One of my favorite things to come upon is the first generation of a vehicle made for a long time. Ford’s Ranger absolutely fits into long-time bucket: in production 29 years. And look, here’s one wearing the first grille. Hooray! And it’s not just any old Ranger, but a top-trim STX.
The STX was introduced in 1986 and disappeared after 1997. As best as I can tell, it was an XLT with every option box ticked, plus badging and often special tape stripes. Mechanical configurations differed from year to year. Sometimes they were available in four wheel drive; sometimes they weren’t. Same for four- vs. six-cylinder engines; same for regular vs. extended cab. Factory lift was even available for a couple years. It was just an inch and a half, though, so I smell a custom lift on this bad boy.
As you can see from this interior shot I pilfered from a Craigslist ad, the STX interior was a pretty nice place to be, with bucket seats and power windows/locks/mirrors. And is that a power seat adjustment I spy?
The jump seats are folded up in this extended cab, but that’s just as well. The narrow, thin cushions and the intruding front seat back made this space inhospitable to humans.
I found this STX on a construction job in the office park where I work. We moved out of this building into a different one, and now it’s being refitted for a new tenant. Nice to see this Ranger still working hard.
I’ll keep looking for other cars on my first-generation bucket list, which includes the Chevy Cavalier, the roach-of-the-road Buick Century and Olds Cutlass Ciera (sealed beam!), and the aero Ford Crown Vic.
Saw a Ranger variant the other day that I’d never seen before, it was called a Ranger GT and it had factory sill and fender flares. Actually looked pretty cool
Those were pretty rare even when new.
I have seen Ranger GT’s before. Ford even made a couple of prototypes with the 5.0L / 302 in them. Swap is not hard, trust me.
I love mine. A 1983, low serial number long bed, dual fuel tank, 4X4 I swapped a 302 and C4 in place of the 2.3L and Mazda 4 speed, back in 1991. Throw in a Currie built 9″ rear axle with disc brakes (which I did 🙂
And you have a truck. And since I have dual tanks, and bed mounted tool box, the spare tire was always a pain. Fixed that by grafting on a swing away spare tire carrier from a Bronco II. Body lines are identical. Did do some fab/welding on the tailgate for the latch
You should write about that or at least post some pictures! Please!
Thank’s Gonzo, I have really been thinking about posting it. Back in the day, nobody thought anything about swapping a 302 in a Ranger or Bronco II. It simply made them usable trucks. Like mine. It’s like a pickup version of a 66-77 Bronco, with a nicer interior
I would like to see it, too.
I have realized I can’t do my own CC on my truck. I am too biased. It would just be a rambling mess. Like promoting your own daughters porn career. But if anybody here in Portland would like to shoot it and write it up, I am in. Let me know in advance, and I will even wash her.
I hope you have a new jack to go along with that tire! I changed a rear tire on my dad’s ’90 on a muddy road one time. I can’t remember exactly where the lift point was, but I do remember it required me laying in the mud using both hands to work the puny bottle jack.
I had an ’86 4wd Ranger SuperCab in the same colors (or “colorway”, to use the modern term). I bought it new and it was badged XLT and the sticker listed the STX trim package. It was actually quite a stripper in some ways – no A/C, roll up windows, no tach, and skinny steel wheels with 195/75-15 blackwall tires. But, inside it had the leather wheel, nice textured vinyl upholstery, and the silver dash trim, and it had the satin tailgate insert, though chrome grill, bumpers and mirrors. So I think at least originally the STX package was not a stand-alone deal. Great truck, by the way, I sold it to accommodate two growing kids who no longer fit safely in the side-facing jump seats.
I had an ’87, black regular cab STX 4×4 with a similar dearth of options. The seats were red cloth.
One of the noteworthy things about those old Rangers is you could still get vent windows.
Great find! The original Rangers were probably the best-looking of all IMO. Remember when cloth seats were actually super high-grade and not inferior to leather?
One of my best friends who doesn’t officially own a car drove his Dad’s spare 2000 Ranger 5-speed in high school. It had the folding jump seats like this one, which I sat in on several occasions. For someone only 5’7″ they were tolerable for short lengths of time.
This was also the vehicle in which I learned how to drive a stick shift in (and unfortunately am pretty rusty on now) from my friend. This Ranger was finally put to greener pastures last year.
Aero Crown Vic as in ’92 to ’97 aero? Those are rare in your part of the country? Huh. Not here.
First-gen Rangers, on the other hand, are pretty uncommon. They appear every so often, but I think there are less of them around than the corresponding years’ S10. This one looks like a nice find, and good to see it still being used to make a living.
Ditto that here in eastern MA, though I will say they are far less common than similar vintage Grand Marquis and Town Cars, particularly in non-former fleet form. Yesterday I actually spotted dark red ’92-’97 Crown Vic parked at the senior living complex I drive pass on my way to the train station every day.
Yeah, 1992 until they added the chromed grille. Those are kind of unusual here. I saw one on the road a few weeks ago as I drove home from work. First one I’ve noticed in a couple years.
Oh, if you’re talking about the ones with the grille-less nose, that was a one year deal. 1992 only. The older folks who were the core (non-fleet) clientele for the ‘Vic thought it too radical, and the chrome grille was tacked on for ’93. So part of the problem with finding one is that you’re looking for a one-year-only variant!
I liked the no-grille look much better; the grille looked like an afterthought in ’93 and they never really fixed that. If I ever found an undamaged white ’92 header panel, I’d swap it onto my ’97.
I agree with you on what a disappointment the 93’s nose was. I think folks might have gotten used to it had they given it half a chance. I would love to swap a 92 nose onto my 93 as well.
I liked the 1992’s more distinctive Taurus nose better than the chrome grille that followed, although I prefer the later years’ bow-tie taillights. It would be pretty easy to change the grille or trunk-lid to have both.
Wow, I’m slipping. How did I not know that was 92 only?
If I keep this up, my car-lover card will be revoked. 🙁
Well it looks like an afterthought because it was. I too prefer the aero nose which is one of the reasons I hang on to my 92. I also prefer the 6 window version over the later CVs that used the GM shell.
What about VW Passats with no grill cover or those grill cover-less Infinities?
My buddy ordered a 88 Ranger and when it showed up it had a lot of options he didn’t order and didn’t have to pay for, he got the manual V6 and wanted the radio deleted but he got the sound system and gauges and carpeted interior–it was a nice sized, good looking truck.
The STX was available as late as 2006. It had a Mazda bed, and a front airdam, as well as different alloys, and of course, tape stripes and badges. Pretty rare, as I’ve only seen one despite the fact that Rangers were made less than 20 minutes from my house.
Hmm, I wonder if it went away and came back.
I remember when the Ford Ranger made its debut. I remember thinking “Finally! Something small, or smaller than the full-sized F-series trucks.” Full-sized trucks are fine for those who need them, or want them. But I believe that for everyone who needs or wants a full-sized F-series truck, there are people who need or want a smaller truck. One size doesn’t always fit all.
These trucks are like a blank canvas; so easy to build what you want out of them
A buddy of mine had a gen2 Ranger, stripped-down 2WD basic transportation. He was NOT an attentive owner, and that rig was lucky if the oil was changed every 30,000 miles. He drove the hell out of that truck, covering highways, back roads, and trails all over this country without putting any money into it other than the minimum maintenance just to keep it going, and he still got over 200K miles on it before he blew the engine. Tough trucks. I’m sad Ford no longer produces the Ranger.
This certainly wasn’t the first of Ford Rangers ~ I had a 1978 Ranger F-150 long bed , 302 V-ATE / C4 slushbox stripper .
It was one tough son-of-a-bitch truck .
I don’t like Fords but I respected that one .
-Nate
That was a trim package available on a Ford F100, F150 or F250, not an actual distinct vehicle/model. This is the first generation of a vehicle titled as “Ford Ranger”.
Add a first generation Explorer to your list. Seriously; we’ve never done an Explorer CC, and it needs to be one of the early ones. Amazingly, there’s none here. Where have they all gone? Exploded? Cash for Clunkers?
Oh my yes. That’s another one I’d like to find. The first gen with the original grille was all over the place here until, what? five? seven? years ago and now nothing. C4C probably claimed most of them.
There are bunches of 1st gen Explorers and some Navajos in Portland in various conditions.
I only remember seeing about three or four Navajos in my life…the last one I saw was abandoned in a motel parking lot in 2006. It would be interesting if a CC author came across one!
The Navajo was a rare bird. I had a sort-of co-worker who owned one in the mid ’00s, and then traded it in on a Tribute (which is almost as rare, unless I’m just missing the Mazda badge and think I’m seeing a 1st gen Escape). A Mazda loyalist, perhaps?
I actually just saw a Navajo last week! It was driving in front of me, but I was driving and it turned off as I rather unsafely was trying to get a picture with my phone.
One of my mom’s hair stylists in the mid-90s drove one. The only person I ever knew who did.
They were quite common by me in Minnesota. Likely due to the local Mazda dealer.
In my area (New England), they were getting scarce years before C4C, though C4C certainly took away the last few rusting carcasses. I don’t think I’ve seen one since then. Same goes for any (non-Jeep) SUV of that era…S-Blazer, Pathfinder, even the pre-1996 4Runner. All gone, essentially.
I also saw an early-90s 4Runner on Route 24 recently. It looked about on its final leg.
I could probably find 100 gen2 4Runners within a one mile radius of my house.
@ Paul: They went to Mexico and points south. There is usually a caravan that includes several groups of three cars each heading south. One tow vehicle and two towed vehicles. US 59 is full of these caravans and I am told that other roads to border towns have the same.
Common is the japanese truck, rangers, S10s and suv. Obviously they have the same taste as I do south of the border.
Had I found this truck before my 4Runner I would have been happy to buy it.
Saw a few convoys heading south on I-25 when I was in Colorado and what most sticks out are the Chrysler Minivans being towed south and I think a school bus towing a dump truck.
I saw an amazingly rust-free early Explorer one evening about a week ago. It was nearly dark and it was on the move, so no pictures. Agreed, they are really rare.
The 4×4 Explorer was the #1 vehicle in the Cash for Clunkers program. The 4×2 was #4. I can’t find the individual numbers by model, but there were only 690,000 vehicles total traded in during that program. So it probably didn’t put a huge dent in the numbers considering how many Ford sold.
While the 1990-2001 Explorers are reliable enough I assume they are functionally obsolete since newer SUVs have better fuel economy and are safer. Or you could get a Minivan which is roomier and get better fuel economy.
I cannot think of an other vehicle to compare the 1990-2001 Explorer to and I do not know if any will be saved by loving owners.
Eh…I had a ’98 Explorer and it was the least reliable vehicle I’ve ever owned. As thirsty as a full-size truck too. It was competent, comfortable, and roomy, but I only kept it for 3 years. When I looked at the service records I realized that on average it was literally being repaired every other month.
Now, I bought it used in 2000 so who knows what it was through the two years before me. I know a lot of people have had good luck with them. But I also know a lot who had many of the issues had: Front suspension, door locks, rear end, instrument cluster electronics, cam chain tensioner, 4×4, paint…to name but a few problem areas.
All in all, I’m not surprised there aren’t many left. Between the economy, poor off-road manners, questionable reliability and dangerous reputation there isn’t much reason to hold on to one.
I’ll volunteer to do a first gen Explorer CC, if anyone has some good pictures they’re willing to provide. I don’t see too many around my parts.
I think bad transmissions sidelined most of them
Here in Vancouver they are fairly uncommon, I see them slightly less than the second-gen.
Sharp looking truck indeed and I assume not an Indiana native due to its rust free nature. Of the Big 3s small trucks the Ranger is the most common. I have ridden in the rear seat of a Ranger and it is a sorry excuse for a seat with that space better suited for storage, but it is something. There is this Ford Ranger Edge I see occasionally which has the same passenger side cubby hole in the dash because after its airbags went off the owner did not replace them.
I always liked these early Rangers. And your photos reminded me of how nice Ford’s interiors were in the 80s and early 90s.
+1 on the interiors. Much better than most GM and Chrysler interiors of the time.
A good looking practical sized truck. A little small for some jobs but adequate for most. Fast forward 25 years, the pick up market is laughable. Most new ones have a grille bigger than a medium duty Freightliner. The bed floors are too high the bed rails are way too high and the full sized beds aren’ t much bigger than this. I wish some sanity would return to the market but I don’ t have high hopes.
Yeah, but modern trucks get better mileage than this example. And haul many times as much. It’s not all bad.
Alas, my Dad’s nice, clean, 94K Explorer was a victim of Cash for Clunkers. It was replaced by a Focus STS that also gave truly great service until he decided it was too small. And what did he buy? Another Explorer. Here in California, I think a lot of early Explorers suffered the same fate, as they arse not nearly as common now as they used to be.
Had an 89 Ranger XLT, reg cab, reg bed 2.9 V6, 5-speed. Was black & silver 2 – tone with the Alcoa wheels. Had about 280k on the clock when I got rid of it. Was my brother’s truck that he bought used with about 100k. He told me I could have it if I drove 2 hours to get it. Was drivable but became my daily driver for a few years after replacing 4 shocks, radiator, radio, fan clutch, cap, rotor, wires, plugs, and most of the seals in the ac system. Was 2wd with an open rear but did well in snow with about 600 lbs of ballast in the bed. The 2.9 was no powerhouse but not bad. I miss that truck! Thanks for the story.
Eric
Worked at a Ford dealership in New Bedford Mass several years a go……people love these Ford Rangers, used, beat up, had one or two new ones as I recall,just as Ford was stopping production. We would get one in trade, and it was GONE, immediately……We would occasionally get a mint used one in trade and the phones and email would light up…..people calling from out of state….it was crazy. Never know why Ford decided to end production….The Crew Cab was the Holy Grail….
Ford stopped production simply because of declining demand. Factories are profit centers, they have to be fully utilized. Too bad, it filled a good niche.
There’s an international version which is slightly larger, but I don’t know Ford’s plans for it Stateside. In the meantime, they’re gambling big on the aluminum F-150.
The problem with the Ranger, and small trucks in general, is the cheapskate syndrome. Very few people are willing to buy a new one while lots of people want a used one. That does give them high resale value and makes them quick sellers when one does come up for sale.
Instead of offering a Ranger Crew Cab they had the Explorer Sport Trac which is essentially a Ranger Crew Cab in the early version. They are even harder to come by that a Ranger and command pretty high prices at least in my area.
You are quite right about the cheapskate syndrome…..forgot about that….thats what made good used ones like gold….people would drive them to destruction…..I would wonder how they got it to our dealership…..The Explorer Sport Trac was another Holy Grail vehicle….we would put people on a list……call them if we got one…..
My road not traveled. While in college I was making halfway decent money and tuition at the state university was surprisingly affordable (you won’t hear any college students saying that today!).
I had some money stashed and considered buying a loaded up king cab Ranger like this – the cost would have been about double the price of the typical late model used car I was driving at the time – it would have required payments, but I’d have made up something on gas and repairs.
I currently enjoy the truck I bought a few years ago so much that I kind of wish I’d have done the Ranger – it really is sort of a lifestyle vehicle compared to an ordinary sedan or coupe.
My dad had two Rangers he used for parts delivery when I was growing up. They were rugged and reliable and I always liked them.
But they were really a “second-car” only type of vehicle since they were so small. When I moved out I needed the flexibility an SUV gave me. And now with kids I need more space than what these offer because these days both my wife and I need the ability to haul kids.
Life is different today and I think that’s a big reason for the downfall of small trucks.
” And is that a power seat adjustment I spy?” Doubt it. As a precious owner of an 88 Aerostar, I’m pretty sure that is lumbar support adjustment switch.
My brother had an 86 4X4, 2.9 automatic, in around 2008. It worked really well…leaked some oil, and he would often run it low till the lifters would clatter, and then top it up. It had nearly 300,000 KM on it, it was a western truck. I think it is someone’s winter plow now.
You still see the odd first gen ranger on the road here, just jobbing around.
I bought a new Ranger XLT in 1988 and loved it. It was a V6 5 speed. At about 176 K the trans died on me. Finding a replacement was difficult. I was told that due to fluid leakage these things tended to fail. That is what killed mine. It was the Mazda trans. Pulling the trans was one of the most difficult procedures I have ever undertaken. The local Ford dealer told me that the mechanics hated putting clutches in V6 Rangers. I had to do that later, too. Anyway, I drove until 218,000 miles when I replaced it with a ’95 Ranger. I gave the ’88 to my youngest daughter to drive to high school. She put another 10 thousand miles on in 2 years , only needing a brake job, the first one for the rear wheels. It was still in good shape when I sold it to my nephew. The ’95 was the same pain to change clutches in but was also a great truck. It did develop a spun rod bearing at 179 thousand miles that I fixed. It didn’t damage the crank or rod to my surprise. I had a friend who was a Ford mechanic check it over before I put it back together and he agreed that things were OK. I finally traded it in on a Dodge Dakota at 197,000 miles. The reason I traded for the Dodge was that the new Rangers didn’t look any different than my ’95 and I didn’t want to have to put up with the difficulty of changing the clutch again. The Dakota was a real step up in size and comfort.
I loved those Rangers, especially the first one and prefer that styling too.
One of my daughter’s former classmates once told me that he was looking over the truck when she first got it and told her he was surprised she was driving a stick shift. He said she told him ” It’s not a real truck unless the gearshift comes out of the floor!”
Argh! “…precious…” previous!
No problem, I think that’s my new favorite typo! Thanks for a good (though unintended) chuckle.
Also, thanks to Jim for a good write-up on a good little truck!
STX on the Ranger was higher than XLT? Interesting. When it was introduced for the F-150 in 2003, it slotted between base XL and volume XLT as a sort of value package aimed at young, possibly first-time buyers. When optioned out, an STX could potentially have as many creature comforts as an XLT, but never had chrome–only monochrome or black trim pieces. And except for the 2014 models, STXs were only ever available as regular cabs or SuperCabs with a 6.5′ bed, Styleside or Flareside. (2014s added a SuperCrew 5.5′ bed.) [Addendum: RCLBs were available for the first year, but are very rare.]
Now that Ford has simplified their trim levels for the ’15 F-150, the STX’s place in the hierarchy has been taken by the XL with Sport trim.
Yeah, I don’t think the base STX package was above the XLT. IIRC, you got tape stripes, bucket seats, leather steering wheel, and aluminum wheels with the STX, where the XLT didn’t. But the XLT came with more chrome (bumpers, grille) and creature comforts standard, like power windows, etc. I’m not entirely positive that A/C came with the the STX, but I think it did on the XLT.
IOW, the STX was geared more towards the ‘sport’ crowd, while the XLT was more luxury-oriented. Where the confusion existed was you might have been able to option the STX above the max equipment level you could get on an XLT.
Yeah, now XLT is second from the bottom with three trim levels above it. Did they even have a Lariat Ranger back then or was XLT the top?
We have an ’03 Edge with the composite flair box. It replaced an ’05 3.0 5M steel box that was a former Orkin truck with just under 100k. The ’03 has the same 3.0 with 5A so my youngest can drive (no desire for stick – didnt fight it).
Neither will wow you with a plush ride or sharp handling, but Rangers are fun to drive, and very inexpensive to maintain…I miss that you can no longer buy a new one.