Good morning, and welcome back to Shitbox Showdown! This week, I actually remembered to do the Two-Door Tuesday thing, so we’re going to look at a pair of compact standard-cab pickups – you know, the kind of trucks we all want, but nobody makes anymore because people stopped buying them. But before we get there, let’s look at our retro-mobiles from yesterday:
The Bug takes the win! I’m guessing the manual had a lot to do with it. All I know is, based on the comments, if either VW or Chrysler (I mean, Stellantis) ever figured out how to make a car run on pure refined vitriol, they’d solve the world’s energy problems. Lots of folks were, shall we say, not fans of either choice.
But you all like little trucks, right? Especially the good old body-on-frame single-cabbers with manuals? Good. I’ve got a pair of them for you to check out, both in the Los Angeles area.
1993 Ford Ranger – $1,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0 or 4.0 liter (not specified) OHV V6, 5 speed manual, RWD
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Odometer reading: 200,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does
Ford’s compact Ranger was the universal default small truck for, what, three decades? This little wonder has hauled mountains, half a ton at a time, to the moon and back, thousands of times over. It has towed trailers full of landscaping equipment, kept the beaches safe, and just plain bombed around as only a good little truck can, for gazillions of miles.
This looks like a fairly basic Ranger, with a vinyl bench seat, rubber floors, and those bare-bones 14 inch wheels that always look too small on these. It does have an optional V6 engine, but the seller doesn’t specify whether it’s the 3 liter Vulcan or the 4 liter Cologne variety. It is also equipped with air conditioning – though there’s no mention of whether it works – and a “Berliner.” I believe the seller is confusing a truck accessory with the speech JFK gave at SEMA in which he declared, “Ich bin ein bedliner.”
One thing this truck does have going for it is possibly Ford’s best color of the 1990s: teal. It looked good on Rangers, Escorts, Mustangs; hell, even the Windstar looked better in this color. It also has a period-correct Pioneer tape deck. The labels are worn off most of the buttons, but it should still play your Hootie & The Blowfish cassette just fine.
The seller says it runs well but “needs minor work.” You’d have to ask the seller what that means. It does look like a solid little truck, and if a test drive and an inspection don’t turn up anything major, it looks like a good deal.
1998 Chevrolet S-10 – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2 liter OHV inline 4, 5 speed manual, RWD
Location: Long Beach, CA
Odometer reading: 280,000 miles
Runs/drives? Indeed it does
The Ranger’s crosstown rival, Chevy’s S-10 and its twin the GMC S-15/Sonoma, also sold like hotcakes, but often seemed set up for play rather than work. Even this plain white S-10, part of a fleet, looks sportier than most Rangers, especially when equipped with what are the best-looking factory alloy wheels of the ’90s and 2000s.
This S-10 has a decidedly working-class engine, a 2.2 liter pushrod four-cylinder inherited from Chevy’s Cavalier. It’s not the most refined or brawny powerplant, but it is sturdy. This truck is also equipped with air conditioning, but the seller says it doesn’t work.
This S-10 is also a little nicer inside than the Ranger above, with such sumptuous luxuries as carpet and cloth upholstery. It has what I guess you’d call a split bench seat, but I would hope they didn’t intend to actually make someone sit in the middle.
This truck has a heap of miles on it – 280,000- but the seller says it still runs well, and the tags are current. It’s a little banged up, but not bad at all. There’s no mention of what sort of fleet it was part of, but I think it’s safe to assume it spent its life in the Los Angeles basin, gathering those miles one stoplight and on-ramp at a time. Its price feels a little steep to me, but maybe that’s just where the market is these days.
Little trucks like this are supremely useful, and sorely missed. Luckily, they wear like anvils, and are simple enough to fix by yourself, so the remaining ones should be around a long time. Either one of these would make a good little runabout work truck; which one will it be?
I sold many Rangers at a Ford dealer in the ’90s. All you’re going to get out of either V6 is worse mileage. It sure didn’t make it a fun truck to drive, even with the stick. The Chevy had a much more car-like, ergonomic cabin and ride. Better-looking, too, at least in this case.
Sorry to all the owners of the Rangers I sold, but I’m riding in the Chevy.
My dad had a 95 Ranger with the 4.0, I had a 99 S10 with the 2.2. Both of us had the extended cab versions with manual transmissions. He had bucket seats instead of the bench in the truck shown, I had the exact same split bench as the S10 here. I did have people sit in the center seat a couple of times. It was as uncomfortable for everyone in front as you could imagine. I pretty much couldn’t use 4th gear. The seats in my S10 were more comfortable than the buckets in my dad’s top level Ranger, so I have to imagine the bench in the Ranger above is far worse than the S10. As others have mentioned, the GM 2.2 liter engine isn’t going to get you anywhere quickly, but it was dependable. I was able to haul enough dirt to bottom out the rear suspension, and it still had enough power to get me home, so that’s good enough for me. Based on the comofort factor and the fact that I could still probably adjust the HVAC controls with my eyes closed, I’m voting S10 on this one.
First vehicle I ever bought was a ’95 S10 4 cyl, 2 door, 5 speed, rwd. It was as barebones as you could get. It did a lot of hauling and survived 2 major accidents. By the time I moved on it was 3 different colors from having body panels and tailgate replaced. Sold it to a guy looking for a beater for his kid.
Ranger for me. All years of ranger have bolt on long travel suspension packages. The twin I beams are easier (and better) but this this is a few (very large) credit card swipes away from easily doing 5′ of air in the desert.
These type of trucks (plus a jump seat half second row) are high on my list of beloved lost styles, along with two row, six seater wagons with fold flat rear seats.
Why can’t we have nice, functional things anymore?
I have an ’04 Honda Odyssey with 4 seats standard and three more seats that fold into the back floor. It’s so much better in every way (except maybe gas mileage, it’s a bit of a hog) than any station wagon that I have ever been in. I am no longer young, the juice of the way back station wagon backward facing seats where much mayhem occurred has long worn off.
I had an ’85 Ranger as a race transporter (GPz 550 box stock) with a V-6, 5-speed, and long bed.
It was red with a hand-painted Ranger logo on the bed sides, and white wagon wheels, very sharp. When I was hurt, I’d pick my girlfriend up from her Park Avenue apartment (she considered herself “ruling class” even though the apartment belonged to an elderly friend of the family). And take her out to Pocono International, or Lime Rock. She would often ask, when discussing weekend plans etc. “Couldn’t we just go out and ride around in that little red truck.”
She had that going for her.
I rode with the Ranger.
Ranger for me, as the steel wheels, vinyl bench, and general condition are authentic to what it is – an honest work truck.
The S-10 has too much of the aging sports star/cheerleader thing going on for me.
Also, apropos nothing, the ’90s Rangers had the wonderful offset Ford oval on the tailgate. And it was the right size, unlike when in the ’00s Ford starting plastering the comically large-size F-150 oval right in the middle of the Ranger’s back end. Always notice that when I see one now.
I love S-10’s. I’ve owned two of them. My first truck was actually a ’98 S-10. Unfortunately the 2.2 is a sad dog of an engine, so I picked the Ranger.
6 cylinders, lower miles, cheaper, the right color. I’ll take the ranger all day. Getting that seat fixed is cheap and easy and hopefully the “needs minor work” applies to that and nothing big mechanical.
My mom drove my sister and I to school all the time in her purple ’94 Ranger (4 cyl) while my neighbor, cousin, and former coworker all drove an S10 or S10 Blazer of the same generation and always had a complaint for it. I pick the Ranger for nostalgia and likely reliability.
Had a 98 Sonoma with that 4… It is by far the most gutless vehicle I’ve ever owned, and I dailied a Geo Metro
Danger Ranger ftw
I’ve driven examples of both. The Rangers were screwed together better.
6>4. Ranger.
I have zero use for a truck, but there is zero chance I’m driving that Ford on a seat like that.
***k both of these choices.
But sure, the Chevy…under duress.
Tough call. Drove a S-10 spd with 4 cyl for a bit and it could not get out of it’s own way. If the AC was working it would even slower.
The Ranger has a an unknown v6 and it is in rougher shape.
I would chose the S-10 then look into engine swaps/fix the AC.
FORD:
I hate that teal color. I’d rather have a rattle can paint job in any other color. The photos show that the paint job has lost the clearcoat on the top edge of the tailgate and roof, and probably the hood too, so maybe a rattle can job is a reasonable next step.
Also, when someone says “it needs a little work”, that usually means it needs a lot of work. Based on personal experience with head gaskets that failed early, I don’t trust Ford V6 engines of this era, but this one has clearly proven itself.
CHEVY:
I think all the S-10s like this around here were taken out by rust long before the mechanicals wore out. These were strong little beasts, especially with a manual. I drove one like this for a while. Something about the seating position made the clutch a little uncomfortable to operate. The Chevy interior started out much nicer, but it’s going to take a lot more work to get it back to nice again.
It’s a tight decision, but I’d take the Ford. Barely. Mostly because the Chevy was a fleet vehicle. Low mileage fleet vehicles are a bargain, but high mileage fleet vehicles are to be avoided.
S-10 is a newer generation, much nicer interior, and even with the 4 cylinder, I think it’s better than the ratty V6 Ranger (as much as I love Rangers as well). The only thing that gives me pause here is the price difference. Even if the S-10 is is a full 1.7x more expensive than the Ranger, I’d rather live with the S-10.
I used to have a loaded 1994 Sonoma with the V6–man, I still miss that little truck-rod.
I voted Ranger. I had one, in that color. I would hit the junkyard and get the cloth bucket seats and maybe better factory wheels.
I had a Sonoma for a while and liked it. But, hey, been there done that, so how about the Ranger, just for something diferent?
Ranger for me too, though I recall the cabin being a wee bit cramped for me. At worst, I might have to relocate the seat mounts when I had it out for a new cover.
The S-10 looks better, but not a thousand scoots better. And yes, the V6 counts for something.
I only consider the S10 over the ranger because I know the LS swap kits are cheap and complete. https://www.summitracing.com/parts/trd-44061/make/chevrolet/model/s10/year/1999 and much of the drive train parts swap from F-Bodies easy enough.
Honestly nobody really wants a 2 seater with a small bed though.
“…nobody really wants a 2 seater with a small bed though.” I did, back in the day, and I still do.
This is the reason I voted S10. Perfect condition for LS swap. The only answer is LS swap all the things. Sure it’s been done a million times but there are also a million reasons why it keeps being done.
Gotta be the S-10. I’ve got a 2002, but with the proper engine (V6). Nothing ever really goes wrong with it, and it is super comfy to sit in. My friend has been through 3 Ranger’s in half the time I’ve had mine. The S-10 is far more comfortable.
I’ve always wanted a Ranger. It wasn’t too long ago that it seemed like they grew on trees. I knew a guy who would exclusively drive Rangers, he had a handful for parts and would use them to keep one running until it died catestrphically, pick up another for a grand and get a few years out of it and repeat. After that I measured all truck prices in Rangers. I could get a new Maverick, or buy 20 Rangers, a used F150 or 10 Rangers. Really put things in perspective.
My ideal one would be an early 90’s Splash model, Calypso green with slightly beefier tires. Such good looking trucks.
yeah those Splash models were nice. I coveted a red or yellow Splash for awhile in my teen years.
I feel like both are good choices but for much less money and miles I gotta go Ranger.
Ranger for me based on the 6 banger over the 4. Although I do prefer the looks of the S-10 over the Ranger.
Ranger all day.
Why? For some reason, unless it is a full-size vehicle, every GM of that era causes me knee problems due to the ergonomics. In a long drive, more than an hour sitting in one and my knee locks up.
From what I’ve seen of later model vehicles, GM didn’t get much improvement in their ergonomics department.
My ergo problem with the Sonoma I owned was the edge of the center console would press into my lower leg.