I’m a fan of the first-generation Ford Ranger, especially post-facelift when they got the composite headlamps. This is just a good-looking little truck. And this one is in surprisingly good condition for being 30 years old.
Remember when two out of three trucks had these bed toppers? You don’t see them on new trucks. The beds are either open or have a flat cover on them. I wonder why these fell out of favor. Not that I’m a fan.
But wait, what’s that little sticker in the corner of the (broken) liftgate? A nod to the Pixar universe? It would be more perfect if this truck were an ‘80s Toyota but I still like the reference.
I think the topper on pickup trucks disappeared when more models of SUV hit the market. This Ranger was built about the time the Explorer debuted and so people who wanted a larger than Bronco II sized enclosed box finally had a choice.
Me? I like the idea that these toppers are removable when not needed. Unfortunately, taking them on and off requires a small army..
Fiberglass ones, certainly. The old-school aluminum toppers were more manageable. Of course, you have to have some place to keep them as well, lest you wanna drive around the stereotypical “old man truck” (regular cab long bed 4×2 with a topper permanently installed).
4X4 too? That is a cool little truck. Those Rangers drove well. I was always an S10 guy until I drove the Ford, and had to admit I liked it better.
Upon my sister totaling out her not-that-old Ford Tempo around 1994 or 1995, she replaced it with a ’92 Ranger, the last year of this body style. Hers was that green which was so popular around that time, 2wd, regular cab, with a 2.3 and a five-speed. It was a very stout and great driving little pickup but frightfully underpowered.
She did not know how to drive a manual transmission (despite earlier attempts) so lucky old Jason got to teach her. It was such a joy.
She later wrecked it also.
A roommate in college had a Ranger that was a bit older than this one, his having the 2.9 V6. He put a boatload of miles on that, and it had a bunch when he bought it, but the thing just kept going.
These were great little pickups.
The body style lasted for 2 more years in the Explorer, up to 1994. I have always found that a bit odd ever since knowing about it. This is from a 1993 brochure:
I think the toppers (or “caps” as we call them around here) fell out of favour when hard folding bed covers hit the market.
You could remove a cap, but it was not a simple one man job. The newer hard covers give you the lockable storage along with ease of removal to haul taller objects.
Of course, since a lot of trucks are just used as commuter vehicles these days, the need for a full cap just isn’t there. Buy a SUV instead.
I had a 2007 Ranger 4×4 with the 4.0L. I still miss that truck.
Wow that’s a clean one! Seems that these 1st gens rotted a lot more readily than the (mechanically very similar) ’93-’97s that followed. I’ve owned 2 of the 2nd gens with 2.3 Limas and twin-I-beam front ends, used for both weekend hauling and daily driving. With that old school front end they’re not the smoothest riding things, but incredibly sturdy feeling, much moreso than an S10 IMO. I’m on a pendulum where I own a Ranger and finally get burned out driving something so old and crude every day, sell it for something much more cushy, and then after a while I miss the simplicity and “pure” driving experience of an old RWD stick shift compact truck.
Nice, the few I’ve seen lately seem to have a lot of the bed sides rusted away above the rear wheel.
I had a topper on my 88 Ranger, I think a couple of factors in the demiser of toppers are that these things are more custom fit now, a large size topper doesn’t fit all full size pickups. Also the roof of my old Ranger topper was about the same level as the folding cover on a new pickup..
I hear you on the switch back and forth from crude to cushy, and have experienced it myself.
A post-1998 Ranger is a good compromise, combining enough simplicity for the pure driving experience you seek, and the non-Twin I-beam independent front suspension gives you slight improvements in handling and ride comfort.
I’m biased, of course, having purchased a 2000 as a new truck to replace a very basic ‘83 GMC Sierra, losing it to my ex, replacing it with a very basic ‘93 F150XL, and then buying back the Ranger when it was available for sale. I’ve decided that I like having the utility of a truck, but can do without feeling worn out after a drive of 30 minutes or more.
What I don’t like about Ford’s IFS is it’s propensity for premature wear (easy enough to correct with Moog parts, granted). I always see the ’98-’04ish Rangers with cocked out front wheels rattling down the street. For all its crudeness, the TIB front end is remarkably strong. I thought nothing of popping a wheel up on a curb in my old ’94 and ’97. Boy is all this Ranger talk making me miss mine this morning!
+1 on the closer fit of modern toppers. I believe the ’97 F-150 or ’94 Ram was the first pickup to have a slightly tapered bed, though I could be wrong. Historically, when full-size pickups came only in two bed lengths and you knew every bed was about the same width*, inexpensive or homemade toppers could be one-size-kinda-fits-all deals. Now a 6.5′ topper for a 2007-13 Silverado, for example, will only fit the 2007-13 Silverado.
*I’m discounting narrow beds, as those were not often seen with toppers.
One of the fiberglass canopy companies did make a narrow bed models to fit Ford F-150 and Ranger flare side beds and also GM Sportsides. It had “wings” at the front to match the full width of the cab before stepping down to bed width.
In the first picture, anybody notice how huge the modern F-150 is compared to the old Ranger?
And did you notice how it appears to say “Rousch” across the windshield, meaning it isn’t a typical F-150?
I did notice that none of the changes made to the vehicle make it any bigger.
https://www.roushperformance.com/vehicles/2019-roush-f-150.html
It’s certainly quite a bit taller and wider than a stock F-150. Do neither of those count as “bigger”?
From link above
“The 2019 ROUSH F-150 is upgraded with a Fox 2.0 Performance Series coilover suspension, raising the truck’s front stance by two inches while maintaining Ford’s capacity for payload and towing.”
It’s 2 inches taller than stock. There is no mention of a widebody kit. Or anything that would make it longer. A 2 inch lift can’t account for the difference in size. The Ranger also looks like it may have had a lift done, but I’m not sure.
With all due respect, you can clearly see that it’s wider than a stock F-150 with those fender flares. Though not as wide as a Raptor, it’s still wide enough (over 80″) that it legally requires clearance lights on the fenders and in the grille. A standard F-150 is already 79.9″ wide.
You’re right that it’s probably no longer than stock. It might even be shorter depending on how flat the front bumper is.
And did you notice how big the ’90s F-Series on the other side is compared to the old Ranger as well? It’s almost like the Ranger was small even in the context of its own time.
Wow, I saw a similar one just two evenings ago. 2 tone blue but no cap. The CC effect lives!
This little pickup was one of the best styled vehicles of the 80s. It was the perfect combination of square lines and softened coeners.
Could it be that the demise of pickup caps/toppers is the result of the rise of crew-cab pickups? Maybe that extra room inside the cab was enough to forego having a lockable cargo space over the bed.
I suggest this because you definitely do not see caps/toppers over the beds of crew-cab pickups. Likewise, regular cab pickups have all but disappeared in the civilian world.
I’m also a fan of the post-facelift Ranger. In Virginia, I still see a fair number of these around… I think a small proportion of them originally went to people who used them lightly, and now occasionally I see older folks riding around in excellent-condition 1st-generation Rangers. Always a pleasure to see.
Not only does this one have a topper, but the topper has those two vertical windows directly behind the cab — a design that seems to have gone out of favor in the 1980s.
Great find!
These were great trucks. I owned an ’86 regular cab, long bed, 2.9L, 5 spd., 4×4. Shortly into its life I traded it in on a new ’89 extended cab, 2.9L, 5 spd., 4×4 that I drove for 21 years. It was replaced with an ’02 Tacoma extended cab, 2.7L, 5 spd., 4×4. Also a great truck and in many ways similar to the Ranger. The Ranger, however, drove a little more smoothly.
I like the new Rangers, but have a (mostly prideful) attachment to manual transmissions, so unless I loosen up or Ford adds a manual to the mix (not likely for this market) a new Ranger is not in my future.
While the Tacoma was better built, the Ranger definitely had a better seating position. I could never figure out what Toyota was thinking since it seemed like you were sitting on the floor in a Tacoma.
Yes! These were good looking little trucks. Mini Fords through and through, complete with the Twin I-Beam or Twin Traction Beam on the 4WD models. Ranger fans had to wait until `92 for the 4.0 engine, so this is likely the 2.9. I had an `89 S model I daily drove for a while. I ended up selling it for something flashier, an El Camino. Regret. I now have a ’93 Sport I’ve been driving for the past five years. Even if I get another vehicle, I’ll keep this one around.
Always been a Ranger fan. I still do want to find a Bronco ll or maybe a 1st Gen Explorer (manual transmissions!) I’ll probably become some guy who fixes up these old rigs as they age . I don’t mind that people think they are a bit basic and crude. I actually appreciate it. I still haven’t gone to see the new Ranger, even though I’m in the car biz. I would just want a basic extended cab with a 6-foot bed. Four wheel drive. No carpet. Bummer there is no manual trans. At this point I’d much rather keep driving the older Rangers.
I had a 1996 Ranger XLT, regular cab, 5 speed, and loved it. There were really only 2 issues I had with it. One, the sliding center of the rear window was too easy to break into, as it happened twice. The other was the fact it got 22 mpg, regardless of city or highway. Not complaining about city mileage, which was fair, but if you went on a road trip, no increase with the highway mileage. I would take one of these over a new full sized or even the “mid-sized” offerings of today.
What motor did yours have? My 2.3s with a 5spd and RWD consistently got 24-25mpg in mixed commuting/hauling, 26-27mpg pure highway at 70mph.
A couple of friends had these in the ’90s, one new and one quite used. Seemed like good trucks.
What I remember was each time I drove one of these, at least once I would go to back up and bang my right knuckles on the rear window. Guess I need a crew cab (or a backup camera)
The backup camera I had in my ’96 Aerostar was transferred to my 2011 Ranger and it still works. Particularly useful when backing up to a trailer, but somehow has worse signal reception (it’s a wireless model) at night than in the day.
It’s one of the most regional product names in the automotive world. I’ve heard:
Topper
Cap
Canopy
Shell
Camper shell
and probably some others I’ve forgotten. All depends on where you live.
Same color as my pre-facelift ‘86. I’m surprised at the comments about the “demise” of the topper. Maybe I should also say “topper” as they are generally known as shells here in California. The compact or mid-size trucks, especially 4×4 are very popular here as lifestyle trucks, whether older Rangers and pre-Tacoma Toyota’s, or new Tacoma’s like mine. Whether for sheltered camping or to secure mountain bikes or surfboards or climbing gear, a large number of these trucks have shells fitted. We have no GM dealership in town, but we do have a pretty large camper shell dealer.
Yep. It’s not really surprising that one of the largest manufacturers of these hard cab covers or shells is Campways – perfect for the use of a sheltered camping or other uses.
That bed topper does actually look somewhat similar to the one shown on the actual Pizza Planet truck, although the Pizza planet one had a single oval shaped window ahead of the large sliding window while this one has two. And it’s the wrong color.
In fact, I was just reading last week about some people who made their own real life Pizza Planet truck. https://www.drivingline.com/articles/to-infinity-and-beyond-the-pizza-planet-truck-in-real-life/
I’ve always found the “YO” on the back of that truck an interesting styling cue, but once you realize the truck is essentially a TOYOTA, it makes perfect sense why it’s there–the other letters probably just fell off! 🙂
The Ranger is coming back, but as what’s called a “mid-sized” pickup truck, and appears to be bigger than the classic Ranger.
Is there still a market for the compact pickup here in North America?
The new mid-size Ranger is only slightly larger than the old compact; like the mid-size Colorado, it looks bigger than it really is due to the tall hood and bedsides.
As far as a new compact pickup would go, it would almost certainly have to be a FWD unibody vehicle sharing a compact car platform to meet fuel economy regs. Ford is working on one right now under the Courier nameplate.
By the way, I had to Google “Pizza Planet”. Despite having kids of Toy Story age it was totally outside my circle of knowledge.
Me too… it didn’t ring a bell for me at all. Now I bet I’ll see another Pizza Planet sticker within a week.
😂😂😂😂
May I please quibble with you about that point? I’m a form-follows-function type, and the composite headlamps Ford used were lousy in every respect. Used and stuck everybody else with, that is—it was their pathetic spec, heavily focused on minimal cost to the detriment of trivial stuff like performance and durability, that NHTSA adopted as the US standard. Moreover, these on the truck in the pic aren’t even headlamps. They’re headlight-shaped trinkets, toy headlites with clear lenses that look all wrong on a vehicle of that vintage and do nothing to let the driver see.
Ford also built this generation of sheetmetal with standard-size headlamps; see pic attached. Would’ve been large rectangular sealed beams if they’d used these fixtures and bezels in North America—elsewhere where Ford did use them, they were composite H4 units in the standard sealed-beam size. I saw a Ranger equipped with these in Tucson some years back.
I had a ‘92. I had a Texas plate on the front and I called it “Truck Norris the Texas Ranger”
It was 2.3 4cyl 5-speed and like someone else said, rather underpowered but proved to be a durable little truck. I sold it five years ago and I still see it driving around town. The only thing I did to it in the 3 years I owned it was a clutch slave cylinder & throw out bearing.
Jim, it was because of this post that I started paying attention to some of the bed-toppers on trucks in my neighborhood this week. I saw two on relatively new vehicles – last-generation RAM pickups.
These were such an ’80s thing. And now, I would love some pizza this weekend.