of the cab on 2 door models!

 

[SwampSurvivor]

A base model ranger 5 speed 2wd is something I have always wanted. Still on the lookout for a decent one ... and a Cherokee ... and a Crown Victoria.

I think the pinto engine is part of the reason I dislike timing belts. My cousin had 2 rangers with that engine - both ran into 400K mile territory. Both of the trucks snapped the timing belt within a week of buying them. He ended up retiring both of them because they were too rusty. The Splash was funny looking with the stepside bed ... it was the only not-rusty part on the truck.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Something definitely has to be said about Ford Rangers,I've never once seen one broken down. The models with the 4.0 V6,that seems like ALOT of engine for such a tiny truck. I bet they have a ton of power!

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Something definitely has to be said about Ford Rangers,I've never once seen one broken down. The models with the 4.0 V6,that seems like ALOT of engine for such a tiny truck. I bet they have a ton of power!

My buddy's step dad had the 4.0l with a manual trans. He knew better than to let us borrow it very often, but it would pull pretty good off idle up to reasonable rpm. We almost put it into the ditch going into 3rd on some sandy pavement the one day...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Something definitely has to be said about Ford Rangers,I've never once seen one broken down. The models with the 4.0 V6,that seems like ALOT of engine for such a tiny truck. I bet they have a ton of power!


Never drove one, but apparently they are a lot MORE wild with a 5.0L swap

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Something definitely has to be said about Ford Rangers,I've never once seen one broken down. The models with the 4.0 V6,that seems like ALOT of engine for such a tiny truck. I bet they have a ton of power!


Never drove one, but apparently they are a lot MORE wild with a 5.0L swap

Oh yeah. Almost undriveable