I dont know why Ford and GM dont realize that this is the size of small truck people want. The Colorado/Canyon and the new Ranger are damn near what the Silverado/Cheyenne and F-150 were in the 90's.
Lawrence Hodge it’s the size which people want? Maybe you, me, and a handful of other people lamenting the loss of simple vehicles, but the masses want bigger, more powerful and “safer” trucks. By the way have you seen how badly these Rangers get wrecked in a crash? I’m in a Ranger owner FB page and every other day someone posts an absolutely crushed cab or mangled box from getting in a normal-speed collision with a car or pole
If you want a truck this small you can still buy it used. My main vehicle is a ‘19 ZR2. I have access to a ‘00 Tacoma (my dad’s). I like the size of the old taco, but I love the power, comfort, technology, of my Colorado. Manufacturers will produce what the market wants.
Junkyard Digs The slave cylinder failed on my 1994 Ford Ranger as well. I ended up paying a mechanic to do it because it seemed like too complicated of a job for me to do myself.
I nearly bought a brand new Ranger XL 4 cyl stick after i graduated high school in 03. 28 mpg and utility for like 200 bucks a month ($10-11k) but I lost my high paying factory job ($8.50 per hour to start) Later in life I was aiming for a 14 buck an hour management job so I could buy a new Vista Blue metalic Super Cab Sport 4x4 with 4.10:1 gears and trac-loc... 30k on the website with power options, nice radio... every option but a sun roof... lol I built that truck like 10 times online. I finally bought a used ranger when I decided I was gong to start my own business.... 50,000 miles a year of hauling equipmen and often operating on rough job sites and caring heavy loads off road... lots of towing too. I love my Ranger. Can't imagine a bigger truck being as good handling or as maneuverable.
That paint job could only have happened in ‘93. Eesh. With that said, I would do anything to go back to ‘93 and live life with the wisdom I have today.
I've always been a fan of this style Ranger. I still remember seeing a Ford Ranger magazine ad back in 1993 with one like this in it that read: "If we were any tougher on dirt, this would be a detergent add." 😂
attananightshadow Agreed! I have a 93 2.3 2wd Supercab 5 speed and I can back into a parking space faster than most drivers can pull into one in newer trucks, and it's easy to work on.
Ordered my ‘93 XLT SuperCab 4.0L Auto 4x4 in April ‘93 and still have it. 260,000 miles and still going strong. Used as a spare and occasional driver nowadays. Full power, and everything still works perfect. Best, and most reliable, vehicle I’ve ever owned. My kids kid me about having a 26-year old truck but I’ll never part with this truck...
This is why people are restoring the old Rangers and S10s. Cheap to run, cheap to fix, easy to drive, easy to park. People want a small sized pickup, not what they have now from Detroit. What they sell as a mid size truck nowadays, is nearly the length of a full sized pickup from the 90s, and even taller!
And the cost the same as buying a house to, like about 70, 80 thousand dollars and up. Totally, ridiculous! Because these 4 door station wagon trucks will be shot within 2 to 3 years and they aren't even paid off yet. Then, the rust and rot out before their time, there's nothing fantastic about what Detroit is sending out of the assembly lines these days.
Jack Torse really? Because people we'rent exactly buying these or the s10s in droves towards their final years. People always wanna wax nostalgic for vehicles that they would of never bought new then
People stoped buying them in their last years because a 1/2 ton was cheaper. I bought a new F150 in 08 for $12K when the ranger I wanted was 20K. So of course they weren't selling.
All they ever had to do to make it out do the s10 and dakota in sales was put the explorer 5.0l in it. Even if they evolved it with the explorer 4.6l, i would have done far better in sales. But then it would compete with the f150 market which would have been bad to themselves. So either way, they never really gave it the potential it had.
Douwe Kruizenga Yes but trucks also have more capability/power now and with modern engineering and manufacturing benefits, will prob last at least as long if not longer than old trucks.
+Puff the Magic Dragon you're absolutely right, but it comes with a price. Back in the day trucks were much cheaper, 60, 70 or 80k trucks were unheard of. And the base models are today also much more expensive as in de 90s an early 2000s. Some people just don't want or need al the extra luxury
Truth Robot why did you intentionally leave out power sunroofs, installed dvd players, fake sports bars, 22 inch factory wheels and other accessories out? And 40 mpg? Lol what truck gets that mileage
Douwe Kruizenga I agree but if you want a really basic work truck, can't you still get one? Like I've seen basically brand new ford trucks will hand crank windows. I do agree with your statement. Honestly some of the complexity is a result of companies being legally required to include more stuff for saftey and efficiently reasons. For example, every car now is required to have a backup camera. So things like that bump the price up, even if companies do want to offer it, they have to.
+Puff the Magic Dragon Yeah you can still get them but the base trucks have also become much more expensive, even with manual locks and windows. I would like to have a truck with a stick. The only new fullsize truck that comes with one is the Ram HD with the cummins. It would be cool to see a base gasser with a manual transmission. When talking about the safety improvements over the last few years, I think it's great all trucks come with airbags, stronger cages, abs, esp and all that good stuff. That's like you said properly also a good reason why new trucks are more expensive, but that's the price we have got too pay for safety.
Yes...and teal paint! I loved the 90's! I had a 94 Ranger...cruised around jamming to Nirvana thinking I was cool. I wasn't cool but I thought I was...and I guess that's what counts.
Dewy Russ Yup, that teal paint sure was cool. I think ford used that color company-wide. You could either get a Festiva, Ranger or a mighty Mustang Cobra with teal paint
I recently found myself in a situation where I had to get rid of one of my vehicles. One was a clean 08 Sonata with 45k miles and the other was a 95 Ranger XLT with 165k miles. I still miss driving that low mileage clean Sonata but don't regret my choice.
This is my very first truck! My grandfather I left it for me when he passed away and I had it for a few years up until about 2014 when the engine blew on it. These are extremely rare and you do not see very many of them I've only seen three in my lifetime. But it's still in the backyard.
Normal on real trucks. They sit higher in the back due to heavier duty suspension for max payload. They level out once you load them up, rather than how new trucks are squatting in the ass end when you put any weight in the bed.
Yeah many people don't grasp the concept of the back end riding higher so they add leveling kits and its right back to ass end sagging when towing or hauling.
Nope. Thanks to safety regulations, the only single cab trucks left are full-size, and you can't get many options on them (try going to a dealership and asking for a regular cab truck with a V8 and aluminum wheels). Also, for the new Ranger, the only available engine for all trims is the 4 cylinder (I think it's ecoboost), and it doesn't offer a manual like the Tacoma and Canyon/Colorado do. I personally think Ford is just dipping the big toe and testing the water; a V6 might come later if the Ranger generates enough demand. Hell, we might even get a "Ranger ST". But that's very wishful thinking.
Benjamin Burkhardt i hope a good non-turbo v6 6 speed sick find its way in ranger. Otherwise my next work truck will be Nissan Frontier. I put at least 50,000 miles a year on my Ranger 4.0 4x4
Josh Lawley they were pretty popular when it first came out in this style. It’s actually one of my favorite looks for the Rangers (well, ok not so much the graphics, but I liked this grille)
@@Momo7O7 LOL, if you don't know you haven't owned an 80's or early 90's Ranger. Everything is what's wrong with them, they took a C3 light duty automatic transmission, added a computer controlled overdrive/lockup....you can only imagine what went wrong with that idea....thousands of failures.
Still have my white 93 Ranger Splash 4.0 x 5 speed manual. Bought it new July 93. 260000 miles later it still looks great, runs and drives great. A neighbor saw me in it this Summer at the Post Office and said "I like your new truck." I loved telling her it was 28 years old! :-D
I'm a 1st gen S-10 guy myself, but one of my friends drives a 1995 Ranger. And his stepdad has a 1993 Ranger that has.... 979,000 miles on it.... Friend told me about it and my eyes just about bugged out of my head when I glanced at the odometer. Crazy....
I'm in Brazil and I own a 96 ford Ranger 4.0. What a incredible car! I just love it. In Brazil they are considered collector's car. The average price is about 15k to 20k Us dollars. Thanks for the review.
Love the nostalgia. I own a 2004 Ranger XLT 4.0 4x4 and it has been a very reliable truck. Always had Rangers in the family. Too bad the new Ranger is going to be big like the GM Canyon/Chevy Colorado. Long gone are the days of the a truly compact pickup truck.
I’ll never forget riding for the first time in a new body style Ranger 2wd in 93. My favorite is the hood and the tiny vent circle dots in front of the windshield. I’ve owned: one 2wd 93. One reg cab4x4 4.0 v6 and two super cab 4x4 4.0. Awesome trucks
5th owner of a '96, xlt, 2wd, extended cab, 3.0 auto ranger, 250k miles and still happy to weave down a wavy back road!! Tires and a locker makes the difference!
I had a '91 extra cab with 5 speed and the 3.0 and just loved it. So much easier to manuever than big trucks. Would love one this size today. The new "compact" trucks are almost the size of full sized.
Especially now that they're no longer made. Ford is coming out with the "Ranger" again in 2019 but its nothing close to the original, and its far from a compact truck, and I will not bother even stepping onto a dealer lot to look at the new ones.
I had a 96 4X4 extended cab with that 4.0 engine. I was lucky to get 19mpg on the highway but it was also an automatic while your test truck is a stick.
Yes, the 4.0L V6 didn't get very good fuel economy, but at least you got a new enough ranger to not have the A4LD automatic transmission troubles that they are notorious for.
@Stoneyburke My 96 explorer has that 4.0 OHV engine, people on explorer forum see over 300K with it. The mileage sucks, lucky to get 14 combined if I drive like a grandma. I hate the digital display that always has mileage on it .
had a Ranger with the 3.0. 2 wheel drive. single cab. stick shift. I lost mph driving through the Appalachian mountains. had to floor it and was still losing mph. if I would have been towing something, I'd still be there to this day...18 years later.
My father has a 99 with that 4 cylinder engine and automatic. It's just a cheapo to have a pick up around to use. Still mint in the garage but I can run faster than that truck. I wouldn't even try a mountain drive!
Brad Conklin yeah true. one of my coworkers had a 94 4.0 and put headers on it. so much faster than my 3.0. then he got a 2001 Tacoma and had toyota put a TRD roots type blower on it. that little truck hauled ass.
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight Yup, the 3.0 was a dog. One of my cousins still has a 2001 Edge Supercab 4x4 with the 3.0 and stickshift. I always thought it was the 4.0 because it sounds mean (I don't know what exhaust she got for the truck), then I got the truck borrowed to move some furniture and found it lacked power. Then I opened the hood and confirmed my thoughts. 4.0 all the way, you won't sacrifice much fuel economy for the vastly improved performance.
Ahh, the old days.....when a 4.0 V6 only made 160 hp. I had a Ranger (with the 2.3 four) and I agree about the shifter comments---the throws are ridiculously long, like a bus shifter. The engine blew up on the freeway at 120K on the odometer.
My 92 F150 has, I believe, basically the same Mazda-sourced transmission. It is really long throw, a little noisy, and not always easy to get a smooth 1-2 shift.
Daniel Reigada I had a 1994 Ford Ranger with what I believe is the exact same manual transmission or at least a similar variant of it and mine was the exact same way.
I've owned four Ford Rangers and loved them all. I've owned a 1992 2.3 L reg cab, 1994 3.0 L extended cab, 1997 4.0 L 4x4 extended cab and currently own a 2001 4.0 L 4x4 extended cab that I bought brand new. August of 2019 will mark 18 years of ownership. Has 130,000 miles on it and is in pristine condition. Have every single maintenance receipt since new. Hope to drive another 18 years.
Had a friend in '93 who was making good money and had a Saleen Mustang and one of these with the bigger 6 and it seemed blazingly fast (for a truck). Can clearly remember being envious and wanting one for myself.
Cheap, reliable but most importantly UTILITARIAN! IT WAS DESIGNED to be beat up & abused....it was designed to be used and worked and still keep going.... Newer trucks are so nice looking they're more like sports cars....you feel bad using them for hauling shit
My dad got a '93 Ford Ranger as a project car a few years ago. It's got STX, the 5 speed manual, and the 4 liter V6. He plans on making it 330 horsepower so it'll be a good sporty get-around truck.
When this style came out they didn’t seem to rust all too quickly, but later on in the 2000’s these things rusted soooooo fast... Still loved these little trucks, and the 8 spark plug 4 cylinder had more grunt than I expected (don’t get the wrong idea, I didn’t expect much lol) Just wish the later ones didn’t rust so quick here in Pa as the Rangers without rust are getting hard to find here lol Love these old reviews!! Grew up watching this show on PBS and still enjoy watching them You guys should do a new episode in the same fashion as the old ones like this. There was just something so special about these...like an X factor I cannot explain. Keep the retro coming Mr. Davis! 😊
Aaron Hainan-I have an 04 Ranger XLT with 80,000 miles and no rust in MN so I don't know what you're talking about rusting out quickly. Ram/Dodges are rust buckets.
J Hans sadly pretty much everything here rusts Pennsylvania likes to use ALOT of salt in the winter It just seemed like almost everything Ford made in the late 90s and early 2000s rusted so quickly and badly here Rangers, Explorers, F150s... the junk yards have tons of them with good running gear but with body and frames that are Swiss cheese And yeah, there are quite a few dodges like that too lol Just seemed like the Fords from early 90s seemed to last longer. Maybe a difference in paint quality I remember in the late 80s Ford and Chevy had a problem with paint peeling really badly and they fixed that so who knows lol
Aaron Hainan -Oh yeah I hear you. A lot of it has to do with how you take care of them I think too but some do rust out a lot quicker then others. There's Dodges/Ram trucks here that are rusted out over the wheel wells that are only 3-4 years old.
J Hans yeah same here lol That and cab corners always seem to be the first spots to rust on any truck lol (Thank you Ford for aluminum body panels!) The worst I had ever seen was the last gen Dodge Dakota Had it as a rental a few years back The truck was only 3 months old and had under 10,000 miles and the rad support was already rusting pretty badly
Aarron, Here ya go. Here is what has happened. Ford, Nissan, Mazda, Jaguar, Volvo, Austin Martin and Kia are all tied in with each other. The engine to in which you are refering to is the Nissan Z engine to in which Ford bought that engine off of Nissan in 1990 and installed it in certain Ranger and Mazda trucks which means you have 4 spark plugs fir intake, 4 plugs for exhaust which burned and reburned emissions fir a cleaner environment. The Mazda trucks are the exact same truck as the Ford Rangers, and the Merccury Villiger is a Nissan Quest. Also the Ford Aspire was manufactured for Ford by Kia motor Corporation. I had a kid I went to school with who had a Kia and when you opened the door of the drivers side, the tag on it said, manufactured by Kia Motor Corporation and it was on a Ford Aspire. I can get into much more specifics about all of this should you wish it.
My mother's boyfriend still driving his 1997 Bright Cayman Green Ranger XLT regular cab with manual transmission and 260,000 miles. The condition was very rough and his driver's side safety belt is completely worn out. My main concern is the notchy school bus shifter with the 4 cylinder engine and it's definitely not appropriate for a small truck!
I love my Colorado...but my first truck was a 92 Ranger that my dad bought me when I turned 15!!!! The true meaning of a "compact truck!" I personally put 45k miles on it, without a single issue!! 4.0V6, Manual trans, 2wd and short wheel base!!!
Hugely popular trucks, many kids at school had these! Funny how Ford went from making the best small truck to not making it at all and now they had to bring it back although it's huge in comparison.
They're pretty good utilities. They've been in Australia for about 10 years now. They fly off dealerships. The 3.2L 5 cylinder diesel is a characterful engine. Not sure if the U.S will be getting the 5 cylinder or not.
revhead5346 6 from what I've read, it will be getting the turbo four that's also used in the base Mustang. Interesting combo but a should be sufficient enough
Yeah I heard that too. Americans are power crazy. The most powerful utility you can buy in Australia has 220 hp. You're hard pressed to even come across a petrol dual cab utility over here.
Everyone complains about not having cheap trucks available anymore. Well if this truck was $17K and change in 1993, that's about $30K in today's money. You can still get a small truck pretty loaded up with features like that Ranger was for it's time for $30K or less. It's the full size trucks that are so expensive.
Ford Rangers (fully loaded models) in my local dealerships go for 15 000$ on average! Given its the last small pickup truck to be truly small. Hell i used to have a ‘’01 3.0 V6 XLT with 150 000 km on the clock and suprisingly the dealership took it as a trade in (2000$)! Although, i was always busy helping a friend move into a new home and a 2wd ford ranger is very sketchy on a snowy road.
I used to have the 1999 Ranger.4x4,3.0 engine,automatic trans.But the rangers had a weak frame.Because I live in Maine the road salt destroyed the frame from the back of the cab to the rear bumper.I really miss that truck!
Bought my ‘98 2.5L automatic Ranger 10 years ago for $1,700. Minimal repairs over the years. Finally rebuilt the front suspension a couple months ago. All the ball joints were shot. They’re very durable trucks. Glad the first owner had it undercoated when it was new- the frame and body is pristine and rust free. I have no doubt I’ll still be driving it 20 years from now. Sure beats the $30K they are wanting for the new one. Cost of ownership is under $500 a year including insurance. That’s less than the monthly payment on my Mustang.
The first Brand New Vehicle I bought was an 87 Ranger. Super Cab XLT 4x4 with a 3.0 and 5 Speed Manual. Took it to Germany and drove it for a year. Traded it in on an 88 Supra at the Canadian PX.
M Lee gotta remember in ‘93 a 5.0L Mustang “only” put out about 225 HP...., which the new Ranger 2.3L ecoboost with 270 HP and 310 lb-ft torque would probably smoke from stop light to stop light. The stronger engines of today simply weren’t available back then...
I owed a 94 Ranger 4 cylinder 4x4 from 1998 until somebody hit me and totaled it with 240,000 miles in 2008. It was supremely reliable very easy to do all the maintenance on yourself. Was it fast? No. Was it great on ride and handling? No. But it was dirt cheap to operate and very easy to get parts for.
The cab and doors and much of the body seen in this video were still being used when the Ranger was discontinued in 2011. Still, the Ranger was #2 in the segment in sales. Most buyers polled said they liked the size and lower price. Unfortunately, the 2019 Ranger is closer to the F-150 in size, equipment, and pricing. The days of an affordable small truck are gone forever. Which is why the current excitement over the midsize truck segment can't be sustained. It'll die again in a few years, just as it did a decade ago.
I got 93 reg cab 2.3 5sp 2wd and 93 ext cab 4.0l ohv 5 so ext cab. New ranger is nice but they need to make rangers like the 93-97 rangers still for kids and fleet trucks. Simple and cheap. I guess there's used market and they hold up well and plenty of parts out there to keep them running 50 years.
I've owned an 83 4-Speed 2.3 liter 2WD an 87 5-Speed 2.3 2WD An 89 5-speed 2.3 2WD all of them standard cab models. And now I own a 2007 4.0 5-Speed manual 4X4 standard cab. Best truck for the buck my entire life.
Way better than the new ones are going to be I think - a real small/compact truck and not today's F-150 - basically 3-4 generations back as it appears the 2019 will be. Then their will be the price aspect as I bet the new ones will get into the $35,000+ on up in price. Own a 2004 and 1996 now and will just keep fixing them as needed for as long as I can........
NO kidding, when they said the Ranger was coming back, I thought , awesome, an affordable new truck coming back. Then they came out with 4cyl motor, which i like at 40000 to 55000 each!! CAD. I bought my 1996 for 13500 CAD, Brand new. Still driving it!!!. Basically zero work to do on it until 2019, when I gave it, New Clutch, New tires all around, Rear brakes and drums, Front wheel bearings , front rotors, front calipers, Tie rod, All new spark plugs, and an exhaust clamping kit. ONly other thing it needed some 7 years ago , was a new timing belt, oh and a new battery!. 4100.00 in total repairs since 1995, and that includes two sets of tires.
