I have the 6 cylinder and its a pos lmao

@@dwaggs01 Many would think by now, it would be well worn.

@@Olds_Pwr it has a long record of problems and it only has 104k miles

​​@@dwaggs01 Which V6? I've had a bunch of reliable 2.3 5-Speed Rangers. My current Ranger is a 2006 4x4 5-Speed with the 4.0 V6. 150k no problems yet.

Merica

HAHA, I've never seen a Ranger get more than about 20mpg on the highway, not sure how they came up with 39mpg, must have been downhill with a tail wind....I don't even think the diesel models did that well. But, you are driving a brick down the road LOL, not exactly aerodynamic.

Lmao 90% of EPA figures were wrong in the 80s

@@johndriscoll213 Most of the EPA numbers are still wrong LOL. All those numbers come from perfect conditions, none of which you'll ever see in the real world, and those numbers are also based on 55mph which nobody drives.

@@wildbill23c With the super high overdrive gears in cars these days (i.e. Ford's new 10 speed), they could really test from 55-70 and get the same number. The city numbers are far more accurate regardless. Like really? 29MPG city on a Ranger with the drag coefficient of a billboard?

@@johndriscoll213 HAHA no kidding, maybe the 29mpg was measured downhill in neutral LOL. I agree with raising the speed for the tests too...most highways are 55mph, but the freeway is 65mph+ where many are driving on a daily basis. The town I live in has ridiculously low speed limits (20mph) in most of the city side streets, main road through town is 25mph....so regardless what you drive your fuel economy sucks anyhow because you are stuck in lower gears all the time.

Mark Meadows I have a Grey 1988 Ranger XLT 4x4 Supercab

Mark Meadows ok boomer

I just got an ‘88 XLT given to me. It needs some work, but I’m super stoked to get it fixed up.

@@toby8309 Oh my stars, you youngsters today are such sarcastic little buggers aren't you? I know what you need, you need some loving. Let old Rosie take you into her bosom and calm you down a little. My dear husband, God rest his soul, used to love his undercarriage given a little "how's ya father" with my teeth out. Then we'd buzz cut the grey thicket on my lady garden, and he'd pound me ragged for hours. We'd have a break to smoke some pot, then he'd take me up the wrong 'un until we were both spent. OOOH my nipples are tingling just thinking about it. That or they're rubbing on the carpet and creating static. Either way, it feels wonderful. Call me....

I love Ford Ranger first generation, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, is my favorite

Ya have one 4 cylinder kind of week

He even mis-spelled his name...Dum(b)

Good luck finding a parking space for those world size mega wheller

Today's 4s would be great in one this size

I am in my second week of driving my low mile 01 Ranger and just love how easy it makes U turns and ease of parking. Not to mention good mileage.

I had an 84 Ranger as well but 2WD and the 2.8L V6...my grandparents bought it new and grandpa drove it to work all week for 5 years, plus weekend chores, and on vacation pulling a 14' travel trailer, in 88 when he retired it made the trip from California to Idaho and continued to be the trailer tow vehicle until 89 when they bought a larger trailer and an 88 F250 4x4 460. I drove the Ranger until I sold it :( in 2002 after a couple years of engine/carb/computer issues. If I only had the resources then that I have/know now I'd most likely still be driving that truck. When I sold it, it still looked new inside and out with the exception of the notorious cracked dash everything else still looked new, even the truck bed itself showed very little wear but with a Stockton camper shell on it and carpet on the truck bed it kept the weather out and scratches and dents to a minimum. It was a great truck I miss it and always will. Wish I could find it and get it back.

Branon, do you still have it?

Do you still have it?

I love Ford Ranger 1980s, 85-88 is my favorites. The first ge is best of Ford Ranger

I've heard that from a lot of people, the V6 was better, but with today's higher speed limits not so much LOL. Back then speed limits were pretty much 55mph on the freeway wasn't it? or was it 65mph? I wasn't old enough back then to know or care HAHA!!!

Especially the 83-84 diesel

Being logical nowadays is both boring and laughable....u know what I mean

it's back for the 2019 model year

Maybe other owners of 4 cylinder Rangers can chime in, but I have a friend who has a 2011 with the 2.3L 4 banger and his truck averages around 23-24, mostly in town. Ever notice how more often than not it's the smaller trucks that are carrying loads around, while most of the big ones seem to spend a lot of time compensating for something? :)

ngtflyer I find today's big trucks vulgar. I like the concept of trucks but I find the whole YEAHHHHH-LOOK-AT-ME-I'M-A-REEEEEAL-MAN looks off-putting. It was the Ram that started that in the 1990's and now they are all gargantuan with that supposedly ultra-macho look.

ngtflyer I bought a brand new Ranger in 83 with a 2.3L 4cyl 4 spd standard. Had power steering added at the dealership. Regularly got 34 mpg highway (cdn). It was a great little truck. Unfortunately had to trade it in after it was b&e'd. No parts available due to it being a new model at the time.

+Maestro_T yea, it's irritating how trucks went from a working mans thing to a shiny chrome status symbol with all these luxury leather seats, xm radio, heated cup holder bull shit. i'll take an old C10 over what they have today anytime

+Slow Harry dude, listen I've had 2 of these, in fact I have an 89 right now, with the same 2.3L and a 5spd. the 4 spd got shit gas mileage (19-24mpg) the 5 spd. doesn't get much better (20-25) I check mileage regularly, and my truck is in perfect stock condition, get your facts straight, 34 is just NOT correct, lol.

The "you now what is?"

PantherP74 He's talking about genitals. You know, for making the sex.

+Andrew Silva I owned an 87 Ranger and took a trip to the beach with two girls, the one in the middle was wearing a mini skirt and I was always downshifting into 4th!

Andrew Silva Are you seeing a counselor?

No but he's going to therepy! LOL (Just trying to be funny)!

Ozzstar me too

I also have that exact truck and I love it! Has the 2.3 and 5 speed and it does everything I need it to and then some!

My 87 is also the long bed version and they are hard to find! My truck got rear ended at a stoplight by a texting girl and bent my box up and I have been looking for a decent replacement for six years now.

I own an '84 Ranger 4 wheel drive, 4 speed, regular cab, with the 2.0 single-barrel carb in it. It has over 212,000 miles on it, and two weeks ago, I smoked an intake valve, and I just got it back 3 days ago...$1300 lighter in the wallet, but I love the truck, so it's all good....

Awesome just keeping an old truck in service.

Ithinkiwill66 yes, just take the cover off....... not hard honestly

I hate how everything has a bunch of electronics to the point where you can't see the engine because of covers and stupid stuff, what happened to real trucks. All these new "trucks'' are ugly. They look like a truck and a suv had a baby.

I instantly understood it as sarcasm... Until I realized he was serious.

It was actually a good looking dash compared to other early 1980s cars and trucks. This is an era when even a one speaker AM radio was an option.

The diesel came out late in the model year

Pontiac LeMans

mid 70's Pontiac LeMans 2 door

I have one now, still purrs

I was thinking the Canyon/Colorado must be similar in size to the F-150 in this video

219"x79" for an extended cab F150 with a 6' 9" bed. 212"x74.3" for Colorado with a extended cab and 6'2" bed. F150 doesn't seem to have gotten any wider in the past 50 years.

Getting there. They're not quite as big...yet.

A guy in town has one, says its easy to see 40mpg with it. Back then they were simple, not choked down with all the emissions shit on today's diesels, no electronics to run them, etc. Remove all the electronics and emissions shit on the new ones and you'll get double the fuel economy.

William Todd I quite agree. And if you factor in their thrifty and miserly use of fuel, the actual carbon emissions versus other engines is quite light. And since they constitute a tiny fraction of the total vehicular market, there's no need to restrict diesel emissions so much. The government's case against VW's cleaver diesels was a act to hurt them against the gas hybrid manufacturers which the government is supporting. Those little VW diesels gave better performance and competitive mileage.

@@divisioneight Carbon emissions yes but particulate matter, NMOG, and other pollutants, no. California didn't require catalytic converters of any type on any diesel until like 2004 model year because diesels with computers could make some slight adjustments to affect emissions without needing after treatment. Emission testing exists because most areas violate the clean air act of 1972 by having background pollution levels at unhealthy levels.

+Romulan112 I own an '83 right now, and am having more or less the opposite experience. The 2.0 runs beautifully and reliably (and is powerful enough for my modest needs), but more than 30 Indiana winters have certainly taken their toll on the body.

+Dan Frioli I had the Bronco II version of the Ranger in 1984. Total of 285K miles on it when I sold it. It went 68K miles before I put the first penny into it: front brake linings. Most reliable car I ever owned.

ohger1 You had the 2.8 Liter. The 2.0 was junk. No power and would need rings around 100,000 miles. Mine would break down often, carb issues. The idiot that had it before me had taken the motor out and tried to put in a 302. I bought it and put in a 2.0 liter 4 cyl and the carb ports were off a tad. That's most likely why it never ran quite right. One thing I did like about it was the ease of putting in a heater core.

The diesel ones with 59 horsepower would get ~40 mpg at 55 mph

My dad's '83 Ranger doesn't even leave the driveway

My 84 Ranger managed 19-20mpg as well. My 88 F250 yep 14mpg was normal, I assume you had the 460 V8 as well LOL...gas thirsty but would pull anything you needed moved...still have my F250...well my uncle has had it for a few years now but still in the family and when I need something moved I go get it LOL.

It’s dark tan, but can look pink in this old video

@John yeah, could have been my crappy desktop monitor as well, on my phone it looks pretty standard light brown.

Someone swapped engines then because the 2.9L V6 didn't come out until the 86 model year. You may mean the 2.8L V6 which was available late 83-85 model years.

Approximately 3000lbs, depends a lot on options and such, even the base model had different configurations so the weight could vary slightly.

Yes

MotorWeek did you guys ever do another bronco 2 one other than the 84’ model

You should do one on like later 80's Ford Ranger and Bronco 2 after they went from the carbureted 4 cylinder & 2.8L V6 to the 2.9L Fuel Injected V6.

+LandonGendur Light weight friend...

I think this was before the EPA's revised mileage calculations lol

Ty U. Plus light weight...

Both the '09 Cobalt & '83 Ranger are around 2,900lbs. I think one of the differences is that the Ranger only made 73hp while my Cobalt makes 155hp. Detuned engines use less fuel.

Yeah...an 83 Ranger with the 2.0 gets about 21-25 on the highway. The only way it'll get 39 is if someone is pushing it. I own that exact truck in perfect mechanical shape.

I didn't think John became upbeat until around the late 80's episodes

0-60 wasn't standard in '83, around '85 or so they started doing 0-60. Same with the mags, I think Car and Driver used to do 0-55 tests.

counkev In 1984, the EPA cut the estimates by 10% city, 22% highway to match real-world data to the testing system. I think it changed a little in 1996, too, and then in 2007 they changed the testing regime itself for better real-world matching with modern cars, especially hybrids. Pre-84 numbers are a tad... optimistic.

I'm betting the 39 highway was actually with the diesel engine option, but I don't even think they offered that in 83, I think 84 or 85 they offered it, can't recall for sure though, but that sounds more like a diesel economy number than a carbureted gas engine.

+Joshua Beckett The other thing is that none of the available engines in the Ranger would get anywhere near it's red line before running out of breath. If you upshift past the point of power drop off, you were still well short of hurting it. All those enginers were cammed, stroked, and intake/valved for torque, not RPM. New 4 valve double over head cam engines these days require a tach. Damned things pull harder the closer they get to red line.

Why would you need a tach in the first place? If you can't shift without it or an idiot shift up light you shouldn't drive a MT vehicle LOL. Its a cool bonus but never needed.

If the engine is very noisy you'll know when it's time to shift!

PantherP74....because you're supposed to be smart enough to know when the rpm is too high....it's called common sense....

No. Without an indication of how much is too much, bad things happen.

Check craigslist, tons of them around for sale as people buy new luxury pickups with huge V8's or diesel engines to show off in.

joeyconservative not for long. 2019 they start making again

its back for the 2019 model year

joeyconservative it’s back as a bigger version of the 1998 F150, so yeah RIP still applies lol, still millions of them out there though

IDK, the first year they sold them was 83, so probably built in 82 for the 83 model year I would assume. In 84 they realized they better put an engine in them to actually allow it to get out of its own way...as someone else mentioned the 4 cylinder wasn't the greatest for getting itself moving LOL.

What they meant was Ford intended to release them in 82 to compete with the S10 but they did not make it in time