On today’s thrilling episode, we’re looking at two little trucks in remarkably similar condition. Both have had their engines rebuilt, but are still awaiting re-installation. Which one will have you pricing out engine hoists? We’ll see.
Yesterday’s bad ideas had many of you begging for a “Neither” choice, but that’s how this whole thing works. You must choose. Some of you questioned whether or not the BMW was really an Alpina, too, to which I can only reply that I don’t know. Furthermore, I don’t care enough to find out. There are dumb ideas, and then there’s buying a broken BMW from one of those used car dealers operating out of a self-storage lot on Hayden Island. No, and I cannot stress this enough, way in hell. Though the ad is gone now, so it looks like some poor bastard took the chance.
I side with the smallish majority of you who chose the Jaguar, which I suspect at least can move under its own power – even without a radiator installed. I cannot, however, condone the idea of swapping the V12 out for a Chevy V8. What would be the point? The V12 is a big part of what makes it cool.
It’s always a tough call when you have an old car that you love that needs an engine overhaul. Is it worth doing? Is it better to swap in a known-running used engine? Are you better off scrapping it? But I think the worst decision of all is pulling the engine, getting it rebuilt, and then letting it sit there uninstalled. I get it, things happen, life gets in the way, but to spend all that time and money and then not reap any of the benefits must be a tough pill to swallow. Nonetheless, that is the situation today’s two sellers find themselves in, with a pair of little red trucks. Which one is the better deal for a new owner with a little time on their hands? Let’s see.
1988 Dodge Ram 50 – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.6-liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, part-time 4WD
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: Disassembled, rebuilt engine waiting to go in
In the 1970s, all of the Big Three US automakers sold captive import small pickup trucks from their Japanese partners. But while Chevy replaced the LUV with its own S-10 in 1982, and Ford followed suit with the Ranger in 1983, Chrysler kept selling Mitsubishi trucks under the Dodge Ram 50 badge all the way up until 1994, even after introducing its own mid-sized Dakota in 1987. This is a second-generation Ram 50, in short-wheelbase standard-cab trim, with optional four-wheel-drive.
This Ram 50 is powered by Mitsubishi’s 2.6 liter 4G54 engine, the same one used in Chrysler’s early K-cars and minivans, here driving the rear wheels through a five-speed manual and a dual-range 4WD transfer case. Or at least, it will do so, once it’s installed back in the truck. It actually includes two complete engines: one freshly rebuilt, and the truck’s original, which has a blown head gasket. Two transmissions and two transfer cases are included, but their exact condition is unknown. You should be able to put together one good driveline from what’s there, though. A new clutch, a freshly machined flywheel, and a new Weber carburetor are also ready to bring this truck back to life. The seller is also including the two engine stands, hoist, and transmission jack you’ll need to put everything back where it belongs.
The rest of the truck is in what I’d call good beater condition. The interior is dirty and mismatched, but functional enough for an old truck, and the floors and sills look solid. The seller says there is some rust in the bed, but includes good doors and fenders from a junkyard truck that you can swap on, as well as some interior parts from the same donor. There is a lot here, and I encourage you to look at the ad before you make a final decision.
The seller has already done a lot of prep work for the new engine, and it looks ready to drop in. Obviously, there’s a lot of work to do, but it looks like a project that’s worth finishing, and that’s not nothing.
1993 Mazda B2200 – $2,995
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2-liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: McKinney, TX
Odometer reading: 262,000 miles
Operational status: Disassembled, rebuilt engine waiting to go in
Mazda and Ford did a bit of a do-si-do with their small trucks: Ford sold the Mazda B-series as its Courier until the introduction of the Ranger, but Mazda kept selling the B-series on its own, even introducing an all-new generation in 1986. That generation lasted until 1993, when this truck was built, after which Mazda slapped a B-series emblem on the Ranger. The fourth-generation B-series trucks like this one have a devoted following to this day, for exceptional durability and pleasant road manners – at least for a truck.
This truck covered 262,000 miles and was used daily until the seller pulled the engine for an overhaul. The rebuild is complete, but the engine was never re-installed. It’s sitting in the truck’s bed on an old tire – not the steadiest platform, but I’ve seen worse. Its reassembly is a little less far along than the Mitsubishi; it still needs the water pump and timing belt installed, and the valve cover put back on. Everything is there, though, including a few upgrades like an aluminum radiator and electric fan and fuel pump. The seller says you’ll still need new engine mounts to complete the installation, but those are cheap.
It’s hard to assess the condition of the interior since it’s full of boxes and parts, but the seller says it’s in good condition under all that. Again, it’s a truck, so as long as it’s intact and functional, that’s good enough. I see what looks like a Weber carb and intake sitting on the passenger footwell, and as a bonus, this truck has air conditioning, upgraded to R134a, and from the looks of it, the lines haven’t been disturbed, so it should still work fine once you get the engine back in.
It has been repainted at some point, and the seller says it looks good from five feet away, again, good enough for a truck. It has a homemade-looking rear bumper and headache rack, and a nice plastic bedliner, so it’s ready to do some real work once it’s reassembled.
I don’t want to downplay the work required for either of these; installing an engine is not a difficult task, but it takes a lot of time and care to do it right. But the hard work of overhauling the engines has been done, and now it’s just a matter of turning a couple hundred bolts and reconnecting a bunch of hoses and wires. Either way, when you’re done, you’ll have a cool little stickshift truck that you’ll know inside and out.
(Image credits: sellers)
This would be a Neither for me, but I voted Dodge because it looks cooler.
Oddly enough, the only pickups I’ve owned are essentially these two–an ’88 Mighty Max 4WD and an ’86 Mazda B2000. It’s Mazda all the way–far better driving and more refined, with cheaper/easier parts availability to boot. These are both overpriced, the beat-up Dodge more so.
The problem with both of these is the owners are trying to recover the $$$ spent on parts and labor. You might pull that off with something rare or exotic but probably not on these.
I live 20-30 miles away from that Mazda if anyone wants me to take a closer look for you
Ram for me—but I’d have to a) talk them down some and b) see receipts for the rebuild. Maybe even talk to the shop who did it.
Both of these are way overpriced for what they are. The dipshits selling these are pricing them as if they’ve already been put back together and are in a running state.
In their current state to me, each of them is only worth $1500 max.
So I’ll go with the Mazda since at least with that one, it’s cheaper and the correct transmission is still in the truck.
Also one key difference between the two… the Ram 50 was just being worked on in some guys garage in his house. The Mazda seems to be in a properly equipped shop.
And that suggests to me that the work done on the Mazda was more likely done by someone who knew what they were doing.
Hell… just compare what the vehicles are sitting on… the Mazda is on proper rollers so they can move the vehicle around. The Ram 50? On stacks of wood blocks.
true. Moreover once you put the Mazda back together you would be barely covering the entry fee of the Mitsu
Honestly, this is a big hell no to both. They’re WAY overpriced for unfinished projects.
But, that’s not the game. I’ll have the Mazda because the body isn’t beat to shit and I want to do body work even less than I want to reassemble another person’s engine rebuild. Also, I like my mini trucks in extended cab flavor, for leg room.
Ram, I actually need an engine stand and hoist for the Lx project anyways, and a truck to haul home a K-Swap would be quite the enabler.
i only had to deal with an iron block 1.6L four (twice), but ten 8′ lengths of 2×12″, some threaded rod, angle iron and block & tackle make a perfectly serviceable outdoor hoist, which can be disassembled and stowed in the rafters or under benches when not in use. (no stand, as it was small enough for two guys to carry from the basement bench to the hoist in the yard.
I get that, but I’d be mostly working solo, and given the layout of my garage/yard, an engine hoist is the only way I’d feel like I wasn’t signing up for a Darwin award. Plus TWO engine stands!!!
I’ve always had a soft spot (likely between my ears) for Mazda in general and the pickups (pre Ranger clone versions) in particular so I’m going B-Series on this one. They were solid, reliable, simple little work machines that weren’t terrible to drive. Also, I already have a 4×4 so the 2-by works fine.
Also, while I think both are way too much money for the state they are in, the Mazda is at least the cheaper option and seems to be in marginally better condition. The Ram looks pretty damn rough for a $5k project.
If I was looking to simply assemble the truck and move on with life, I’d pick the Baby Ram. It looks well done and the cleanliness leads me to believe that the owner doesn’t half ass things.
That being said, I’m a sucker for a square bodied Mazda pickup and I’ve been wanting to Rotary swap one for a while.
So I’d take the Mazda, sell off the engine and bits I don’t need, then drop a ported 12a or 13B in there and make brap noises all day.
The correct answer is “Hell, No!” to both. That said, with a gun to my head, I’d vote for the little Ram.
“I cannot, however, condone the idea of swapping the V12 out for a Chevy V8. What would be the point? The V12 is a big part of what makes it cool.”
yeah that’s what everyone who’s never had to keep a jag v12 running says
it is definitely the as you are buying it mentality. After a while though, the swap tends to make loads more sense since the car itself is pretty unique and feels special to drive.
Yeah it’s nice to be able to hop in and drive your good looking British GT car
The 4G54 was also used in the Conquest/Starion so I’ll go with what I know, even if it is missing the turbo and the funky electronic carburetor.
The Mazda. A more complete(I don’t want to do anything with a transmission if I don’t have to) small truck that’s isn’t trying to play big truck with those nobby tires. I don’t need a truck, so I certainly don’t need a 4×4 truck. Plus, and no shade on the Mitzi, that 2.2 will likely be the last vestiges of our civilization to crumble to dust. Which might be very confusing if we are visited by alien archeologists at just the right time.
Dodge because when you’re done, you can sell the engine stands, hoist and transmission jack.
On a different day I might have picked the Mazda, but today I’m digging out from a snowstorm, so I’m going with the 4WD.
Ah, but RWD is plenty fine in the snow with good tires. Source: Canadian that daily drove a lowered genesis coupe for 8 years.
Hmmm, both of those engines are pretty good runners, but I’ll go with the Dodge since I don’t own any of the very important tools/hoists that are included in the sale. Plus being in Pennsylvania, you never know when you’ll need a 4×4.
Going with the Ram. I already have a Caravan with the 2.6 Mitsubishi in it so now my economies of scale will help me keep both on the road.
This is the car enthusiast math I come to this site for.
“I cannot, however, condone the idea of swapping the V12 out for a Chevy V8. What would be the point? The V12 is a big part of what makes it cool.”
Mark, my friend, it is the difference between a running car and lawn art.
Now for today’s ask: definitely the Ram. I like those Mazdas fine, but I live in the mountains and the Ram I can take up in them when it is complete.
I can tell you what happened with yesterday’s 750.
The dealership tinkered around until they got it to start and drive for the buyer. Said buyer drove away whistling a happy tune and drumming their fingers on the supple leather steering wheel. A couple of days or hours later the dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree. The new owner drove it to several shops until they found one willing to even look at the car. About half an hour later, the shop reverberated with the inevitable cry of the unwise baller on a budget. You all know what it is. Say it with me-
BUT THAT’S MORE THAN I PAID FOR THE WHOLE CAR!!!
Anywho, today I’ll go with the little Dodge and its many extra parts and tools.
My man, this is a bigger NEITHER than yesterday! Also, shocking amounts of money requested for these beaters. And a major red flag that they seem to be giving them away when their work is 80% complete.
But I’ve gotta go Mazda here. Only slightly. And only because of all the knowledge and shared parts with the Ranger. I feel like the other one is the kind of thing you spend 20 minutes nailing down on RockAuto. Or 45 minutes explaining to the guy in Autozone.
No, this is the Mazda before it shared anything with the Ranger.
Totally agree on this being a bigger neither than yesterday though. And I also went with the Mazda.
I voted Mazda. I don’t need 4wd, and despite looking like the passenger side door and cab wasn’t painted the same color as the rest of the truck, it looks further along than the Dodge. Still gotta figure out the transmission on that one.
Both appear to be excellent baselines for a great small truck project. Always had a soft spot for the Ram 50 and the 4-wheel capability just clinched it. Taking the Dodge and tools.
This is a tough call. While the extra space in the Mazda cab would be helpful I voted Dodge for having 4×4 and oversized wheels and tires. If I’m buying an 80s small truck I feel like I’d probably lift it a little and go with bigger wheels and tires anyways, might as well have that part done for me.
It does look a little like a Stomper I had at one time.
Mazda in this case. Both are cool little guys in their own ways. the newer fuel injected unit is more likely to be fixed by me though, although it would likely just be a winter beater. the real question is do I trust the guys rebuilding abilities enough to expend the time trying to stab that motor in or just call LKQ and see if they have one first.