@@dwaggs01 Which V6? I've had a bunch of reliable 2.3 5-Speed Rangers. My current Ranger is a 2006 4x4 5-Speed with the 4.0 V6. 150k no problems yet.
HAHA, I've never seen a Ranger get more than about 20mpg on the highway, not sure how they came up with 39mpg, must have been downhill with a tail wind....I don't even think the diesel models did that well. But, you are driving a brick down the road LOL, not exactly aerodynamic.
@@johndriscoll213 Most of the EPA numbers are still wrong LOL. All those numbers come from perfect conditions, none of which you'll ever see in the real world, and those numbers are also based on 55mph which nobody drives.
@@wildbill23c With the super high overdrive gears in cars these days (i.e. Ford's new 10 speed), they could really test from 55-70 and get the same number. The city numbers are far more accurate regardless. Like really? 29MPG city on a Ranger with the drag coefficient of a billboard?
@@johndriscoll213 HAHA no kidding, maybe the 29mpg was measured downhill in neutral LOL. I agree with raising the speed for the tests too...most highways are 55mph, but the freeway is 65mph+ where many are driving on a daily basis. The town I live in has ridiculously low speed limits (20mph) in most of the city side streets, main road through town is 25mph....so regardless what you drive your fuel economy sucks anyhow because you are stuck in lower gears all the time.
@@toby8309 Oh my stars, you youngsters today are such sarcastic little buggers aren't you? I know what you need, you need some loving. Let old Rosie take you into her bosom and calm you down a little. My dear husband, God rest his soul, used to love his undercarriage given a little "how's ya father" with my teeth out. Then we'd buzz cut the grey thicket on my lady garden, and he'd pound me ragged for hours. We'd have a break to smoke some pot, then he'd take me up the wrong 'un until we were both spent. OOOH my nipples are tingling just thinking about it. That or they're rubbing on the carpet and creating static. Either way, it feels wonderful. Call me....
I really liked both of my Rangers! One was 2WD like this one and the other was a super cab 4WD. Both lasted me for many years with very few troubles, along with good value and dependability. 👍 It's also amazing how long the original 1983-2011 Ranger run lasted with only minimal styling updates.
I've got an 84 Ranger 4x4 with the 2.3l and a 4spd...it's got 298,212 miles on it, never had the motor opened up, and it's my daily driver....I friggin love that little rig....
I had an 84 Ranger as well but 2WD and the 2.8L V6...my grandparents bought it new and grandpa drove it to work all week for 5 years, plus weekend chores, and on vacation pulling a 14' travel trailer, in 88 when he retired it made the trip from California to Idaho and continued to be the trailer tow vehicle until 89 when they bought a larger trailer and an 88 F250 4x4 460. I drove the Ranger until I sold it :( in 2002 after a couple years of engine/carb/computer issues. If I only had the resources then that I have/know now I'd most likely still be driving that truck. When I sold it, it still looked new inside and out with the exception of the notorious cracked dash everything else still looked new, even the truck bed itself showed very little wear but with a Stockton camper shell on it and carpet on the truck bed it kept the weather out and scratches and dents to a minimum. It was a great truck I miss it and always will. Wish I could find it and get it back.
I have a 1987 Ranger XLT with the 2.3 and 5 speed manual and it is the best and most useful truck I have ever owned. Not the quickest thing on the road but very reliable!
I've heard that from a lot of people, the V6 was better, but with today's higher speed limits not so much LOL. Back then speed limits were pretty much 55mph on the freeway wasn't it? or was it 65mph? I wasn't old enough back then to know or care HAHA!!!
Too many big trucks on the market today when I'm sure people could get away with something smaller for most of their needs. But there's probably an image factor in that segment.... 25 mpg average is quite impressive though! I don't think there's a truck on the market today that matches that.
Maybe other owners of 4 cylinder Rangers can chime in, but I have a friend who has a 2011 with the 2.3L 4 banger and his truck averages around 23-24, mostly in town. Ever notice how more often than not it's the smaller trucks that are carrying loads around, while most of the big ones seem to spend a lot of time compensating for something? :)
ngtflyer I find today's big trucks vulgar. I like the concept of trucks but I find the whole YEAHHHHH-LOOK-AT-ME-I'M-A-REEEEEAL-MAN looks off-putting. It was the Ram that started that in the 1990's and now they are all gargantuan with that supposedly ultra-macho look.
ngtflyer I bought a brand new Ranger in 83 with a 2.3L 4cyl 4 spd standard. Had power steering added at the dealership. Regularly got 34 mpg highway (cdn). It was a great little truck. Unfortunately had to trade it in after it was b&e'd. No parts available due to it being a new model at the time.
+Maestro_T yea, it's irritating how trucks went from a working mans thing to a shiny chrome status symbol with all these luxury leather seats, xm radio, heated cup holder bull shit. i'll take an old C10 over what they have today anytime
+Slow Harry dude, listen I've had 2 of these, in fact I have an 89 right now, with the same 2.3L and a 5spd. the 4 spd got shit gas mileage (19-24mpg) the 5 spd. doesn't get much better (20-25) I check mileage regularly, and my truck is in perfect stock condition, get your facts straight, 34 is just NOT correct, lol.
This marked the return of the German-built 2.8 V6 engine in the US; its last use was in the 1979 Fox-body Mustang and Mercury Capri, but when Ford couldn't get enough 2.8s for the 1980 model year due to supply problems in Cologne, Germany, the engine was temporarily discontinued in the US in the 4th quarter of MY1979 and replaced by the old 3.3 "Thriftpower" inline six initially used in the 1965 (after August 1964) Mustang.
speaking of not fitting 3 people very comfortably, I remember my grandfather had a truck like this and I always sat in the middle, and with it being a manual transmission, I was always told that you have to be on a first name basis with the driver only because the way I sat in the truck, when the driver shifted to either 2nd gear or 4th gear, those two shifts always came really close to the you now what's....LOL
+Andrew Silva I owned an 87 Ranger and took a trip to the beach with two girls, the one in the middle was wearing a mini skirt and I was always downshifting into 4th!
Great little trucks, I bought my first one brand new in 1984, only problem with them that year were bad valve guides in the 2.0 that would cause plug fouling. Cheap to drive and maintain and sipped fuel. It was the perfect companion and took me and my RM125 to many places.
I've had all sorts of Branco ll and rangers they run for ever they get great gas mileage the body's supports go first I have had 2.3 2.8 2.9s all run great with over 400 thound miles on a 2.9 I parked it it sat 10 years and started right up and drove 60 miles to the new owners. I still have a Ford ranger it's a 88 exd cab with a 2.9 five speed runs great its 4x4 I live in Minnesota it can get down to 44 blow zero it starts every time it goes through snow great don't even have to put it in 4 wheel and I love it and I'm a mopar man never done any thing to but changed the oil and put gas in it .it's got 84.000 miles on it I pull sracp with it and a full size car tralier I've halled 2010 John deer WITH it pulled just fine 3/4ton junk trucks you name it I've pulled it out of a grove
Funny stat. Ford spent over 2 billion on developing this style of ranger. If it failed it would have bankrupted ford. 40 years later the ford ranger alive and kicking. And my personal favorite vehicle of all time.
That's what I miss about the old cars and trucks, you were able to do anything in the engine area for maintenance. Nowadays it's like you buy your own car, truck, SUV...but is it really your's?? You can't even get to the filter without have to take off that plate that covers up everything, mostly.
I hate how everything has a bunch of electronics to the point where you can't see the engine because of covers and stupid stuff, what happened to real trucks. All these new "trucks'' are ugly. They look like a truck and a suv had a baby.
I've worked on a lot of rangers over the years, I never seen one with a 2.0 engine. Basically they down sized the F150 to make the ranger (twin I beam suspension), where as GM used the G body (2wd) & Toronado (4wd) front suspensions on the S10s.
I own an '84 Ranger 4 wheel drive, 4 speed, regular cab, with the 2.0 single-barrel carb in it. It has over 212,000 miles on it, and two weeks ago, I smoked an intake valve, and I just got it back 3 days ago...$1300 lighter in the wallet, but I love the truck, so it's all good....
I recently picked up an 87 Ford Ranger 4x2 Custom 2.9L V6, 5 speed. This happens to be the somewhat rare long bed edition with the 7 foot bed. Only thing it don't have that I wish it had is the dual fuel tanks :(. My 84 Ranger had dual tanks which gave a 30 gallon fuel capacity. Working out a few small bugs with the Ranger right now due to the previous owner letting it sit for 4 years, so gaskets, seals, and sensors are of course needing replaced. Got most of everything taken care of, have a couple little things I'm working on checking tomorrow if the weather plays nice.
My 87 is also the long bed version and they are hard to find! My truck got rear ended at a stoplight by a texting girl and bent my box up and I have been looking for a decent replacement for six years now.
A friend had a white plain jane 2010 and needed to sell it. Took him a while, though, but he finally found a buyer. And my late father-in-law had a nice looking one of the same model year before he passed.
One of the earliest memories I have is climbing into my Grandma's 85 ranger just like one of these. SOMEHOW she managed to shift gears between me and my cousins 4:11 I gotta give Grandma some credit for this.......Grandma McPherson managed all us around with NO power steering. Props to Grandma
I have a 1983 ranger custom with the 4 speed manual and the 2.8 liter v6 as well as the rear sliding glass. Love it to bits but gosh do i wish i had the 4 cylinder and the 5 speed.
I wound up with a used, bare bones 2.0, 4 spd., 7 foot bed Ranger. I liked it, and it was one of the most quiet running engines at idle I've ever encountered. But at 140,000 miles, the engine, though still quiet as can be, was thoroughly worn out when it came to the piston rings. Clouds of smoke and high crankcase pressures and blow by. Sold it to someone who supposedly rebuilt it.
27 mpg city and 39 mpg highway? Not a chance, I had a 86 Ranger and the thing averaged 20 mpg. I had a 1992 F250 and the thing averaged 14mpg, both were 5-speed manuals.
My 84 Ranger managed 19-20mpg as well. My 88 F250 yep 14mpg was normal, I assume you had the 460 V8 as well LOL...gas thirsty but would pull anything you needed moved...still have my F250...well my uncle has had it for a few years now but still in the family and when I need something moved I go get it LOL.
I owned an '83 back then. Mine had a 2.0 motor. Was way way way underpowered. Broke down about every other day. I sold it quickly. Only positive attribute was it didn't rust badly. :)
+Romulan112 I own an '83 right now, and am having more or less the opposite experience. The 2.0 runs beautifully and reliably (and is powerful enough for my modest needs), but more than 30 Indiana winters have certainly taken their toll on the body.
+Dan Frioli I had the Bronco II version of the Ranger in 1984. Total of 285K miles on it when I sold it. It went 68K miles before I put the first penny into it: front brake linings. Most reliable car I ever owned.
ohger1 You had the 2.8 Liter. The 2.0 was junk. No power and would need rings around 100,000 miles. Mine would break down often, carb issues. The idiot that had it before me had taken the motor out and tried to put in a 302. I bought it and put in a 2.0 liter 4 cyl and the carb ports were off a tad. That's most likely why it never ran quite right. One thing I did like about it was the ease of putting in a heater core.
A guy in town has one, says its easy to see 40mpg with it. Back then they were simple, not choked down with all the emissions shit on today's diesels, no electronics to run them, etc. Remove all the electronics and emissions shit on the new ones and you'll get double the fuel economy.
William Todd I quite agree. And if you factor in their thrifty and miserly use of fuel, the actual carbon emissions versus other engines is quite light. And since they constitute a tiny fraction of the total vehicular market, there's no need to restrict diesel emissions so much. The government's case against VW's cleaver diesels was a act to hurt them against the gas hybrid manufacturers which the government is supporting. Those little VW diesels gave better performance and competitive mileage.
@@divisioneight Carbon emissions yes but particulate matter, NMOG, and other pollutants, no. California didn't require catalytic converters of any type on any diesel until like 2004 model year because diesels with computers could make some slight adjustments to affect emissions without needing after treatment. Emission testing exists because most areas violate the clean air act of 1972 by having background pollution levels at unhealthy levels.
Both the '09 Cobalt & '83 Ranger are around 2,900lbs. I think one of the differences is that the Ranger only made 73hp while my Cobalt makes 155hp. Detuned engines use less fuel.
Yeah...an 83 Ranger with the 2.0 gets about 21-25 on the highway. The only way it'll get 39 is if someone is pushing it. I own that exact truck in perfect mechanical shape.
+Joshua Beckett The other thing is that none of the available engines in the Ranger would get anywhere near it's red line before running out of breath. If you upshift past the point of power drop off, you were still well short of hurting it. All those enginers were cammed, stroked, and intake/valved for torque, not RPM. New 4 valve double over head cam engines these days require a tach. Damned things pull harder the closer they get to red line.
Why would you need a tach in the first place? If you can't shift without it or an idiot shift up light you shouldn't drive a MT vehicle LOL. Its a cool bonus but never needed.
Someone swapped engines then because the 2.9L V6 didn't come out until the 86 model year. You may mean the 2.8L V6 which was available late 83-85 model years.
219"x79" for an extended cab F150 with a 6' 9" bed. 212"x74.3" for Colorado with a extended cab and 6'2" bed. F150 doesn't seem to have gotten any wider in the past 50 years.
Jeez. 27 city and 39 highway. Wow. Most mid sized sedans don't even get an estimate like that now a days. Either EPA really dropped the ball on the estimate or we should bring those ranger engineers back
counkev In 1984, the EPA cut the estimates by 10% city, 22% highway to match real-world data to the testing system. I think it changed a little in 1996, too, and then in 2007 they changed the testing regime itself for better real-world matching with modern cars, especially hybrids. Pre-84 numbers are a tad... optimistic.
I'm betting the 39 highway was actually with the diesel engine option, but I don't even think they offered that in 83, I think 84 or 85 they offered it, can't recall for sure though, but that sounds more like a diesel economy number than a carbureted gas engine.
Is that a factor pink Ranger? I'm a child of the 80s and love the Miami Vice hot pink look, but a dull pink pickup? I don't think I've ever seen that before.
IDK, the first year they sold them was 83, so probably built in 82 for the 83 model year I would assume. In 84 they realized they better put an engine in them to actually allow it to get out of its own way...as someone else mentioned the 4 cylinder wasn't the greatest for getting itself moving LOL.
Ford Ranger 1983-2011 in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and 2019 in Wayne, Michigan are Built Ford Tough trucks in America. Engine: 2.3 Liter EcoBoost Inline-4 Transmission: 10-Speed Automatic Drivetrain: 4x2 and 4x4 Style: SuperCab and SuperCrew Cab
A four cylinder manual transmission old school ranger is one of the most reliable American made vehicles you'll ever find.
I have the 6 cylinder and its a pos lmao
@@dwaggs01 Many would think by now, it would be well worn.
@@Olds_Pwr it has a long record of problems and it only has 104k miles
@@dwaggs01
Which V6?
I've had a bunch of reliable 2.3 5-Speed Rangers. My current Ranger is a 2006 4x4 5-Speed with the 4.0 V6. 150k no problems yet.
Merica
1983 Ford Ranger MPG - 27 city 39 hwy
2020 Ford Ranger MPG - 21 city 26 hwy
Looks like those EPA mandates are working great!
HAHA, I've never seen a Ranger get more than about 20mpg on the highway, not sure how they came up with 39mpg, must have been downhill with a tail wind....I don't even think the diesel models did that well. But, you are driving a brick down the road LOL, not exactly aerodynamic.
Lmao 90% of EPA figures were wrong in the 80s
@@johndriscoll213 Most of the EPA numbers are still wrong LOL. All those numbers come from perfect conditions, none of which you'll ever see in the real world, and those numbers are also based on 55mph which nobody drives.
@@wildbill23c With the super high overdrive gears in cars these days (i.e. Ford's new 10 speed), they could really test from 55-70 and get the same number. The city numbers are far more accurate regardless.
Like really? 29MPG city on a Ranger with the drag coefficient of a billboard?
@@johndriscoll213 HAHA no kidding, maybe the 29mpg was measured downhill in neutral LOL.
I agree with raising the speed for the tests too...most highways are 55mph, but the freeway is 65mph+ where many are driving on a daily basis.
The town I live in has ridiculously low speed limits (20mph) in most of the city side streets, main road through town is 25mph....so regardless what you drive your fuel economy sucks anyhow because you are stuck in lower gears all the time.
My dad had a 1988 Ranger XLT long bed, 5 speed manual. I loved that truck!
Mark Meadows I have a Grey 1988 Ranger XLT 4x4 Supercab
Mark Meadows ok boomer
I just got an ‘88 XLT given to me. It needs some work, but I’m super stoked to get it fixed up.
@@toby8309 Oh my stars, you youngsters today are such sarcastic little buggers aren't you? I know what you need, you need some loving. Let old Rosie take you into her bosom and calm you down a little. My dear husband, God rest his soul, used to love his undercarriage given a little "how's ya father" with my teeth out. Then we'd buzz cut the grey thicket on my lady garden, and he'd pound me ragged for hours. We'd have a break to smoke some pot, then he'd take me up the wrong 'un until we were both spent. OOOH my nipples are tingling just thinking about it. That or they're rubbing on the carpet and creating static. Either way, it feels wonderful. Call me....
I love Ford Ranger first generation, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, is my favorite
I really liked both of my Rangers! One was 2WD like this one and the other was a super cab 4WD. Both lasted me for many years with very few troubles, along with good value and dependability. 👍
It's also amazing how long the original 1983-2011 Ranger run lasted with only minimal styling updates.
I've got an 84 Ranger 4x4 with the 2.3l and a 4spd...it's got 298,212 miles on it, never had the motor opened up, and it's my daily driver....I friggin love that little rig....
I had an 84 Ranger as well but 2WD and the 2.8L V6...my grandparents bought it new and grandpa drove it to work all week for 5 years, plus weekend chores, and on vacation pulling a 14' travel trailer, in 88 when he retired it made the trip from California to Idaho and continued to be the trailer tow vehicle until 89 when they bought a larger trailer and an 88 F250 4x4 460. I drove the Ranger until I sold it :( in 2002 after a couple years of engine/carb/computer issues. If I only had the resources then that I have/know now I'd most likely still be driving that truck. When I sold it, it still looked new inside and out with the exception of the notorious cracked dash everything else still looked new, even the truck bed itself showed very little wear but with a Stockton camper shell on it and carpet on the truck bed it kept the weather out and scratches and dents to a minimum. It was a great truck I miss it and always will. Wish I could find it and get it back.
Branon, do you still have it?
Do you still have it?
Those still are great little trucks, still a bunch around. Prefer a V6 for a little more grunt though. Hate all these giant megaton trucks today.
Ya have one 4 cylinder kind of week
He even mis-spelled his name...Dum(b)
Good luck finding a parking space for those world size mega wheller
Today's 4s would be great in one this size
I am in my second week of driving my low mile 01 Ranger and just love how easy it makes U turns and ease of parking.
Not to mention good mileage.
I just bought an '87 single cab this past weekend. Automatic trans. 51k miles on the 2.9L V6. Love these old trucks.
I have a 1987 Ranger XLT with the 2.3 and 5 speed manual and it is the best and most useful truck I have ever owned. Not the quickest thing on the road but very reliable!
I love Ford Ranger 1980s, 85-88 is my favorites. The first ge is best of Ford Ranger
I love these retro reviews keep them coming!!!!
I used to have an 87. Thing was sturdy as hell.
We’ve had an 83, 88, 90 and now our 11. Our 11 is the best Ranger we’ve owned so far
I just love the looks of a Ford Ranger. Two tone paint back then was cool. They were great truck too...very reliable!
I had one of these. That 4 banger couldn't get out of its own way.
I've heard that from a lot of people, the V6 was better, but with today's higher speed limits not so much LOL. Back then speed limits were pretty much 55mph on the freeway wasn't it? or was it 65mph? I wasn't old enough back then to know or care HAHA!!!
Especially the 83-84 diesel
Too many big trucks on the market today when I'm sure people could get away with something smaller for most of their needs. But there's probably an image factor in that segment....
25 mpg average is quite impressive though! I don't think there's a truck on the market today that matches that.
Maybe other owners of 4 cylinder Rangers can chime in, but I have a friend who has a 2011 with the 2.3L 4 banger and his truck averages around 23-24, mostly in town.
Ever notice how more often than not it's the smaller trucks that are carrying loads around, while most of the big ones seem to spend a lot of time compensating for something? :)
ngtflyer I find today's big trucks vulgar. I like the concept of trucks but I find the whole YEAHHHHH-LOOK-AT-ME-I'M-A-REEEEEAL-MAN looks off-putting. It was the Ram that started that in the 1990's and now they are all gargantuan with that supposedly ultra-macho look.
ngtflyer I bought a brand new Ranger in 83 with a 2.3L 4cyl 4 spd standard. Had power steering added at the dealership. Regularly got 34 mpg highway (cdn). It was a great little truck. Unfortunately had to trade it in after it was b&e'd. No parts available due to it being a new model at the time.
+Maestro_T yea, it's irritating how trucks went from a working mans thing to a shiny chrome status symbol with all these luxury leather seats, xm radio, heated cup holder bull shit. i'll take an old C10 over what they have today anytime
+Slow Harry dude, listen I've had 2 of these, in fact I have an 89 right now, with the same 2.3L and a 5spd. the 4 spd got shit gas mileage (19-24mpg) the 5 spd. doesn't get much better (20-25) I check mileage regularly, and my truck is in perfect stock condition, get your facts straight, 34 is just NOT correct, lol.
This marked the return of the German-built 2.8 V6 engine in the US; its last use was in the 1979 Fox-body Mustang and Mercury Capri, but when Ford couldn't get enough 2.8s for the 1980 model year due to supply problems in Cologne, Germany, the engine was temporarily discontinued in the US in the 4th quarter of MY1979 and replaced by the old 3.3 "Thriftpower" inline six initially used in the 1965 (after August 1964) Mustang.
I loved my 84 Ranger. I still miss that truck.
I loved all three of mine. My 4.0 was great for driving sideways on fire trails.
Wish they make small truck nowadays, 2011 was the last year of that
Being logical nowadays is both boring and laughable....u know what I mean
it's back for the 2019 model year
THANKS Motorweek!! I asked and you guys delivered this video! Awesome because i own an '87 2wd longbed XLT.
Ozzstar me too
I also have that exact truck and I love it! Has the 2.3 and 5 speed and it does everything I need it to and then some!
speaking of not fitting 3 people very comfortably, I remember my grandfather had a truck like this and I always sat in the middle, and with it being a manual transmission, I was always told that you have to be on a first name basis with the driver only because the way I sat in the truck, when the driver shifted to either 2nd gear or 4th gear, those two shifts always came really close to the you now what's....LOL
The "you now what is?"
PantherP74 He's talking about genitals. You know, for making the sex.
+Andrew Silva
I owned an 87 Ranger and took a trip to the beach with two girls, the one in the middle was wearing a mini skirt and I was always downshifting into 4th!
Andrew Silva Are you seeing a counselor?
No but he's going to therepy! LOL (Just trying to be funny)!
Great little trucks, I bought my first one brand new in 1984, only problem with them that year were bad valve guides in the 2.0 that would cause plug fouling. Cheap to drive and maintain and sipped fuel. It was the perfect companion and took me and my RM125 to many places.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I LOVE VINYAGE, S10, RANGER AND DAKOTA MINI TRUCKS.
I've had all sorts of Branco ll and rangers they run for ever they get great gas mileage the body's supports go first I have had 2.3 2.8 2.9s all run great with over 400 thound miles on a 2.9 I parked it it sat 10 years and started right up and drove 60 miles to the new owners. I still have a Ford ranger it's a 88 exd cab with a 2.9 five speed runs great its 4x4 I live in Minnesota it can get down to 44 blow zero it starts every time it goes through snow great don't even have to put it in 4 wheel and I love it and I'm a mopar man never done any thing to but changed the oil and put gas in it .it's got 84.000 miles on it I pull sracp with it and a full size car tralier I've halled 2010 John deer WITH it pulled just fine 3/4ton junk trucks you name it I've pulled it out of a grove
I love these old MW reviews!
I had an '86 with a 2.3 auto. I now have a 2010 with the 4.0 and a '97 Dakota 3.9 for 15 years in between the Rangers. Loved them all ......
i've owned four of this style a 2.0, 2.3, a 2.6 and a 3.0. great little trucks. the newer ones were crap. they need a basic truck like this again.
Holy shit, 40 years later
Ah yes, the tough-as-nails Ranger.
they forgot the 2.2l 4c perkins deisel option
The diesel came out late in the model year
Only Brand new truck I ever owned it was great!
Funny stat. Ford spent over 2 billion on developing this style of ranger. If it failed it would have bankrupted ford. 40 years later the ford ranger alive and kicking. And my personal favorite vehicle of all time.
I drive my 86 daily 2.9 V6 gets amazing gas mileage and is super comfy with the STX bucket seats
That's what I miss about the old cars and trucks, you were able to do anything in the engine area for maintenance. Nowadays it's like you buy your own car, truck, SUV...but is it really your's?? You can't even get to the filter without have to take off that plate that covers up everything, mostly.
Ithinkiwill66 yes, just take the cover off....... not hard honestly
I hate how everything has a bunch of electronics to the point where you can't see the engine because of covers and stupid stuff, what happened to real trucks. All these new "trucks'' are ugly. They look like a truck and a suv had a baby.
I got a 86 4cyl 2wd and according to my sticker mine was built 11/1985....awesome birthday gift for my truck lol thanx motorweek
I had a 95 2.3l ranger,5 speed manual. Miss that truck.
I've worked on a lot of rangers over the years, I never seen one with a 2.0 engine.
Basically they down sized the F150 to make the ranger (twin I beam suspension), where as GM used the G body (2wd) & Toronado (4wd) front suspensions on the S10s.
I own an '84 Ranger 4 wheel drive, 4 speed, regular cab, with the 2.0 single-barrel carb in it. It has over 212,000 miles on it, and two weeks ago, I smoked an intake valve, and I just got it back 3 days ago...$1300 lighter in the wallet, but I love the truck, so it's all good....
Awesome just keeping an old truck in service.
Gorgeous truck!
HEy you guys have a review on the first gen Dodge Dakota?
I recently picked up an 87 Ford Ranger 4x2 Custom 2.9L V6, 5 speed. This happens to be the somewhat rare long bed edition with the 7 foot bed. Only thing it don't have that I wish it had is the dual fuel tanks :(. My 84 Ranger had dual tanks which gave a 30 gallon fuel capacity. Working out a few small bugs with the Ranger right now due to the previous owner letting it sit for 4 years, so gaskets, seals, and sensors are of course needing replaced. Got most of everything taken care of, have a couple little things I'm working on checking tomorrow if the weather plays nice.
My 87 is also the long bed version and they are hard to find! My truck got rear ended at a stoplight by a texting girl and bent my box up and I have been looking for a decent replacement for six years now.
A friend had a white plain jane 2010 and needed to sell it. Took him a while, though, but he finally found a buyer. And my late father-in-law had a nice looking one of the same model year before he passed.
I'd buy one of these in a second!!!!
i just picked up an 83 4x4 2.9 5 speed and shes pretty solid
The Courier John mentioned was still in production in parts of the world other than N.America until 2013 but I have to admit I don't remember it.
You guys wouldn't happen to have done a review on the 1999 Ford Ranger?
ah the true mini trucks. they really need to have a comeback :D
but i think CAFE reared it's ugly head there...
"You might want to take in the plastic wood on the dashboard".. Ahhhaha!!!
I instantly understood it as sarcasm... Until I realized he was serious.
It was actually a good looking dash compared to other early 1980s cars and trucks. This is an era when even a one speaker AM radio was an option.
had the 2.2 l desiel ....was a good freind
I have one now, still purrs
It's basically a mini F150!
One of the earliest memories I have is climbing into my Grandma's 85 ranger just like one of these. SOMEHOW she managed to shift gears between me and my cousins
4:11 I gotta give Grandma some credit for this.......Grandma McPherson managed all us around with NO power steering. Props to Grandma
I have a 1983 ranger custom with the 4 speed manual and the 2.8 liter v6 as well as the rear sliding glass. Love it to bits but gosh do i wish i had the 4 cylinder and the 5 speed.
My dad has an '84 with the 2.3 and a 3 speed auto with over 300,000 on it
I wound up with a used, bare bones 2.0, 4 spd., 7 foot bed Ranger. I liked it, and it was one of the most quiet running engines at idle I've ever encountered. But at 140,000 miles, the engine, though still quiet as can be, was thoroughly worn out when it came to the piston rings. Clouds of smoke and high crankcase pressures and blow by. Sold it to someone who supposedly rebuilt it.
When I push my Chevy S-10 to the flat bed trailer, my abdomen hurts. I've pushed my truck many times. It's running now. And I love my truck!
27 mpg city and 39 mpg highway? Not a chance, I had a 86 Ranger and the thing averaged 20 mpg. I had a 1992 F250 and the thing averaged 14mpg, both were 5-speed manuals.
The diesel ones with 59 horsepower would get ~40 mpg at 55 mph
My dad's '83 Ranger doesn't even leave the driveway
My 84 Ranger managed 19-20mpg as well. My 88 F250 yep 14mpg was normal, I assume you had the 460 V8 as well LOL...gas thirsty but would pull anything you needed moved...still have my F250...well my uncle has had it for a few years now but still in the family and when I need something moved I go get it LOL.
When power steering was an option.
I owned an '83 back then. Mine had a 2.0 motor. Was way way way underpowered. Broke down about every other day. I sold it quickly. Only positive attribute was it didn't rust badly. :)
+Romulan112 I own an '83 right now, and am having more or less the opposite experience. The 2.0 runs beautifully and reliably (and is powerful enough for my modest needs), but more than 30 Indiana winters have certainly taken their toll on the body.
+Dan Frioli I had the Bronco II version of the Ranger in 1984. Total of 285K miles on it when I sold it. It went 68K miles before I put the first penny into it: front brake linings. Most reliable car I ever owned.
ohger1 You had the 2.8 Liter. The 2.0 was junk. No power and would need rings around 100,000 miles. Mine would break down often, carb issues. The idiot that had it before me had taken the motor out and tried to put in a 302. I bought it and put in a 2.0 liter 4 cyl and the carb ports were off a tad. That's most likely why it never ran quite right. One thing I did like about it was the ease of putting in a heater core.
Do you guys have a review of the El Camino?
It used to come with a Mazda diesel engine which made it a very thrifty and reliable little pickup.
A guy in town has one, says its easy to see 40mpg with it. Back then they were simple, not choked down with all the emissions shit on today's diesels, no electronics to run them, etc. Remove all the electronics and emissions shit on the new ones and you'll get double the fuel economy.
William Todd I quite agree. And if you factor in their thrifty and miserly use of fuel, the actual carbon emissions versus other engines is quite light. And since they constitute a tiny fraction of the total vehicular market, there's no need to restrict diesel emissions so much. The government's case against VW's cleaver diesels was a act to hurt them against the gas hybrid manufacturers which the government is supporting. Those little VW diesels gave better performance and competitive mileage.
@@divisioneight Carbon emissions yes but particulate matter, NMOG, and other pollutants, no. California didn't require catalytic converters of any type on any diesel until like 2004 model year because diesels with computers could make some slight adjustments to affect emissions without needing after treatment.
Emission testing exists because most areas violate the clean air act of 1972 by having background pollution levels at unhealthy levels.
MotorWeek comes up with all these weird test numbers: 0 - 50, 0 - 500', 0 - 55, 0 - 65... sometimes even 0 - 60 that you can actually compare with...
0-60 wasn't standard in '83, around '85 or so they started doing 0-60. Same with the mags, I think Car and Driver used to do 0-55 tests.
I wish I had 25 miles lol. My 90 2.3 with a broken O/D A4LD got 13 mpg average over the span of 5000 miles over 9 months so all considered not bad.
Still have mine
I wish Ford had offered the 302 in this generation of the Ranger.
39mpg highway for a 1983 truck?! I drive a 2009 Cobalt XFE and it struggles to get that!!
+LandonGendur Light weight friend...
I think this was before the EPA's revised mileage calculations lol
Ty U. Plus light weight...
Both the '09 Cobalt & '83 Ranger are around 2,900lbs. I think one of the differences is that the Ranger only made 73hp while my Cobalt makes 155hp. Detuned engines use less fuel.
Yeah...an 83 Ranger with the 2.0 gets about 21-25 on the highway. The only way it'll get 39 is if someone is pushing it. I own that exact truck in perfect mechanical shape.
His voice is so subdued here, it’s like the 1992 John took a Valium
I didn't think John became upbeat until around the late 80's episodes
Why was it ever a good idea to not have a tach in a manual-transmission vehicle?
+Joshua Beckett The other thing is that none of the available engines in the Ranger would get anywhere near it's red line before running out of breath. If you upshift past the point of power drop off, you were still well short of hurting it. All those enginers were cammed, stroked, and intake/valved for torque, not RPM. New 4 valve double over head cam engines these days require a tach. Damned things pull harder the closer they get to red line.
Why would you need a tach in the first place? If you can't shift without it or an idiot shift up light you shouldn't drive a MT vehicle LOL. Its a cool bonus but never needed.
PantherP74....because you're supposed to be smart enough to know when the rpm is too high....it's called common sense....
No. Without an indication of how much is too much, bad things happen.
Base model neon doesn't have one wither
Ford Ranger RIP
joeyconservative not for long. 2019 they start making again
its back for the 2019 model year
joeyconservative it’s back as a bigger version of the 1998 F150, so yeah RIP still applies lol, still millions of them out there though
Nowadays "midsized" is what fullsized used to be. By today's standards the old Rangers are compact pickups.
2:35 that's for sure true
wanting to see a 90s model ranger review i got that one
2:07 cameo by a '73 Pontiac LeMans sport coupe
Any chance you guys tested the Typhoon or Cyclone? Now that was a pocket rocket! 4.3 punch and go!
Do you guys have any videos from other years of Rangers?
I had an 83 Ranger with the 2.9L V6 Auto PS/PB A/C CC AM/FM 8 Track Cloth Int paid 800.00 got 4 years out of it and sold it for 1500.00
Someone swapped engines then because the 2.9L V6 didn't come out until the 86 model year. You may mean the 2.8L V6 which was available late 83-85 model years.
Beautiful little truck. My Ranger is getting older now. I hope Ford has something in the pipeline to compete with the Canyon/Colorado.
I was thinking the Canyon/Colorado must be similar in size to the F-150 in this video
219"x79" for an extended cab F150 with a 6' 9" bed. 212"x74.3" for Colorado with a extended cab and 6'2" bed. F150 doesn't seem to have gotten any wider in the past 50 years.
Getting there. They're not quite as big...yet.
Do you guys got one for the Bronco II?
Yes
MotorWeek did you guys ever do another bronco 2 one other than the 84’ model
You should do one on like later 80's Ford Ranger and Bronco 2 after they went from the carbureted 4 cylinder & 2.8L V6 to the 2.9L Fuel Injected V6.
Jeez. 27 city and 39 highway. Wow. Most mid sized sedans don't even get an estimate like that now a days. Either EPA really dropped the ball on the estimate or we should bring those ranger engineers back
counkev In 1984, the EPA cut the estimates by 10% city, 22% highway to match real-world data to the testing system. I think it changed a little in 1996, too, and then in 2007 they changed the testing regime itself for better real-world matching with modern cars, especially hybrids. Pre-84 numbers are a tad... optimistic.
I'm betting the 39 highway was actually with the diesel engine option, but I don't even think they offered that in 83, I think 84 or 85 they offered it, can't recall for sure though, but that sounds more like a diesel economy number than a carbureted gas engine.
Is that a factor pink Ranger? I'm a child of the 80s and love the Miami Vice hot pink look, but a dull pink pickup? I don't think I've ever seen that before.
It’s dark tan, but can look pink in this old video
@John yeah, could have been my crappy desktop monitor as well, on my phone it looks pretty standard light brown.
My dad had three rangers 1996 1983 any 2001 a blue ranger a coppery colored Ranger and a white ranger
Bill Burr got a DUI in one of these
can't find these anymore, a 4cyl truck or van that does 25mpg and carries all your shit with you, all of 1500lbs. Really hard to find.
Check craigslist, tons of them around for sale as people buy new luxury pickups with huge V8's or diesel engines to show off in.
I have seen a lot of these on TV and in movies
5:03 how come even the toyota trucks with a 4 banger in them can BARLEY break 20.
my buddy has this truck sitting in his yard with 34 k original miles but wont fix it !
the 83 ranger was an 82 model
IDK, the first year they sold them was 83, so probably built in 82 for the 83 model year I would assume. In 84 they realized they better put an engine in them to actually allow it to get out of its own way...as someone else mentioned the 4 cylinder wasn't the greatest for getting itself moving LOL.
What they meant was Ford intended to release them in 82 to compete with the S10 but they did not make it in time
$6k wow not bad price unlike what its now highly price
1:20 crappy load
What a load of crap!!!
Where can u buy a new company truck today for 6 gs
***** Do you have a retro review for the full size Bronco?
If I could get a brand new, dependable, economical, bare bones workhorse truck for (inflation adjusted) $16,500 I probably would.
RIP Ranger Danger
Ford Ranger 1983-2011 in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and 2019 in Wayne, Michigan are Built Ford Tough trucks in America.
Engine: 2.3 Liter EcoBoost Inline-4
Transmission: 10-Speed Automatic
Drivetrain: 4x2 and 4x4
Style: SuperCab and SuperCrew Cab
I love my 96 4 cyl5 speed
R. I. P.
That sweet ass lowrider at 2:08
Can You Do The '87 Dodge Dakota
Someone tell me how much the base model weighs for the 83-88?
Approximately 3000lbs, depends a lot on options and such, even the base model had different configurations so the weight could vary slightly.
"Naturally, midsize pickup trucks aren't GT cars"
Not with that attitude
LOL cow manure?
But ford has had the ranger name since the 1970's
all three of those trucks are so small compared to today =\