Good morning! It’s time for another Shitbox Showdown, and today, we’re looking at a pair of economical vehicles from the Age of Lollapalooza. Before we do, however, let’s settle the score on our project cars from yesterday:
Closer than I thought, actually. I expected the BMW to run away with it and leave the poor old Jensen languishing in obscurity. Personally, given the choice between these two, I’d probably take the Jensen, mainly because it’s as close as I’ll ever get to a Lotus.
Moving on: Somehow, amid the baggy jeans and the Pauly Shore movies and the saxophone-playing politicians, a funny thing happened in the 1990s: Cars got good. Really, surprisingly good. Performance started creeping up again after years in the doldrums, styling emerged from the crisp-edged but same-old-same-old ’80s designs into excitingly swoopy shapes, and build quality and reliability rose dramatically across the board (though in many cases there was nowhere to go but up). Technology like multi-port fuel injection and distributorless ignition made stumbling and stalling a thing of the past, and improved fuel economy. [Editor’s Note: I’m pro-distributor, actually. Not a fan of multiple coil packs multiplying the vehicle’s potential failure culprits, even if I have had my share of issues with long spark plug wires on distributor’d cars. Â -DT]
These improvements are easy to see now, when the remaining cars from that era have twenty or thirty years under their belts, and hundreds of thousands of miles. In places where rust didn’t claim them, ’90s cars are still a common sight on the road, still chugging along. Once again, I’ve had to stay on the West Coast to find good examples; sorry, rust-belters.
1993 Ford Ranger Splash – $2,200
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3 liter inline 4, 5 speed manual, RWD
Location: Concord, CA
Odometer reading: 159,000 miles
Runs/drives? Daily driven currently
I’d be hard-pressed to think of a vehicle more emblematic of the 1990s than the Ford Ranger Splash. The second-generation Ranger was everywhere, and the Splash, with its fiberglass stepside bed and color options that came out of a bag of Skittles, was the one everyone wanted.
This Ranger is equipped with the best available powertrain: Ford’s basic 2.3 liter “Lima” four, here with two spark plugs per cylinder, and a Mazda-made five speed manual. It’s not the most powerful combination, but it’s essentially indestructible, and gets decent gas mileage (26 MPG on the highway!). It’s had a recent tune-up and some other work, and is driven daily, which means the seller trusts it. Always a good sign.
Outside, it’s a little beat-up and faded, but overall it wears its 29 years well. We don’t get any photos of the inside, or under the hood, unfortunately. Being a Splash, this truck will have bucket seats and a center armrest. Sadly, it is not equipped with air conditioning, so summertime driving is strictly a windows-down affair.
The ad mentions a matching camper shell, but it isn’t shown in the photos. If it is included, that would be a nice bonus, because just any old standard small truck canopy won’t fit this stepside bed.
1995 Saturn SC1 – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.9 liter inline 4, 5 speed manual, FWD
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Odometer reading: 185,000 miles
Runs/drives? Great, according to the ad
A different kind of company, they said. A different kind of car. Saturn was meant to be GM’s import-fighter division, but in practice, they stole more sales of Chevy Cavaliers than they did Honda Civics. But they were pretty good cars. Cheap, plasticky, and unrefined, but reliable and reasonably fun to drive.
Saturn model names were about as simple as you could get: SL for sedans, SC for coupes, SW for wagons, followed by a 1 for the economy-minded model with a single-overhead-cam engine or a 2 for the sportier twin-cam version. Gearing and suspension tuning were different between the 1 and the 2 as well. As a former owner of an SC1 similar to this, I can tell you right now it’s no sports car, no matter how swoopy and stylish it is; the tall gearing and skinny tires of the 1 soak up a lot of the fun. It is good for fuel economy, though, rated at over 30 MPG highway .
It looks like it’s in good shape, but Saturn’s famous plastic doors and fenders hide a lot of sins. If this has been an Orange County car its whole life, I wouldn’t expect any rust hiding under the plastic, but it is always a possibility. The driver’s seat shows some wear, with the leather upholstery coming apart, but it’s nothing a seat cover couldn’t fix. The rest of the interior looks decent, and pretty fancy for a Saturn.
No mention of its mechanical condition is given other than “runs and drives great,” but these are stout little cars, and having current registration means it hasn’t been sitting around. They do mention that the headliner is falling down; this is a common problem. I can tell you from experience that spray adhesive will not work to fix it, at least not for long.
So there they are, two relics from that decade when everything seemed to be going so well. Both run and drive just fine, so it’s a matter of style choice – do you want the sporty-looking pickup, or the zoomy-looking coupe?
A running truck in good shape for $2200? easy choice!
I didn’t know that Ford used twin spark plugs back then! Wow a cheap-ass Ford I4 from the early 90s used two spark plugs per cylinder. I never knew that!
I know some advanced cars like early hybrids, some German cars of the 2000s, and the Hemi have that, but I didn’t know about the Ranger tho! That’s OK because the job still shouldn’t be difficult on them.
The Nissan NAPS-Z 4 cylinder in the 720 and early D21 pickups (and others? Stanza?) were twin-spark as well, and annoyingly, used different plugs on the intake side vs the exhaust side of the head.
Too true. My grandpa laughed at me when I got all excited about two plugs per cylinder on a NAPS-Z as a kid. Then he showed me the rest of his old trans-am datsun parts that he still had kicking around from when he built motors for them in the 60’s and 70’s.
I miss him and his stories.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!
Jesus Christ, this is like watching the high school football team play against Mrs. Bixby’s kindergarten class. Who the hell wouldn’t take Ranger over a Saturn. I’ve ridden in/driven both, and it’s not even close. The Saturn may have better fuel economy but I’ve not met one yet that hasn’t had some major failure at one point. My friend lost 5 pounds one summer because he had to turn the heat on to prevent the engine from over heating.
Some of us like the ease of experimentation with simple fuel injected vehicles so either one would do. Personally I prefer the ranger but see the saturn as an opportunity to have something to play with mechanically without any remorse when I ruin it by doing something silly like adding a supercharger just to see what would happen.
I’ve always unironically loved the Splash edition of the Ranger. The flare-sides, the graphics, the branding… It captured 11-year-old me quite nicely and hasn’t let go. One of the very few [non-kei] trucks that I’d want to keep in my stable.
Ooh this is a hard one.
In 2020 I got a 1997 Ranger with that 2.3 and a manual for $500. It had been sitting sidelined for years after a previous owner hit a curb and bent a radius arm. It also had a rotted power steering line. I had a new arm installed for $400, did the power steering line myself for about $20, did the bearings and brakes myself for maybe $60. Then I took it on a 5,000-mile road trip adventure.
The truck never skipped a beat. I got 22 mpg going about 80 mph and about 30 mpg doing 60 mph. With the 20 gallon tank I found myself going well over 500 miles before needing to fill up again.
A lot of folks will say that the 2.3 is gutless, and that may be true. However, I found that if you aren’t afraid to wring that little guy out, it’ll get you where you need to go. Just don’t expect to tow a big trailer or mount tall off-road tires. These little Rangers are certifiably good trucks, especially if you need something that just works.
On the other hand, the Saturn is just as tantalizing. My dad bought one of those for $1,000 and I learned how to drive manual in it. Those old Saturns, much like those Rangers, are so simple and relatively cheap to keep going. My dad is a horrible driver, yet that SC took every hit, every missed oil change, and every cigarette burn and kept going. In the end, a mix of dad’s driving and rust did it in. Apparently, he hit a tall curb going 60 mph. The hit was so hard that the unibody cracked in a spot where rust was already building.
These little Saturns are great cars. The SC2 shown should get you 35-40MPG on the highway all day long. You just need to keep up on the oil, as they all consume more than other cars. The “hand-me-down” car in my family was a teal ’95 SL1 sedan with an automatic. My two older sisters ran the crap out of that thing, running it with very little oil on several occasions, so it needed a little extra attention by the time I got to use it in high school. It was quick enough to get me into trouble, and my dad traded her in (still running great) at close to 200k at the tail end of my senior year. I went on to buy a ’95 SL2 with a twin cam and manual in college, and ran her until I got my first real job, again running strong at close to 200k. 1995 was the sweet spot for the sedans in my opinion, having the new interior and the old body style (hated the ’96 redesign on the sedan). I like the ’97 and up coupe better than the subject vehicle, but this one is very nice, too. It would be fun to drive something with pop-ups again, so it gets my vote, even thought I know the Ford will run away with it…
I’ve had a lot of experience with those Rangers – my father got a red ’93 Splash when they were brand new and exciting, with a 5-speed and the 4.0 V6. It’s was like a sports car with a bed. Lots of fun to drive, insanely impractical. I had a ’98 Ranger with that 2.3 4-cylinder and 5-speed and at the risk of sounding crazy, it was more fun. The engine revved happily, and it was more like a go-kart than a real truck.
My daughter’s first car was a 2000 Ranger with that stepside bed. She loved it. Her husband isn’t a great driver, though, so it didn’t make it.
All positive ranger experiences here. I just can’t vote against it.
Side note – were they really available from the factory without A/C?! The ad must mean that the system is kaput.
There are a few things in the automotive world that I simply won’t ever understand, and the seemingly boundless love for this generation of Ford Ranger is one of them.
My brother had one with this exact powertrain and RWD, and it was a contender for worst vehicle I’ve ever driven (non-VW division).
Wife, back when she was the girlfriend, had an SC1. I got enough of that. I’ll take the Ranger
That is an SC2 as evidenced by the following (that I can see):
1. Pop-up headlights (whole front end is different than the SC1)
2. Full-width taillights
3. Body-colored mirrors and door handles
4. 6500 RPM tach
5. 130 MPH speedo
6. Leather upholstery
Ranger, hands down.
I can do so much more with it.
That faux wood trim in the Saturn can’t be OEM, right? I don’t remember Saturns having that, but in fairness, I never rode in any of the ‘uplevel’ ones.
But SC1 for the popup headlights all day long. By the ’90s, that GM feature was reasonably likely to work correctly most the time.
Saturn’s SCs never had wood trim.
Thank you – and that navy trim on the passenger door also looks non-spec.
I like the Saturn, but I need a weekend hauler in my life. This Ranger would be the best such weekend hauler. Ranger by a good margin.
I’m sure someone can correct me on this, but for the first-generation coupes I thought the SC1 had the fixed headlamps and the SC2 had the pop-ups? The wood trim inside makes me think this is an SC2 as well.
Also, if it weren’t gold and all the way across the country, I’d be all over that Saturn.
I believe you are correct, this is likely an SC2.
More fun to drive, but more likely to have the oil burning issue. I drove a ’96 SC2 for a couple years and had a great experience apart from adding a quart every 1000 miles.
Correct, although I do not believe these came with wood trim from the factory in either case.
So it’s down to no AC but potentially useful, vs good MPG and a stick but Meh.
Too much Meh for me. I’ll take the pickup.
For $2,200, I’ll take the Ranger and fix/add the no-AC part of it
I don’t like trucks. I would never vote for a truck over a coupe.
Except I just did.
That little Ranger is exerting some kind of voodoo or wizardry. I kind of want it.
I bought an SL1 new in ’92 with this exact drivetrain. No, it’s not fast, exactly, but it was fun.
Rangers are great, but it’s the Saturn by a hidden-headlight-equipped nose.
The mostly unblemished fiberglass bed on the Ranger is probably worth over $1,000 on its own. The only clearly visible damage is in a spot that could easily be covered with a larger bumper, and the best kind of fiberglass work is no fiberglass work at all. I’ll take the Ranger as my slow but mighty 90’s chariot.
I always used to fix sagging headliners with thumbtacks.
Would hot glue work? I think hot glue would work, even tho I regularly burn myself using hot glue.
3M 77 spray adhesive available at Lowe’s. Spray thru little slits starting in the middle & working outward. DON’T ‘squeegee’ it or stretch the fabric or you end up with ugly folds around the perimeter. Sad face emoji
That works for about a month, until the next layer of foam delaminates and it falls down again.
Common craft hot glue has a pretty low melting point. I’ve left hot-glued objects in a car (foam R/C airplanes) and had the glue release on a hot summer day. Directly touching the roof would be even worse. It would also be difficult, nigh on impossible, to apply evenly with the headliner in place.
That truck would be a great work truck / extra vehicle. I had one of the 4cyl regular cab rangers a few years ago, and it was great. Slow as molasses in January, but reliable and pretty comfortable for an old truck.
I was all-in on the Splash until I got to the “no A/C” bit. Living here in America’s Swamp would relegate it to a couple weeks of use in “winter”. Cue sad trombone.
If the Saturn was an SC2 (twin-cam, more powerful, less oil burn-y) it’d be my pick.
The Ranger, though, is a bargain. Nice shade of blue, too.
It is an SC2 (pop up headlights and rear spoiler give it away), but that makes it more likely to be an oil burner.
All 1st Gen SCs had pop-ups, but you may be right. I didn’t think you could get the alloys and leather in the SC1.
Just looked it up, I was wrong about the pop-ups. See below comments also alluding to an SC2.
Yeah, it is weird. They changed up the SC1 front end for the last couple years to look like the sedans, but left the pop-ups on the SC2. They also put the new interior in during the last 2 years for first gen coupes (’95 and ’96) and last year for the first gen sedan (’95).
The SOHC engine also got a power boost at that time (85 –> 100 hp)
The SC1 didn’t exist until the 1993 model year. Originally, the coupe line-up was just the SC which had the DOHC motor.
In 1993, the original SC (DOHC) was renamed the SC2. It retained the pop-up headlights. The newly-introduced SC1 featured the SOHC motor. It used the coupe’s body but the fixed-headlight front-end of the sedans and wagons (also introduced in 1993).
Huh. I kinda suspected that, but trusted the listing. I should know better. Oh well, the plasticky and unrefined comments still stand.
They all burn oil – both single and twin cams.
Yeah, GM did their usual&customary : a good idea which bleeds out due to a thousand little budget cuts. Drain back holes in the ring lands being omitted —for those who don’t know. Plenty of other ones, but that was a biggie in these.
It looks like an SC2 tho
The body color door handles, full-width tail lights, pop up headlights, and separate headrests (2-door only) were only available on the SC2.
The SC1 did not have pop-up headlights, and the SOHC cars also didn’t have separate headrests. They had black door handles and did not have that middle section on the tail lights.
Example here:
https://www.2040-cars.com/Saturn/S-Series/1995-saturn-sc1-base-coupe-2-door-1-9l-1-owner-96kmiles-warranty-no-reserve-730236/
Well, this was an easy one, despite the fact I would sorely miss AC. I like those weird little stepside Rangers a lot.
I have nostalgia for these Splashes as well. In my mind they were red or yellow.
Even the Edges (~8 years later) are a rare sight around here. As Mark implied, road salt is a cruel bastard.
Yeah, the yellow Splash is the “right” one in my mind, and the red ones were everywhere. The blue looks nice, though.
There is a house I pass on my way to work everyday and their are two red Edge stepsides parked their most days. I think they are the two daughters vehicles. Both are in immaculate shape are both are always shiny and clean, someone over there is taking really good care of them. Now that I think about it that house also has a really cool 80s Econoline camper conversion parked in the driveway. Also in really good shape.
Makes me happy to see all those vehicles well taken care of.
I didn’t even know it had no AC when I voted. I saw it had a stepside and immediately voted for it without reading anything. I have since gone back and read it and I still believe that I made the right decision.
Even if you have a solid daily. Even if you have a gas sipper. Even if you’ll only touch it once in a blue moon to move antiques. Heck, even if you have a full size truck.
There’s always a use for a Ford frickin’ Ranger. Especially a reasonably priced one.
This might be the toughest yet. I think a “just buy both” option needs added! I chose the Splash, mostly for nostalgia, and it’s indestructibility. The Saturn though looks almost too good for nearly 200k so was a hard choice. For that money, buy both…you can’t go wrong.