America is the land of the pickup truck. Big brawny haulers are everywhere you look; indeed, they’re easily the best selling vehicles in the country. What’s lacking are the smaller, car-based options—the utes! However, if you’re down in Kansas, someone’s built one that you might struggle to ignore.
Our own Hans Bishop happened across this tantalizing listing on Facebook Marketplace. It’s billed as the unholy pairing of a Ford Taurus and a Ford Ranger. Two models that couldn’t be more dissimilar, brought together in one strange union.
This bad boy will set you back $6,500 and the respect of your family and friends. What it promises is a juicy nineties aesthetic and the kind of V6 engine note that only a piano company could deliver.
This handsome beast wasn’t just built out of any old second-generation Taurus. Nope, it was built out of the halo model—the glorious Ford Taurus SHO. That stands for Super High Output—the moniker was given to the model for the gorgeous Yamaha-built V6 under the hood. It was the 1990s, so the headline feature of the 3.0-liter V6 engine was the fact that it had 24 valves—or four valves per cylinder. It delivered a healthy 220 horsepower and 200 pound-feet of torque. These were solidly sporty figures for the era. Oh, and this one’s got the five-speed manual!
That V6 also came with a unique and beguiling intake and exhaust noise to boot. V6s aren’t always great singers, but the Yamaha did better than most. Examples are easy to find around the Internet. As per the video below from a random SHO owner, this engine beats out any Nissan VQ in the sound stakes, hands down.
But this isn’t just a Taurus SHO. That’d be cool, but probably not something we’d ordinarily cover. The reason we’re interested in this one is because it’s been given a truck conversion. That was apparently achieved by hacking off the back of the Taurus at the B-pillar. In its place, it scored a stepside bed from a second-generation Ford Ranger.
The conversion looks elegant in some ways, and less so in others. One of the prime issues is that the stepside bed is simply too narrow where it meets the Taurus body, by a few inches or so. It’s a little clumsy where the two meet; this is one build that looks altogether sharper from the front, versus the rear.
I spoke to the seller and was able to glean just a few additional details. I inquired as to how it was built, regarding whether this is a Taurus on a Ranger frame, or a Ranger grafted to a Taurus. All they said was that it was a “unibody/frame,” and they provided a photo of the underside which I’ve included below. They also indicated to me that they didn’t build the vehicle.
Based on the fact this thing has the front of a Taurus with its original engine, I think I’ve figured out the basic structure. It appears that the rear half of a Ranger frame was worked into the structure of the Taurus unibody. In the underbody shot, we can see elements of the ranger frame welded into what looks like a custom bulkhead worked into the Taurus shell.
I realize I’ve seen this done before at the OEM level. It’s not altogether different from how Holden worked a rear cab-chassis design into the unibody Commodore One-Tonner back in the early 2000s. Ultimately, though, Holden made everything fit a little more nicely and built something with a real usable payload rating.
Given that this thing is so unique, I figured there might be more information out there somewhere. And I was right! This thing popped up on Ford Truck Enthusiasts back in 2016; at the time, it was up for sale at Mecum Auctions.
The article stated the auction posting was similarly thin on detail, but we were told that the builder had “over $20,000 invested” in the vehicle. No word as to who built it.
The 2016 auction photos also gave us a good look at the lovely engine bay, with that gorgeous Yamaha barrel-of-snakes intake looking all shiny and clean. The interior was also in good condition back in 2016, especially given that we’re talking about Ford plastics from the 1990s here.
We get a better look at the underside as well, which shows a fairly decent structure marrying the Ranger rear end with the Taurus body. Naturally, there’s no differential at the rear—this one’s front-wheel-drive only. Oh, and the fuel tank’s in the bed. Hilarious.
Whoever bought the truck from Mecum in 2016 scored it for just $4,500. That’s according to a report from The Drive, who saw it pop up for sale again just three years later. In 2019, it was being sold for $7,500 in what appeared to be largely similar condition.
The one thing that bugs me about all these listings over the years? There’s a badge on the left rear that I was hoping would call out the custom shop that did the work. I flicked through all the photos, finally finding a decent shot of the rear, and then…alas! It’s just a sticker for Kuhlman Motors, a used car lot in rural Iowa. Shame. Its true origins will remain a mystery.
In any case, here’s the question in front of you today. Should you buy this vehicle? I say yes, while accepting precisely zero liability. Why? For one, I love front-wheel-drive ute conversions, though I love French ones the most. I also think that it’s a positive sign that this thing keeps popping up for sale every few years. It’s probably not that bad if it hasn’t been wrecked yet! With that said, we don’t know anything about it’s mechanical condition right now, so it could be an absolute pile.
Either way, let me know what you think in the comments. Maybe this thing is too weird to live, or maybe you think it’s a shining example of 90s excellence. I lean towards the latter. Hate me if you must, I can take it.
Image credits: Facebook Marketplace, Mecum Auctions, AutABuy
Put enough weight in it a few too many times and you’ll end up looking like the Renault Bond drives in View to a Kill (I make no apologies if that song is now stuck in your head). Should have located the fuel tank somewhere forward of where the frame will fail. The step side bed makes it even worse.
I’m surprised I’ve never seen a dumb custom where the whole interior and bed are one open area, like a bathtub (or maybe more like a small swimming pool with a deep section where the seats would be). I’m thinking no roof, just a cut down windshield that blends back along the sides and either no doors or little half-doors like an XKSS. Yes, it’s supposed to be a bad idea—it was inspired by this SHO from the Island of Misfit Toys.
Here you go – the hot tub Lincoln: https://youtu.be/sYWJz1nUP0w?si=EpnRDrj8rwSIjb6i
I just meant a single enclosed space, not an actual tub, but that was interesting.
Weren’t cargo vans up until the 90s available with or WITHOUT partition between passengers and the cargo area? I know the late 90s Dodge Van I drove on a part time job did not have one, but I don’t know if that was stock or removed during its hard life.
No idea about the old ones, but the ones I drove in the early-mid ’00s had partitions and racks added after the fact.
Maybe the SHO got rear ended by a Ranger?
That’s one way of putting it without calling for the wrath of Rule 34
This is just straight up hatred…sacrilege…the horror…oh the humanity!!!! How could you take something so wonderful, gorgeous, perfect like a pre-V8 SHO and harm it so?! What did it ever do to you besides be fast and practical and sleep on the highways like no one’s business?! And the MANUAL version?! YOU….MONSTER!!!!
It was probably a SHO that got a hard hit in the rear.
With a manual, and if I had the actual skill, I would have found one of the thousands of backends in decent shape in the junkyard and gotten to work. I have an unhealthy love of the ’92 facelift SHO. The newest one wasn’t a slouch either, but, still…that car was peak stealth.
Here’s a better idea – swap the drivetrain, front suspension, and interior into a Taurus/Sable wagon.
True, and I bet it would’ve been less than the $20K someone claimed to put into building this Frankenmobile.
The Jeep Comanche has a similar unibody to rear frame setup as well.
This thing looks great from the front 3/4 view and awful from every other view.
Meh, not my cup of tea, but I really have to wonder why they made that ugly plate to fill in where the rear bumper was instead of using one of the many fiberglass roll pans the aftermarket already provides for the Ranger?
Agreed, roll pans are not lacking in the wild.
Or at least didn’t plaster it with cheap lights/reflectors.
Yeah, that too. The whole thing just looks goofy and does nothing to help integrate the truck bed in with the Taurus.
Oh man, this has been making the rounds on the internet for many years. I’d totally rock it.
Aw, this a b-ute. Kind of reminds of Smyth ute conversions, excepting for the frame to unibody meld, which Jeep proved could work very well – done right – with the Comanche.
“Over 20,000 invested” And yet that frame setup looks about as safe, reliable and secure as a Kardashian marriage.
I’ll put it this way, the angled piece of square tube used to step up the frame is a genuine disaster waiting to happen. The welds where it goes between the straight and angled sections is a massive stress concentration, and any sort of mileage with more than a few hundred pounds in the bed will fatigue them to a sudden and violent failure. Seriously, not even a Z or S shaped reinforcement plate to take the stress off of those welds is genuinely terrifying. These home-brew conversions are super cool on the surface, but as a mechanical engineer, the more I see of the structure, the more terrified I become.
Take a look at any OEM truck frame, and you will notice a conspicuous lack of anything that looks like this frame. There’s a reason for that. I don’t want to be a downer that says “you can’t modify your car like that” but there’s a reason European countries are a lot less kind about modifications than most of the US.
+1
I had the same suspicions… that this thing is basically a ruined SHO and the owner should have asked himself if he should, not if he could.
Exactly. Sometimes it’s hard to explain to people without a background in Engineering why a design like this is so terrible, because without lot of experience working on load paths and force diagrams, it’s easy to say “well it’s heavy steel, and its not bending so it must be strong”, but this frame “design” is about the equivalent of swapping control arm bolts out for one’s the size of your valve covers.
It’s fine under light loads, but it will fail eventually. Dynamic loading and fatigue is a real challenge with design, and just because something doesn’t break the firs time doesn’t mean it wont eventually.
I love weird stuff, but when looking at a unibody joined to a full frame vehicle, I want to know about the builder and more about the actual join. And that panel beneath the tailgate seems out of place.
So, no interest in owning it—but I’d damn sure go talk to the owner at a C&C
That stepside bed totally ruins it. Use a tray or a fleetside bed next time, yeesh.
My guess is that using the stepside made it look more ‘right’ as the fleetside panels likely wouldn’t have lined up as nicely and made it look like the horrible Studebaker Champ pickup with the Dodge-sourced bed of the 1960s.
https://stableltd.com/listing/studebaker-champ/
Or they just used what was on hand. But I suspect you are correct. I think the “right” way to do it would be to use a fleetside and chop an inch or however much out of the middle of the whole bed so it lines up nice. If you are going to do this, why half ass it?
I love how an Australian managed to write this entire article w/o using the term “ute” once. Pretty impressive, but hey, even us yanks know it pretty well at this point, given all the excellent ute content here!
I would refer to this as a “brown m&m” comment, as in it betrays that you didn’t read the
contract/specificationarticle thoroughly..https://www.safetydimensions.com.au/van-halen/
Thank you SO MUCH for digging into this. I have this saved on Marketplace! I really wanted to quiz the guy on it, but I have no intention of buying it and didn’t want to waste his time!
The Tauranger looks great and all but El Coroneto still haunts my dreams.
https://bangshift.com/general-news/ebay-find-2/craigslist-find-a-1959-dodge-coronet-camino-is-it-wrong-to-like-this-creation/
I’m gonna neeed an old priest and a young priest for this one…
I’m torn, honestly. It’s a neat concept and well executed, but I’m also upset that it ate up an example of the best looking generation of the best Taurus. My uncle had one in the same color and I drooled all over that thing as a kid, and it kickstarted my love of hot sedans.
The handling of a Ranger but the load capacity of a Taurus! Brilliant!
Shit the stock Taurus probably had more load capacity than the ranger
Are you KIDDING! Don’t you know that the Ford F-ing Ranger has unlimiting payload/towing capacity!
Only when the frame is completely fucked do you unlock that ability.
What are you doing to me, Lewin? I’m in the market, I’m in the area, and I have a weakness for weird.
My wife listens to you!! If she sees this, I may have to go look at it! If I look at it, I may have to buy it!
What are you doing to me?!?
Sounds like a perfect confluence of factors that end with that thing in your driveway.
YOU ARE NOT HELPING!!!
I believe our respective objectives may be at odds.
Right?
I’m looking forward to a guest article titled, My Wife Made Me Buy This Unholy Ute—What Now?
Do it. And as an added bonus, you’ll immediately be moved to the front of the line for Member’s Rides (I have no authority to make this claim, but it seems appropriate given the circumstances).
If you wife want it, do it. That simple. BUY THE UTE ALREADY!!!
Once again, this is a bad idea that was well executed. I really want to know why anyone would do this, but it appears that information has been lost to history.