Welcome back! After yesterday‘s horrible hatchbacks, I thought you all might want to look at some things you’d actually consider buying. So I found a couple of cheap and cheerful beaters that I think might go over better.
But I have to say, I did enjoy the stories. Cheap, common cars like those are tailor-made for shenanigans, whether it’s donuts in a snowy parking lot in a Chevette or trying to do a J-turn in a Dodge Omni 024 on a gravel road. My brother’s first car was a Plymouth Turismo, which caught fire in traffic, so he replaced it with a Horizon. And I once left a party, three sheets to the wind, with a stunning girl who drove a black Chevette, and I wish I knew what happened after that. (Or maybe I don’t.)
Anyway, between these two, for me, it’s the Horizon, and it’s not even close. It’s enjoyably bad, like hair metal or a B-movie. The Chevette is just bad, like that diner in the next town over your grandpa always insisted on dragging you to.
All right. Let’s move on to some better choices. It’s T-tops or a truck; let’s see which one you prefer.
1993 Nissan NX1600 – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Long Beach, CA
Odometer reading: 206,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
Remember when every automaker sold not only a small car, but also a sporty small car? You had your VW Rabbit, but you also had the Scirocco. More or less the same car under the skin, but the styling made all the difference. Ford had the Escort and the EXP. Toyota had the Tercel and the Paseo. And Nissan had the Sentra and the Pulsar, which for some reason, by the time this car was built, stopped being the Pulsar and was simply known as the NX.
This is the base-model NX, the 1600, so named for its 1.6 liter engine. It was the same engine as the Sentra, tuned for fuel economy rather than for fun, but that was fine. The whole point of cars like these was to be able to drive an economy car that didn’t look like an economy car. Nissan kicked things up a notch by including T-tops on every NX, much like the preceding Pulsar, for some open-air fun. This NX is an automatic, but I imagine a lot of the 1600s were.
This is a one-owner car, north of 200,000 miles, but the seller says it runs and drives well. It does appear to have suffered under the California sun; there is something weird going on with the airbag cover. I’m not sure how much I trust a thirty-year-old airbag anyway. But I would never suggest that anyone remove it and install an aftermarket steering wheel, nor have I ever done such a thing to a Miata I owned a few years back.
Outside, it’s pretty sun-bleached as well, which calls into question the condition of the T-top seals. If the sun has been beating down on the paint, it’s been beating down on those seals as well. Might want to take it to a carwash for a “pre-purchase inspection.”
1994 Mazda B3000 SE – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0-liter overhead valve V6, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Brentwood, CA
Odometer reading: 205,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
A couple of days ago, we looked at a pair of Ford Rangers from other countries. One of them was really a Mazda with a Ford badge. What we have here is just the opposite: This is a Ford Ranger, built in St. Paul, Minnesota, with Mazda badges and some tweaks to the sheetmetal. And I don’t just mean that giant dent in the hood.
The Mazda B-series of this era offered the same three engines as the Ford Ranger: a 2.3 liter four, a 4.0 liter Cologne V6, and in the middle, the 3.0 liter Vulcan V6 from the Ford Taurus, which is what this one has. I haven’t heard great things about this engine in this application; I’ve heard it offers only a marginal boost in power over the 2.3, and returns only slightly better fuel economy than the big six. But it is reliable, as is the Mazda-built five-speed manual behind it.
This truck has also only had one owner, and is also just a little past 200,000 miles. It runs and drives great, and the air conditioning works, which is always a welcome bonus on a cheap vehicle. It’s in nice condition overall, with just some signs of wear inside.
Apart from the aforementioned boop in the nose, it looks good outside, too. It’s an SE, so it has snazzy alloy wheels and some stripes, and it’s green, which in my opinion is the best color for a truck, though I could be biased.
These two are nothing special, but they’re cheap, and they run well, and at this price that’s enough. They’ll get you around for a while, probably without much trouble. One’s a little more useful, and the other gets a little better mileage. So which one will it be?
(Image credits: Facebook Marketplace sellers)
It’s a good thing that truck is in California, otherwise I would be extremely tempted. Going with the B series all the way.
I went with the Mazda, even though I absolutely hate the 3.0L V6 due to the pain and suffering I experienced due to the poor oiling design of the valve train in a 1993 Ranger I once owned. Luckily it is a 5-speed, so it avoids the A4LD mess, but I would 100% be on board if it had either the 2.3L or 4.0L OHV engine. Unfortunately for that Nissan, it isn’t a desirable spec NX, and was honestly a letdown after the awesome quirkiness of the previous generation Pulsar NX.
Mark, you’re killing us! If ever there was a need for “both” it’s today!
The Vulcan is the engine to have in one of these. More grunt and smoother than the Pinto engine, much less thirsty and more durable than the German V6. So yeah I’ll take the Ranger any day of the week and twice on Sunday even if it wears a funny grille and taillights.
I’ve been gravitating to old 2.3 powered units just so I can cannibalize some SVO/thundercoupe turbo bits on it.
Good point if you want to do a go fast version, but then again the SHO version of the Vulcan will bolt right in. Just need to use a couple of long bolts and nuts for those two locations where the bolt goes from the engine side on the FWD block.
At first you had my interest, NOW you have my attention. I JUST found a clean 3.0 2wd stick for sale. Now to find a rusted out SHO…
Note to be fair when I say bolt in I mean that you can bolt the Ranger mounts to the SHOified block and that it will also match up with the transmission. Now as far as what clutch pieces are needed to make that work, how to deal with the exhaust and front accessory drive I don’t have a clue. I think the Ranger oil pan should work, but don’t know that for certain. I do know that the intake will turn 180 degrees so you can point the throttle body forward instead of into the firewall.
I have to go for rarity. Granted, both vehicles are hard to come by, but the Mazda is essentially a Ranger. Nissan gets my vote.
Who the hell is gonna say no to a stick shift in one of the greatest midsized trucks ever made! I’m actively shopping B series/rangers for a runabout because they’re so good
In most parts of the world the Nissan Pulsar / Sunny was the name for the whole range, including 3 and 5 door hatchbacks. And the GTI-R homologation special.
I remember the NX, it was sold here although I thought it was only available with a 2 litre engine.
If ‘here’ is the US, then it was both the NX1600 and the NX2000, which had the mighty SR20DE in it. There weren’t many of them, as they were homologation for SCCA racing (maybe wrong on the series, but pretty sure)
172 – 29 as of now. As soon as I saw the options I thought, “they’re trying to see how high they can run up the score on this one.”
I normally would never choose a truck, but in this case I will. I used to drive an employer-owned Ranger with this engine, and while it was a dog it never quit. Ever.
A manual transmission on the Nissan- which shouldn’t even come with an automatic- would tip the balance, IF those T-Tops passed the car wash test, which is a very good idea for any vehicle with a hole in the roof at this price point.
The Poolboy needs a new pickup.
And he’ll have fun w/ the manual transmission.
If the NX had a 5 speed, it would have won my vote.
So is your wife gonna buy it for him?
Asking for a friend.. /s
No, but my Husband can.
😉
sorry about that. lol.
Sounds like you got quite the weekend planned.
Small truck vs. car with holes intentionally cut in the roof and 30 year-old weather seals. I’ll take the green Ranger with a Mazda badge and price.
I had Toyota’s version of the ‘sporty looking car based on a boring car’ back in the 90’s, the Paseo. It was a coupe based on the Tercel, which I believe was based on the Starlet. “Sporty looking” really is key here, as the almost 100 hp wasn’t exactly getting you anywhere quickly. But it was small, fairly knimble, and a real braw car overall. I put almost 200k on it myself before giving it to my brother for another 100k. Drove the thing almost entirely underwater once and it didn’t stop it. It was a great if silly looking little thing
The Mazda. This was a weird era of mixmaster Ford/Mazda/Mitsubishi products (I had a B2600i with parts from all 3), but it was also an era when US small truck reliability was on par with its Japanese counterparts (S10’s and Rangers were super common as workhorse trucks).
Can you tow a 6,000 pound trailer in it while taking a family of five to the lake? Definitely not. Can you fit a few buckets of paint and some lumber in the back and do regular household stuff without fear of scratching the paint on your 50,000 dollar truck? Yes.
I love me a good small coupe, but for pure utility, the truck.
“Can you tow a 6,000 pound trailer in it while taking a family of five to the lake? Definitely not”
Sure you can!
Based on my 1970s childhood experiences I’m pretty sure my Dad would have half assed some kind of tow hitch *technically* capable of moving a 6000lb trailer, thrown three kids in the bed with a few blankets and perhaps some snacks and hauled it all up 7000′ and around the Rim of the World to Big Bear lake from LA mostly in first and second gear.
Would we have been doing 85 mph in perfect climate controlled comfort? No. Would we have stopped a LOT to let the engine cool down? Yeah. Was survival of everyone assured? No but that’s what the third kid is for. It’s the spare.
You CAN do it! Technically anyway.
Back in my younger days, worked for a construction tool/equipment rental place at one of their smaller locations. They took our F250 away, leaving a v6 Ranger for deliveries. Will it tow a Bobcat? Yes it will. Will it stop while towing a Bobcat? Eventually….
Oh fuck yeah that NX is awesome!!! w000000000h000000000000000000
It’s the Camaro/Firebird done right. Half the size on the outside, twice the size on the inside and MUCH better mpg LOL
T-tops and a digital dash rule!
Also, fuck the rebadged Ford. Fuck the chicken tax. That’s why Mazda rebadged the Ranger and stopped selling their own truck here, which was much better than the Ford shit.
The pickup is just useful. Gotta pick it.
I really wanted to vote for the NX, but with the auto there and the manual in the truck, gotta go Rang… I mean B3000. If they were both auto, or both manual, it would be Nissan all the way.
is this even a question? That B3000 is like the ultimate era of Ford Ranger…
The B3000 is an obvious choice for me. Last good Ranger geberation (I.e. with the TIB front end), 3.0/5spd, abd AC?? Done. First thing I’d do is replace the cam synchro on the 3.0 and the shifter bushing on the 5spd (provided they already haven’t been replaced), and then it would be a perfect daily. The 2.3 is my favorite Ranger motor, but the 3.0 is a close second, and nearly as long-lived.
Best thing is the cam position sensor wasn’t introduced until 1995 MY when Ford went with a distributorless ignition system. So this one doesn’t come with it.
That raises a good question, and one which I don’t know the answer…does the distributor bushing on the pre-‘95 3.0 wear or fail in the same way? If not, why? Seems like the bushing failure (assuming it’s the same material) would happen on both pre- and post- engines.
I don’t have a reply for that either.
I sold my 99 Ranger 3.0 a couple years ago and no longer frequent the forums but from what I recall the distributor equipped trucks didn’t suffer from bushing failures despite having the same looking cam synchro shaft as the DIS trucks.
If that NX was a manual, I would have voted for it. But the Mazda gets my vote this time even though I have a soft spot for that Nissan.
I may or may not have a bias for t-tops so I voted t-tops. If it any vehicle had the option for t-tops it better of had t-tops is how I feel.
When we first moved in together my wife, then gf, had a Pulsar. Well, at first she had a 2 door Cherokee (not a holy grail, it was the 4cyl) but it had severe driveline and engine issues. (The selectrac had a short somewhere and would randomly engage 4WD while driving down the freeway). Anyways, her mom had a mechanic friend who traded her Jeep for the Pulsar. I loved the idea of the Pulsar, taking off the T-tops and heading down to Galveston always sounded like fun but we never made that trip. The Pulsar ran fine with a fresh battery but the alternator was always weak and it left her stranded a couple of times. One of those times was on the side of a busy highway and we had to walk a mile or so to a payphone. The next day she went to a Toyota dealership and bought a new Corolla, that thing ran for almost 15 years without a single mechanical issue. Anyways, I voted NX for nostalgia.
Definitely the truck for me. I’ve always thought Mazda’s subtle tweaks made them the best looking Rangers.
The little Nissan looks cute, but I also worry about leaking T-tops and the resulting flimsy car underneath. We’ll take the truck.
$2500 V6 manual Mazda truck in largely good shape? Where do I sign?
Ah, the GA16DE….. I would take the Nissan (and the auto) over that thrice-gods beshitted 3.0 V6 in the Mazda. It was close, as the Mazda has a manual, but I am familiar with the egg, and it would be a good nostalgia drive.