The Ford Ranger today is so different than the one that preceded it. The old Ranger was truly a “small truck,” and its selling points were simple: The truck was cheap, reliable, easy to fix, decent on gas, compact, and yet still tough as nails. That was a formula for greatness, and, along with friendly styling, it established what may go down as America’s most lovable truck. I had a chance to drive a 2010 model — the second to last model year of the “small Ranger” — and I fell in love. Here’s why.
The truck shown in the video below had recently been traded in to Galpin Honda. I like to think it was owned by a hard-working American who bought the car new back in 2009 — they went into Galpin Ford and said: “I’d like your cheapest pickup truck, and make it an Automatic.” Then that construction worker rolled away proudly in a new, base-spec little Ranger with two-wheel drive, vinyl floors, a simple 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine, a bench seat, a six-foot bed, and not a whole lot else. Because, after all, this was a work truck.
Fast forward to 2024, and this imaginary construction worker is retiring, so he or she decides to buy something a little more comfortable and that can fit the grandkids. They snag a Honda CR-V Hybrid — loaded to the hilt — and trade in the ol’ workhorse, which, while driven hard over the years, has been well maintained.
This is where I come in. I begin the video by describing how small trucks are dead. “America decided small trucks are wack,” I say, before imploring you all to look up “dancing beds” to drive home a point about just how huge the small truck world once was. Here’s what I mean:
The “minitruck” era of the 1980s and 1990s is dead and gone, and that’s a shame, because inexpensive, compact utility is still something Americans value. I know this because, in the city of LA, old Ford Rangers still abound, with heavy loads often stacked way, way up high in their six-foot beds. In fact, throughout the Trade-In-Tuesday shoot, I saw a number of old Rangers working hard. Here’s one:
I even saw a new Ranger, which helped me illustrate just how large the new generation of the model has become:
It’s a shame, really, but hey, all cars have gotten bigger, and the Ranger at least stayed roughly the same size from 1983 to 2011 — that’s a hell of a run. Check out this first-gen:
Anyway, back to this trade-in. It featured a beautifully-running 2.3-liter “Duratec” inline-four (not to be confused with the truck above’s 2.3-liter Pinto engine). It’s the same “MZR” engine you’d find in a first-gen Mazda3 or Mazda6, and it’s known to be extremely durable. Also decently durable is the 5R44E five-speed automatic — from what I understand, the very first five-speed auto offered in a mainstream American vehicle. Here it sends power to just the leaf-sprung solid rear axle, while the coil-sprung double-wishbone front suspension has no halfshafts going through it to send power to the front wheels.
By the way, even though the Ranger I drove has a traditional coil-sprung independent front suspension, I once wrote an article describing the many interesting suspensions offered on Ford Rangers — from torsion bars to Twin Traction Beams to Twin I-beams. (Heck, I didn’t even mention the De Dion rear suspension on the electric Ford Ranger!). So definitely check that out.
Anyway, back to this traded-in truck. It had a nice drop-in bedliner for the six-foot bed, which six-foot-something cameraman Griffin tested out:
Here’s me talking about how fantastic the column-shifter is, and how all work trucks should have them since they take up space that is otherwise entirely unused. A floor shift, though, wastes valuable space.
Here’s me pointing out how great the vinyl floors are:
“None of this carpet stuff, come on! Where are we in the Taj Majal? … We need vinyl floors so that if my dog vomits, I can just spray it out with a hose. That’s what a work truck is all about,” I say in the video, apparently forgetting that the Taj Majal isn’t exactly known for its carpets. But you get the point.
I spend much of my drive enjoying a vehicle that, frankly, seems almost too nice given its age. The dash somehow was never cracked by the California sun, the seats are in decent condition, and the AC blows cubes. “This is a great trade-in. I think someone maybe got promoted,” I say in the video above. “They definitely didn’t need to turn this thing in. Its body is rock-solid, the brakes are good, the steering is good, the engine feels great. You could put this thing to work right now and it would do great.”
I love how small and maneuverable the truck is, I think the power steering and brakes feel more than adequate, the ride quality isn’t bad, visibility is great, and while, sure, the cab may be a little cramped for some, for me it was just fine.
Even though it became known as “Ranger Danger” in Michigan, where it had a tendency to rust out, the little Ranger won me over. Sure, I didn’t exactly load it up or drive it on the highway, where that four-cylinder might have felt a little sluggish, but 143 horsepower, 154 lb-ft for a truck that weighs probably 3,100 pounds — it’s not that bad! Unladen and around town, it didn’t even feel slightly underpowered.
Continue watching the video, and you’ll see that much of it involves me being distracted by…this:
I stop the Ranger and interview the builder, who uses random scrapmetal to basically Mad Max-ify his Chevy Silverado. Those “fangs” are made of a cut-down, sharpened ring (of sorts) from a washing machine. The truck is absolutely bonkers.
Part of me wanted to put in an offer for that Ranger. I bet I could have snagged that for just a few grand, and it would have been an absolute workhorse for all my wrenching exploits. Alas, I’m no longer in the business of buying automatic transmission ICE vehicles, even if I do love a column shift.
I’m on my 2nd Ford Ranger, 1st was a 94 5 speed 3.slow 4×4 single cab. The automatic hubs gave out, had to replace the fan resistor and still 1 speed wouldn’t work, but it was otherwise solid.
Now I have my Electric 2000, so even less to break and it just feels so much simpler getting into it and driving than our other cars. Throw back to simpler times, crank up the pioneer stereo, column shift it into gear and just cruise around town.
For all of David’s enthusiasm for the Rangers of old, for me, it’s vehicle of my own nightmares. Why? Well…
In the 80s, I was a college kid working essentially as a gopher at a Ford dealership during the summer in Oklahoma City. That summer, there was also a truck drivers strike, which meant the dealership wasn’t getting new vehicles. The solution was to load 6-8 of us in a van and drive to the railhead 90 miles away near Tulsa. There we’d each be assigned a vehicle to drive back to the dealership.
Just about every day for two weeks, we’d go up in the morning, drive a vehicle back, and do it again that afternoon. And, as there’d been a large fleet order, every vehicle we were driving back was a white Ford Ranger. As DT noted, these were no-frills trucks and, for these, that meant no air conditioning and only AM radio.
Enter my nightmare, because driving a vehicle with no AC in Oklahoma in August was/is miserable. Further, driving the Turner Turnpike between OKC and Tulsa is torture, as aside from trees, hills and road markers, there is nothing to break the monotony. And the AM radio offered little or no help with that monotony.
So, while the small Ranger may be fond throwback memory for some, every time I see one (especially a white one) or I’m forced to drive Turner Turnpike, I simply think back to that summer’s daily tortuous drives and shudder…
You didn’t bring a Walkman with a tape of Van Halen, Bon Jovi, or Journey with you?
I was a starving college kid and those were still fairly new and too pricey for my meager budget. And iirc, when I did the math on the ratio of how much beer I could buy for the cost of a Walkman, the beer won every time…
Yeah. IIRC A true Sony Walkman cost $99.99 when a cassette cost $10.00. I always went for the cheap knockoff versions myself.
Look at Diamond Jim over here with his AM radio! My first Ranger had no radio at all, just a big blank covering the radio spot. Had to drive to high school for 5-6 months in silence before I scraped up enough to install a radio.
LOL!
I adore this class of pickups, my first car was a 91 Toyota P/U 4×4, and I delivered parts with two ranger 2wds for years. HOWEVER, I think i have some idea of why they aren’t built anymore. While the maneuverable size is fantastic, they don’t offer enough benefits over a full size pickup to justify the reduction in capabilities. Small pickups are pretty expensive, and don’t really get all that much better fuel economy than a half ton full sized pickup. I don’t think i ever saw much over 17 mpg with my Toyota, and those fleet rangers (even the 4 cyl 2wd) got about 18.
The benefit over a full size pickup is purchase cost and insurance.
They were also popular because most people don’t tow 747’s or go offroading down the Baja Peninsula at 70mph.
I was able to get a 2wd 1998 Ranger XLT Supercab with a manual transmission and the Preferred Equipment Package (which included AC, sliding rear window, jumpseats and AM/FM/Cassette for $15,000.
You couldn’t get a comparable F150 for that kind of money.
I have some fond memories of the late 80s – 90s Ford Rangers. My high school girlfriend had one that she bought new for $7,999. Manual transmission, manual door locks and windows, no A/C. I learned how to drive stick in that truck. Other friends also had Rangers, including one friend with a Ranger Splash. They were a great value. I rented a newer Ford Ranger a few years ago to haul some stuff and was so disappointed that was nothing like the old ones.
I won’t bemoan the size of modern trucks, there’s already enough of that. But there are so many other things that need to go away and you touch on a couple at the top of my list:
1) front bucket seats. There is room for a split bench, you can even have the center fold down like a center console. But why are we limiting these large vehicles to 5 passengers?
2) console shifter – there should be a seat there. Or, at least more space for you cups, phones, tools, etc. Put it on the column where it is out of the way.
3) carpet as the only option in good trims. 99% of people cover their carpet with plastic mats (I like Weathertech) so why not just make plastic an option to begin with? Then I can put carpet mats on top when I want to feel fancy.
My dad used to have a Silverado with a column shifter and split front bench. That thing was the pinnacle of usefulness. That should be an option in every truck, even the midsize stuff.
Back in 2002ish I had a Corvette I wanted to sell but just could not find a buyer. I ended up trading it for a Ranger and some cash. The Ranger was a 1998 with pretty low mileage that looked like it had been used as a landscaping truck. There was a hitch receiver in the bumper and it was very, very dirty. After I changed out some really dark motor oil it was trouble-free. I also pulled and trashed the bedliner (it was warped) and found about three inches of dirt under it. Everything cleaned up nicely.
That truck was so much fun. It had the 4-cylinder and a 5-speed so it was like driving a go-cart. I used it as my daily for a while, then sold it and got the rest of my Corvette cash back.
Later I helped my daughter get a 1999 Ranger as her first car. By this point I noticed that a lot of those second-gen Rangers suffered from “Ranger Rattle” – the engine mounts always wore out and it would just make a loud rattle all the time. Fixing it was apparently a huge pain and most people just lived with the rattle.
Here’s my controversial opinion – I had a Ranger, my daughter had a Ranger, and my father had two Rangers (a box-generation Baja truck and a 1994 Splash). It’s so much better in 2wd than 4wd. Casual driving a 4wd Ranger gave you a pretty harsh ride. The 2wd Rangers were more like sports cars with beds and still useful. Plus in the snow things would, um, happen.
Psst, it’s Thursday!
I am so happy to see the return of “Trade-In Tuesday”! It’s even more of a surprise on a day like today!
You mean like the also missed Mercury Monday that came out on any day but?
Exactly. It’s Tuesday someplace (maybe?)
HA!
it’s tuesday 45:15 PM
My first truck was a 1996 extended cab in ‘Cayman Green’ with the 2.3L 4-banger. I loved that truck so much, but I was young and after a few years the truck looked like I had rolled it in concrete then drove it through a JC Whitney warehouse.
Not long after I got my first manager job I sold it to buy an F-150. But there are still times I get wistful and wish I could have my Ranger back. Especially after I watched how Sarah-n-Tuned on YouTube completely restored her grandmother’s Ranger.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/TGtuUWu1KZYzet6cA
I’ve put over 600,000 miles on four different Rangers over the years and it breaks my heart that you can’t buy a small pickup with a low bed height and at least a six foot bed anymore.
My current Ranger is a 2002 3.0 single cab/7 foot bed with a perfect interior and nice paint and 263K miles on it, and I’m keeping it as long as I can. Other than front suspension pieces every 125K or so and a new (very expensive CARB legal) catalytic converter assembly, it’s never needed much of anything. The Vulcan is a really stout motor, watch the cam sensor and they’ll last forever. My favorite part of the truck is that is has exactly what I want(cruise control, excellent A/C and I added a Carplay double-DIN stereo) and nothing I don’t want.
I’d love to buy a new one, but the Maverick has too short of a bed and they’re still in pretty short supply around here. Plus when I figure out how much extra a monthly payment and extra insurance would cost, it more than negates any savings from improved fuel mileage.
I’m not a pickup guy at all, but even I’ve noticed that the majority of pickups on the road these days are so tall that it’s nearly impossible for a normal-sized person to put something into the bed by going over the sides.
Exactly, and now that I’m old, my bad shoulders won’t let me lift heavy items up high anymore, so the low bed is a blessing.
I can’t post a picture here but I took a quick photo of my old Ranger next to an identically-spec’d new Ranger(2wd, stock height, stock height tires) and it’s shocking how much higher the bed is on a new truck. And there’s no need for it, as there’s a shit-ton of room between the diff and the underside of the bed, as well as plenty of tire-to-wheelwell clearance.
87 Ranger was my first truck. 2.9L, 2WD, 5 speed, long bed. Many miles and few problems. It was ok in the snow once I got decent snow tires on it. I even flat towed my 73 CJ-5 with it.
What I esp notice about the 2011s (the final year) is the fairly large Ford badges on the grill/tailgate. It definitely looked like Ford just used F-150 ovals b/c end of production so why not.
Always reminds me of how large pickups have been getting. The current F-150 oval is about the size of a Nerf football (back when Nerf wasn’t just a kiddie arms dealer like it is now).
Ford: Quality is Job 1? /s At least they put some badges on, I mean some ass is better than no ass right?
I mean Porsche probably charges extra for that “customization”
And in addition to being overly large, many of the badges of that era suffered from the coloring coming off. So there are completely chrome “Ford” badges all over the place.
I love when customers pull up with Rangers, S10’s, and old Toyotas. So much easier to load things into.
What are you loading?
Agriculture parts. Combine chains, bean head drapers, skid loader tracks etc. Had a guy pull around with a Toyota once to get two 55 gallon drums of oil. I tried to talk him out of it but he insisted. His lights were pointing to the sky when he left lol
Totally bullet-proof, except for the tendency to blow head gaskets at a Subaru-like pace. Aside from that, totally reliable. Am I the only one with 3-5 friends who had this happen to them?
They also had an issue with a faulty rollover safety switch. Would randomly open, then the truck wouldn’t run until you figured out wat the issue was and located the switch somewhere under the dash on the pass anger side.
True small, inexpensive pickups are missed. The Maverick and Santa Cruz are most definitely steps in the right direction, but they don’t have the simplicity of the earlier pickups.
A few notes from a long time Ranger owner to those of you interested in picking up one of these little workhorses. The pre-1998 regular cabs are a tight fit if you’re over six foot. Economy is good on the 4-cylinders, not so much on the V6s (expect high-teens at best). Early SOHC 4.0L V6s have a tendency to break timing chain guides, which requires an engine pull since there are two timing chains. The Holy Grail of true production Rangers is the 2002/03 FX4s with the manual transfer case (closely followed by the Ranger GT of the late-80s).
I’ll get pushback, but I’m not much of a fan of the vinyl flooring. You really can’t “spray it out with a hose” since there are no drain plugs, so you end up mopping up mud and dirt that don’t come up after vacuuming. My first Ranger had vinyl flooring and in the seven years I drove it could never get the floor all that clean.
I did car detailing on the side for well over a decade. I remember getting a Ranger with the rubber flooring and thinking “aha, this will be much easier to clean than carpet!” But somehow it wasn’t. Maybe if I had better equipment (this was nearly 15 years ago and I was maybe 16) it would have been. But it was just impossible to get that textured vinyl to look properly clean. It wasn’t a work truck or anything, and I probably scrubbed the whole floor three or four times, but it still didn’t look 100% like I hoped it would. I can get rubber floor mats looking 100% no problem. But the vinyl floor on that Ranger stumped me.
I did car detailing for a time as well, and the best way I ever figured out was 1) vacuum like crazy to get absolutely as much dirt as possible, 2) hit it with Simple Green and a stiff bristle brush for a while, 3) wipe down with rags. After that, you’ll still have dirt stuck in little crevices, but it doesn’t look bad from a distance.
My 16 year old son has a mobile car detailing business. He had the same complaint about the rubber flooring in my 2004 Impala. Tough to clean. I didn’t know because I never tried to clean it 🙂
My kind of truck. I especially like the flareside version, but I’d take just about any configuration- with a manual.
sorry, i don’t agree “America decided small trucks are wack”. big 3 stopped building small trucks because full size trucks had a bigger contribution margin, then saw small trucks weren’t selling (because they weren’t being made) and illogically concluded America doesn’t want small trucks.
at this point, does anyone make entry-level cars/trucks?
huge market opportunity for somebody…
fwiw, i dd’d a ranger extended cab with 4.0 v6, 5M and extended cab in the early 2000’s, it was a good truck.
I was just going to post that almost verbatim.
CAFE regs had a big influence. I remember 200X when GM was putting out 4cyl S10 lease deals at extremely low pricing so they could sell more big iron. Got my daughter a nice S10 for a hundred and something a month. Changes to the fuel econ rules after 2010 made it a different calculation method which categorized by vehicle “footprint” rather than fleet average.
After reading all the testimonials from other Autopians about how awesome their old Rangers are (and they completely are), I understand why carmakers don’t build them anymore; people would buy them and never need to get another! There’s no growth in that business.
Also: once carmakers figured out that just giving every car power windows and locks meant not having to configure two sets of door panels and wiring harnesses, the meaning of “entry level” changed.
My brother had one. 2WD, 4 cyl, manual. That teal green that was so common in the 90s and hasn’t been seen since. Originally bought by my grandpa as his last vehicle before we took away his keys.
I will say it was priced well and fairly reliable, but had basically no other redeeming qualities. Underpowered, loud, difficult to drive in winter (obviously my grandpa’s cheapness was to blame for this), uncomfortable, surprisingly low fuel economy for something so slow and light, and so on.
My brother lives by the ideals of the comment section though, he sold the Ranger and bought a Focus; now he just borrows my truck when he needs one.
I had a ’94(?) single cab, 2wd, 4 cyl 5 speed. I lived in Rome, NY at the time. Below is everything I remember about that truck.
If you believe that the mini truck era is over, the Ford Maverick would like a word…
Even tho it’s the size of a 1980’s F150
A real mini-truck would be the size of the 1970’s Mazda B1800/Ford Courier.
2010 was going to be the last year for the Ranger, but when they announced the Ranger’s end so may buyers ordered Rangers that they had to keep the plant open into the 2011 model year!
Had this been from where I am, that Ranger would only have one bed mount still in operation, the sills completely gone and still be running around with 5 tons of pallets with maybe one ratchet strap holding them to the bed.
St.Paul built Rangers were better- I’ve got a ’98 that spent the first half of it’s life in amply salted Minneapolis, still no rust through in the cab or frame. Got the cab and box off at the moment to freshen up the brakes and suspension and paint the frame.
I would love to see a history on the St. Paul Ford plant (RIP). I think at the time of its closure it was the oldest plant outside of Dearborn (which has seen so many iterations that it’s basically a Plant of Theseus) and how it was built on top of sand mines to make windows.
Really tight without that extra-cab behind you. But yeah, they’re made of beskar- the village I work for still uses one at the building department, a 2003. It is about to be sent off to the great auction in the sky and replaced with a gov-spec Escape.
Love that. Beskar!
Wait.
David Tracy gets a pop culture reference?!?
Is that even LEGAL?!?
I had to google it.
Now let’s see if he can do Mithril.
Vibranium and Adamantium, also.
Yeah, my first job had several in the motor pool to use, manual transmission too. They were a little cramped for me, but were great little trucks otherwise.
Back in the mid to late 1980s a basic truck like this was a go to for sending kids off to college. Trucks were Cheaper than cars back then. No back seats for accidental pregnancies, all the college crap could come and go from the dorm in one trip. bench or buckets kept passenger numbers way down. We need this back. I had an 88 ranger that was fine except that it would stop running if there was any ethanol in the fuel at all.
There’s a reason why they call it a bed.
Yikes. The Silverado is plenty ugly on its own. I guess if you want to make the ugliest truck possible, it’s either this or the Tundra as a starting point, though.
how much$? I’m in.
2nd dibs!
David really needs to post the Galpin link to this.
This is almost certainly getting sent to wholesale auction and will never hit the lot.