No-nonsense transportation
Pros:
Reliable as the sun, very cheap to repair
Cons:
Built in the days before style became fashionable
The Bottom Line:
With any pickup this old, it's a crap shoot. If your budget puts you in this field, stack the cards in your favor by considering a Ranger.
|
|
Overall Rating:
|
 |
| Ease of Loading: |
|
|
Author's Review
I bought my Ranger used back in 1998, with 162,000 on the clock. It had the 2.3L 4-cylinder engine and 5-speed transmission. The engine was a bit low on horsepower, but had a lot of torque down low, so it was great for hauling heavy loads.
I bought the Ranger as my "throwaway" commuter. In that, it performed flawlessly. Styling and bench seat were rather bland, but acceptable for the era in which the truck was built. Handling with the aftermarket wheels was quite good, and with the bed loaded with snow and chains on, it performed quite well in the snow for a 2WD pickup. When it came time to replace the brakes, I found that the previous owner had worn the rotors dangerously thin. Replacement rotors cost less than $80 a pair (as compared to $200+ for my FWD car!)
I finally sold the Ranger two years ago, with 202,000 miles on the clock, for the same $450 I paid for it 40,000 miles earlier. I averaged 22-24 mpg regardless of my driving style. I miss that old truck. My other Ranger (an '83) lasted 163,000 miles and became the parts truck for the '86. I also know two others who own '87-90 Rangers and are still driving them with 150,000+ on the odometer. Very reliable vehicles.
(P.S. I just bought a loaded '96 Ranger SuperCab 4x4. I'll post a review in about 6 months.)
edmunds.com
edmunds.com
