Ford Ranger
The story of the Ford Ranger compact pickup trucks may be the best example of automotive evolution, not revolution, in the American automotive market. Now, more than 26 years into production, a few of the parts and pieces on these trucks have never changed.
While most of us think of a Ranger as a small domestic pickup truck, the name has appeared on other Ford Motor Company products. The name first appeared in 1950 on a Ford Panel Truck with extra windows and a conversion to four-wheel-drive by Marmon-Herrington--a vehicle that could be considered one of the first SUVs. The Ranger name made a brief detour away from the truck world in making an appearance as an Edsel model. In 1965, the Ranger name returned to the Ford truck line as the top trim level of the full-size Ford pickup. The name carried on until 1982 when the XLT became the top of the line. Unheard-of truck luxuries like carpet and nice seats were part of the Ranger package.
Development of the compact Ranger pickup began in 1976, and the truck debuted in mid-1982 as a 1983 model, replacing the Mazda-built Ford Courier. Ford would later return the favor; the Mazda B-series compact pickups are based on the Ranger.
Original Ranger engines included a 2.0-liter, 72-horsepower four-cylinder, a 2.3-liter, 86-horsepower four-cylinder, a 2.2-liter, 59-horsepower diesel four-cylinder, and a 2.8-liter, 115-horsepower V-6. The Ranger shared similar styling and engineering features, including Ford's twin I-beam front suspension, with its larger F-150 sibling. In 1986, the SuperCab and Ranger GT models appeared. The Ford Bronco II was based on this Ranger.
In 1989, the face-lift included a new front end with flush-mounted headlights, a new grille, and a new bumper. Inside, new door panels and a dashboard were fitted; the dash was continued until 1995. The popular Ford Explorer/Mazda Navajo, which debuted in 1990 and helped ignite the popularity of SUVs, were based on Ranger mechanicals and body parts. The dash, seats, windshield, hood, and much of the drivetrain were lifted straight from the Ranger parts bin.
In the 1993 model year, what looked like an all-new Ranger was really just one of the most comprehensive reskins in automotive history. All of the external body panels and much of the interior pieces were new, but the same frame, drivetrain, inner bed stampings, seats, rear window, and even the dashboard were held over. In 1994, I bought this new Cayman Green third-generation Ranger in XLT trim with a 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine, 5-speed transmission, air conditioning, AM/FM stereo, sliding rear window, and little else. The sales price was just $9,986. I owned this vehicle 12 years, longer than any other vehicle I have ever owned, and the truck served me faithfully until its early, sad demise on Halloween in 2006. More on that later.
The XLT is the luxury Ranger trim level. On mine, the XLT meant padding and carpeting on the doors, and a 60/40 split seat with a center console that folded up for a (hopefully) skinny middle passenger. Mine had cloth seats that looked almost brand new after 12 years and 110,000 miles, intermittent wipers, a stereo, tinted glass, sliding back window, power steering, and power brakes, but no tilt wheel. The tilt wheel was the only thing I really missed not having.
All Rangers received an updated dashboard and driver airbag for the 1995 model, but the 1995 Ranger was not released until late in the model year. The story goes that the new dash was intended for both the Ranger and the Explorer, but since not enough components were available to fill both vehicles, the Ranger was held off to allow the Explorer to receive the new dashes. The new dashboard, with two gauges removed, is still used in Rangers today.
It's also worth mentioning that many Ranger drivetrain and suspension components were shared with Ford's Aerostar minivan. They were both built at the same St. Louis, Miss., truck plant, but they shared no body stampings. Almost any upgrade to the Ranger suspension could be applied to the Aerostar.
In 1998, the current fourth-generation Ranger debuted. The Ranger's new frame was reportedly 370% more rigid; the Ranger also featured a new, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, rack-and-pinion steering, a new front suspension, new front-end styling, a three-inch extension of the standard cab, new tow hooks, second-generation airbags, new seats, and larger tires.
Ford even produced an electric-powered Ranger. Called the Ranger EV, it was built from 1998-2002. It was built on a four-wheel-drive chassis with a truly unique rear suspension, but only two wheels were powered. Ford only made 1,500; most had NiMH (Nickel-Metal Hydride) batteries, and they could travel 65 miles at 65 mph on a flat road. Batteries lasted for about 25,000 miles, and the EVs were leased, not sold. However, some have made their way to the used truck market. Customers praised the Ranger EV's ride and handling, which was helped in great part by the low center of gravity provided by the battery pack.
The EV had a special rear end drivetrain. The 60-hp (45kw) AC motor/transmission/differential single-unit was mounted between the rear wheels, then half-shafts angled down to the wheels. A De Dion Tube and Watt's Linkage with carbon fiber leaf springs was used in 1998; conventional steel springs and no Watt's Linkage was used from 1999-2002. A ceramic core resistance heater was used, and an electric compressor ran the air conditioning.
The Ranger's sibling, the Explorer Sport Trac, debuted in 2001. Essentially a four-door pickup version of the Explorer, in my opinion there was more Ranger in this truck than Explorer. After all, the engine, dashboard and size were borrowed from the Ranger. I wish this truck had been sold as a four-door Ranger instead of an Explorer.
I nearly bought one of these, actually, since it was very close to meeting my needs. Its bed is tiny, at barely four feet long, not counting the tubular bed extender. Of course, long loads are what utility trailers are for; I can't justify driving around an empty eight-foot bed.
The Sport Trac's style and size were great for my purposes, but the interior was like a taxi cab, with a vinyl floor, poor lighting, and overall cheap appointments. Ford called the standard seats cloth, but they were covered in what more resembled wetsuit material--one dealer told me you could hose them off. Leather seats and carpeted floor mats were available, but the trim levels just weren't up to par for a $30,000+ truck. Instead, I ordered a new loaded 2003 F-150 XLT SuperCrew, with heated seats, remote start, sunroof, tow package, etc., for about the same money as a loaded 4WD Sport Trac.
Anyway, back to the Ranger. The Ranger has evolved into a reliable and affordable truck, but has also become a dinosaur; the bed hasn't changed in more than 16 years. Sales of the Ranger have struggled on, lower than they used to be probably just because the truck has not been significantly updated. Many people do not want to replace their older trucks with a new one exactly like what they just had, so they buy Toyotas, Chevys, or other small trucks. Many of the other smaller pickups have gained size and mass, like the Dodge Dakota and Nissan Frontier, but some customers just don't want a full-size truck. Again, I have an F-150, but the Ranger's compact size made it the perfect vehicle for me for everyday travel, small loads, and farm work. Oh, and it always got around 26 miles per gallon; I saw 29 on the highway once.
At the time of this writing, the Ranger's future is unclear. The current truck presses on, probably until 2011, but excitement for it has certainly waned. Reports say that a new truck is in the works, and could be built in Australia, Brazil, Mexico, or South Africa.
I'd still have my Ranger if some clunk-head hadn't hit a deer and knocked it into my truck, denting the side of the front fender, lower driver's door, and bed. I didn't even feel the impact. The other driver kept going, of course, even though their plastic headlight pieces were all over the road. The estimate to fix the Ranger was more than $2,500, and by Tennessee law, the truck had to be totalled because the repair was more than 75% of the vehicle's value. Looking back, I should have fixed the truck out of my pocket, but after paying the insurance bills on it for 12 years, I felt I was due something. A new fender, minor body work, and paint would have made the Ranger fresh again, as it really wasn't hurt that badly. But there was no good choice in the matter. Losing that truck was like losing a beloved pet - it can't be replaced. I really miss my Ranger.
I missed it enough that I ordered a new Ranger in late 2006 to replace the 1994 model. After an 11-week wait, the new truck arrived with a paint defect. The dealer refused to repair the truck until I bought it, citing warranty requirements; I refused to take delivery until the truck was fixed, having been stung by previous dealers' promises to fix a vehicle "properly" after I took delivery. This standoff resulted in me walking away from the truck, the dealer, and probably Ford forever.
Most of the photos are from Wikipedia. I took the "Ranger" emblem photo on the back deck. The teal truck pic is from a print I took about five years ago. The cutaway diagram is from the 1998 Ranger brochure.
--That Car Guy (Chuck)
Anthony Cagle on April 15, 2009 at 09:57 AM
I've always liked the Ranger, although my Bronco II was, as you say, built from it, and it sucked. It's a good size. Lately I've been looking rather longingly at pickups, and the old Lightning but they're just so darn big. I could totally get into an SVT Ranger. Could a 4.6L even fit in one?
Remember back when people bought pickups because they were, you know, cheap?
CJinSD on April 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM
For some reason I feel like this market segment has been neglected. In the mid '80s, Chevy(& GMC),Datsun, Ford, Mazda, Misubishi(& Dodge), Isuzu, and Toyota all had minipickups on the market. From 7 basic truck designs(it could be argued that the S10 & Pup were related under the skin) with similar, minimalist specifications, the small truck market has sort of imploded. Dodge went 'midsized,' and then grew their truck some more. Mitsubishi and Isuzu folded. Mazda became a Ranger clone. Chevy and GMC went up quite a bit in size and mass with the Canyon/Colorado. Toyota and Nissans products grew to at least match the Chevy. Ford is left with the closest thing to an authentic minipickup, and it is only because there are people who can drive now that weren't born when the last entirely new Ranger was introduced.
Whenever people talk about what they loved about their minipickups, they usually boast about fuel mileage in the mid to high 20s. For some reason, modern compact trucks no longer come close to this. I imagine the reason is 1,500 extra pounds and twice the horsepower, but I wonder what was the point. Full sized trucks have the capabilities and power for people who need them. Why did the automakers abandon people who wanted the efficiency and needed the usefulness of the old minipickups? I suppose you could say that Ford didn't leave them without an offering, but they abandoned them in terms of excluding them from the technological and sophistication advancements of the past 20 years. The latest Rangers don't get that great gas mileage either.
Steaming Pile on April 15, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Damn, @CJinSD, you just read my mind. I once had a Mitsubishi Mighty Max pickup, and I still miss it nearly 20 years later. I'd buy another one in a minute if they still made them, even if it had DODGE on the tailgate. I got 27 MPG with the air on, which in South Carolina was any time the engine was running. However they determine these things, it was rated at one and a quarter ton, which meant it would have hauled a whole pallet of wood pellets if I still had it. I'd like to see that trick, though.
David Colborne on April 15, 2009 at 02:32 PM
I'm going to go with the herd and lament the lack of truly compact trucks in today's market. My understanding is that much of it has to do with profit margin - as little profit as there is in large trucks these days, there's even less in smaller, cheaper trucks. Then again, people expect to be able to use their pickup as a primary family-hauling vehicle these days, so that might have something to do with it, too.
SullyAg on April 15, 2009 at 03:00 PM
God almighty, this is becoming uncanny, the way Car Lust addresses my personal automotive history. I owned a dark-blue 1996 Ford Ranger XLT with four-banger and a five-speed. Faithful steed, it moved me from Houston to San Francisco, where I succumbed to the siren song of Highway One and traded the Ranger for a Miata. I've always regretted that -- I miss my Ranger, too.
Darrencardinal on April 15, 2009 at 04:28 PM
I owned a 1990 Ranger xlt, with the extended bed. It was a nice truck and overall I liked it. It had decent power and was easy to drive, it had good visibility and could hold a decent amount in the bed. The fuel economy wasn't too bad either.
The interior was nice, I liked the seats and carpet, and the floor mats. Plus she had very nice air conditioning, it did a great job of keeping you cool on the hottest day. The gauges looked good, the radio was mediocre but I didn't much care. She rode nice and was a good ride.
But I still felt like I got screwed in the end. The engine crapped out at 89,000 miles, with the oil and coolant mixing together, you could smell antifreeze coming out of the exhaust. I had it rebuilt for $3300.00, and after a few thousand miles, the rebuilt engine died with the same problem. One month after the end of the warranty. Rats.
So it would be tough for me to get another one of these, what with Toyota and Nissan out there making nice compact trucks as well. Still, I miss my Ranger.
Shawn on April 15, 2009 at 07:45 PM
I have a friend with a '93 Ranger. The amount of neglect it receives and it still runs reliably continues to amaze me. It is probably the most ungodly slow V6 I've ever driven though.
I have a grammatical nitpick as well. As a Missourian, it's incredibly awkward to see my state abbreviated as "Miss.". I would argue that abbreviation has the connotation of being for the state of Mississippi. "MO" is far more common and accepted for Missouri.
Big Chris on April 15, 2009 at 09:19 PM
My mom has had 2 Rangers for her last 2 vehicles. First one was a 1st Gen that was red and white and as gutless a vehicle I have ever driven. But credit to that little truck it started and ran every day, required little upkeep, and hauled random crap around just fine. She sold that to my grandfather (the retired auto mechanic) and he drove it for a number of years after that, eventually selling it for a newer model. My mother also replaced it with a newer model that is a true lemon. I'm not sure the year, but it has 2 spark plugs per cylinder head, and it is a complete dog. Fuel mileage is worse, ride is worse, it run like crap, and it has the most insane breaking power with no pedal feedback on any vehicle I've ever been in. The first time you drive it you'll about put yourself through the front window when the brakes grab. It has been nearly relegated to driveway decoration status because it is such a pain. Too bad, cause it is a good looking little truck.
I have a lot of experience with these trucks. I know a number of people who work the assembly line in St. Paul, MN where these trucks are built. It will be a sad day in our region when Ford pulls the plug. They basically did once already, but they then gave a stay on that shut down, and it seems they keep pushing it off.
Big Chris
Mike on April 16, 2009 at 06:50 AM
I owned a 91 Navajo, a 98 Ranger extended cab, a 98 Ranger stepside, a 98 Explorer Sport, and now own an 05 F150 Supercrew. I disliked the looks of the Sport Trac and always thought Ford should have sold their crewcab Ranger in the United States. I have seen them in Mexico and that is the newest Australian crewcab pictured at the end of the article. The Ranger concept is a fine combination of utility and efficiency and I hope Ford keeps a place for it or something similar.
Bernard on April 16, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I leased a '96 and owned an '89 and both were great little trucks. I especially enjoyed the extended cab on the '96.
kenny heggem on April 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM
The Ranger is the just about last of it's breed when it comes to compact trucks that can be purchased new in base form for under 9 grand through promo offers. I dont think they even offer new GMC compact trucks for 10k.
29 mpg, nice simple lines, and a pretty forgiving 4 cylinder power train. Just dont expect much on the highway as far as performance goes. 1st, 2nd, 3rd hear has torque and grunt....but anything above is dog slow.
The steering position bites. They are getting log in the tooth. But I would much rather buy a tough and sporty truck for 9k than a Hyundai Accent. Sporty wheels on the Hyundai is just dorky...on the Ranger, it is pretty dam cool. Add a bedliner and a nice stereo...pretty nice ride.
Hint: The Mazda clone comes with a better warranty, nicer lines (in my opinion, just look at the bed of the two trucks), and often have the most wiggle room/heavy discounts...simply because people buy less Mazda than Ford pick up wise.
kenny heggem on April 16, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Should mention the prior steal in small pick ups...
the pre 94 Toyota 4 cylinder pick ups. I recall my buddy having a base model, no rear bumper, vinyl seats, in white.
350k. 1 clutch. 4 batteries. 1 heater core.
Dropped clutched, off roaded, and abused the living hell out of that pick up...wasnt an area without dents on the entire body.
Seat was caved in. It was using a quart of oil every week by the time he sold it to a Mexican Gardener for $1500.
Bought new for under 7 grand in 89. I think he got his value for it!
Good luck finding a nice simple truck under 10 grand from Toyota nowadays...
Dam things look like Camrys.
That Car Guy on April 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM
As much as I like the Mazda pickup, I have a problem with the bed. It's not as wide (Inside or out) as the Ranger. They are wider than the "stepside" (Plastic) Ranger bed, but narrower than the regular (Sheetmetal) bed. This means that Ranger bedliners, floor mats, and camper/toppers will not fit the Mazda.
Yes, I like the swoopy lines as well, but I feel the same effect could have been made without sacrificing the normal dimensions of the Ranger. And sadly, our Mazda dealer in Franklin, Tennessee, refuses to stock any Mazda pickups because they are such slow sellers. They'll order you one, but don't look for a large discount.
The average new car price is now about $29,000. You can get a regular cab Ranger with V-6, automatic, power package, tilt, and cruise, in an XLT trim (The only Ranger with carpet) for around $20,000, sticker, if you can find one. But the standard 4-cylinder has almost the same horsepower, and is much better on gas! Save another $1,000 and shift. I've priced a very nice 4-cylinder, 5-speed Ranger for about $18,000. A Super Cab option is about $3,000, and you have the same legroom. The cab is only stretched about 9 inches behind the seats.
(Hint:) Just putting air conditioning on a base XL Ranger puts you very close in price to an XLT, which has A/C standard and many other extra features.
Mochi Mochi on April 16, 2009 at 05:18 PM
There was a big competition between Ranger owners and Chevy S10 owners. The trucks were always being compared. The S10 being seen as having a nicer more car like ride, and the Ranger being more of an edgy truck. I think that caused me to drift in favor of the Ranger.
As a kid I joined the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) on a student membership. What was really cool about that was that I got access to all the SAE publications, one of which was a lengthy paper from Ford describing in detail all of the innovative engineering and production technology that went into the Ranger. Based on that paper my father ended up buying a Ranger. He had it for ever. Actually he may still have it. The thing took all kinds of abuse, including being rearended by another larger truck. No matter what the Ranger just kept going. I ended up driving it around Boston once. It had a very stiff ride, but it was also very responsive and agile - especially for a truck.
Rocketguy on April 18, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I have an '01 Ranger XLT. Bought it a few months ago with 127,000 miles on it from the original owner - a young woman in San Jose, CA. She had helped some friends move a couple times, leaving a few scratches in the bed, and she had basically never washed it inside or out. The son-in-law and I detailed it over a couple of weekends and it's now practically perfect in the looks and driving departments. It's comfortable and fun to drive. Extended 4-door cab with jump seats in the back. From the era when Ford was putting tastefully small logos front and back. Power everything. Nice-looking little truck. Not very good gas mileage and it has a small tank, so it goes to the gas station pretty often, but I love it. It was cheap, too.
That Car Guy on April 18, 2009 at 11:29 PM
I forgot to mention that Ford had a $2,500 rebate on the Ranger the last time I looked. They will also usually sell one at "invoice" (Yes, I know that's a farce) just to move the truck, so subtract another $800.
That leaves a very nicely trimmed small truck with air, CD, cruise, tilt, power windows, power door locks, remote entry, and fog lights for about $14,700 plus tax, tags, and license fees if you don't mind using a clutch. $15,700 if you do. Just be sure to check the paint.
Russell on April 22, 2009 at 02:35 PM
I really wish there was a 4 dr Ranger with a basic 4x4. That's all I want and need, I don't need a huge truck like what Tacoma or the heavy pig Frontier are trying to be. Just a simple basic truck that's utilitarian, looks contemporary and can carry a family of 4 safely and comfortably to the weekend ski or camping trips.
I guess since the Ranger is slated to be 'upgraded' which in our terms usually means 'bigger and heavier' I'll have to see if Mazda makes my dream a reality. I would so buy it.
Chuck on April 22, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Yes, there is a market waiting for a good, small, versatile truck. We used to have them. A new body on this Ranger frame is all that is needed.
kenny heggem on April 28, 2009 at 09:14 AM
Ranger Extended cabs...
Just saw an ad for under 13 grand. Not a bad deal, Even if the truck is getting long in the tooth...haivng that back space is handy.
Jeremy on May 19, 2009 at 03:54 PM
I have a '97 Ranger XLT that i bought new and apart from the normal wear and tear, I've had virtually no problems with it and plan on holding onto it as long as possible. I've trued my best to keep it in good shape inside and out and after a good detailing, you'd forget it was a 12 year old truck.
Pipermike on May 28, 2009 at 08:45 AM
I had a 91 ranger 2wd 4cyl 4 speed with overdrive. It was a fun, peppy, useful little truck. I got 20 mpg and it served me very well for all the hauling I really needed to do 90% of the time. I just wish this kid I know didn't mow into it with his Taurus in a parking lot, totaling it. Luckily I have another ranger, but its the V6 and I'm probably going to miss the gas mileage of the 2.3.
Paul on July 17, 2009 at 12:47 AM
In 1988, I bought a white and red Ranger XLT longbed, with the 2.9 liter V-6. I have spent probably ~$1000 in maintainence (not including tires/brakes/oil) in the last 21 years. Of course, the A/C no longer functions, the radio is on the fritz, and there are other accessory malfunctions and cosmetic defects. It has been used and abused over it's life, and I would not hesitate to take a road trip tommorrow. It has never failed to haul whatever I loaded it down with (although the load of gravel did place the frame on the rear axle). Although I have let some of the interior and exterior go, It has been one of the most mechanically reliable vehicles I've ever owned. I love my truck, even though my wife despises it. She just has no appreciation of it's finer qualities.
Chris Fender on August 16, 2009 at 07:33 PM
I also have a cayman green 94 Ranger with the 4.0 v-6,and this has been one of the best and toughest trucks I have ever owned. It just clicked over 250,000 miles yesterday and the entire drive train,with the exception of the carrier bearing, has never been touched. They are great little trucks.
Steve Rechel on September 02, 2009 at 04:18 PM
Hello
Please email this to anyone in Ohio that is looking for 1985 Ford Ranger front fenders.
Clint Duskin on November 07, 2009 at 09:12 AM
My 95 ranger xlt 2.3 standard is the best vehicle I have ever owned except maybe for the 87 Escort; that my daughter ended it's career on at 167000 miles. My Ranger has never been in the shop has always been outside looks like crap and has 225000 miles on it. I get 22 mpg while driving 70 to 80 mph back and forth to work 5 to 6 day a week. I will need to do some u-joint and carrier bearing work before long.
I do have a dark instrument panel. I found electrical diagrams for everything but the panel. I don't even know how it gets electrical power yet.