1989 Ford Ranger (coupe, tires, seats, truck)

[ElkHunter]

I'm thinking about getting another vehicle. I have limited data on something I found and was curious if anybody has encountered common problems with this vehicle. I currently drive a 1 ton Ford Diesel or my 4 Wheeler which is licensed. But major shopping is 147 miles up the road. I'd rather have something a little cheaper to drive then that 1 ton. Here's what I found.

1989 Ford Ranger extended cab.
A/C
Tilt Wheel
Captain/bucket seats
76,000 miles (don't know if it's original, but the shape it's in, I'd say it was)
Fiberglass Topper with front sliding window.
Ranger has rear sliding window.
Cloth upholstery
Minor surface rust on roof.
No dents.
4 speed manual with 5th overdrive.
Floor looks nice, like it's been well taken care of. I mean floor mats are not wore like older trucks are.
Not sure of engine, dealer wasn't available to unlock the vehicle.
It is 4 wheel drive with standard sized tires on it. Not big wide things a kid would put on.
Haven't test drove it yet.

Dealer is asking $2400. Could probably talk him down a bit.

Is it worth it? Any common problems with that truck?

[Bummer]

Other than the "minor surface rust on roof" . . . sounds like it could be a keeper, ElkHunter.

Not certain but I believe those Rangers were built by Mazda with a fairly tough V6 engine.

Good Luck!

[trlhiker]

you won't get good gas milage though. 20 at the most.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by trlhiker

you won't get good gas milage though. 20 at the most.

Good point, Trlhiker . . . but probably much better than a One Ton 4X4 Ford.

[ElkHunter]

I get 10-12 with my one ton diesel. This little truck could possibly double my milage and it would run on regular instead of diesel.

[Deez Nuttz]

Originally Posted by trlhiker

you won't get good gas milage though. 20 at the most.

If 20 is all you can get I'd steer clear.

FWIW I have a 93 S-10 with a 2.8 liter V6 and 5 speed, it averages 20 on the road and 26 interstate.

I know the Ranger had the 2.3 which is said to be a pretty tough little engine, then they had I think the 3.0 at that time.

I don't think the 89 Ranger had much Mazda in it, I don't think that happened (again) until '93 or so.

I'd love to find a wrecked SVO Mustang or T-Bird turbo coupe and swap it's turbo 2.3 liter into a Ranger.

[ElkHunter]

I live in Wyoming. The only time a turbo would be handy is if I was in the mountains with a load. And then it would be for power, not speed. Up here, we don't have much reason to be in a hurry.

One person mentioned 20 mpg. I'm not sure what they get, but it's gotta be cheaper then my one ton Diesel. Plus, I don't put a lot of miles on each year. In 2007, I put less then 2000 miles on my one ton. I only put 1100 on my 4 wheeler. So around 3000 miles total on all my vehicles.

[Deez Nuttz]

I can understand you not being a speed demon, especially if you're a little older. I myself hot rod everything I see.

[jdavid93225]

Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz

If 20 is all you can get I'd steer clear.

FWIW I have a 93 S-10 with a 2.8 liter V6 and 5 speed, it averages 20 on the road and 26 interstate.

Was the S-10 a 4 wheel drive? Elkhunter said the ranger was. That often makes a difference. 20 MPG, give or take 2 or 3, is about all I've ever seen anyone get with a compact 4WD pickup in combined driving. It depends slightly on the body style (reg. cab/ext. cab/crew cab). Maybe 23 or 24 on the highway, but that's about the highest I've seen in this type of vehicle, and it was unusual to see it. If the S-10 is a 4WD, then that is great mileage for that type of vehicle.

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz

I can understand you not being a speed demon, especially if you're a little older. I myself hot rod everything I see.

If you are refering to me mentioning that I don't need a turbo, what the hell has that got to do with age? I still drive the speed limit or a little higher, but I don't need to get to 75 in 3.5 seconds.