I’m not going to make things easy on you today. I’m going to show you two trucks. They’re the same price, both manuals, both high-mileage but in very good shape. How will you choose between them? That’s up to you.
Yesterday I gave you a choice that I thought for sure was going to go one way, but I was completely wrong. I expected the scruffy old workhorse van for half the price would easily beat out the very nice but overpriced sporty sedan. As it turns out, you weren’t as immune to the charms of the world’s nicest Chevy Corsica as I thought. It won easily.
I have to agree. That Corsica reminds me of an Oldsmobile Calais sedan I used to own, with a Quad 4, FE3 sport suspension, and that same Getrag 282 five-speed transmission. I sold it, though I honestly can’t remember why, and the next owner immediately wrecked it. I’ve always regretted that, which might be why I appreciate cars like this Corsica that are so obviously loved.
The only reason I would want that old Caravan from yesterday is to use it as a substitute for a small truck. But I’d much rather have an actual truck, with a separate frame, and a solid, driven rear axle right under the load. Something like one of these, for instance. Let’s take a look.
1983 Nissan/Datsun 720 King Cab – $2,800
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 212,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives “like a boss”
As anyone who has ever used an old pickup for everyday duties knows, the typical standard cab/long bed layout is both a blessing and a curse. It’s your best friend if you’re picking up mulch or plywood, but then you have to go to the supermarket in the rain, and you have to cram the passenger’s seat full of grocery bags; all that open space behind you is utterly useless. Extending the cab behind the seats, as Dodge did in 1973 and Datsun did in 1977, provides a bit more dry storage for such mundane tasks. By the time this 720 series truck was built, the “King Cab” bodystyle had made Datsun famous, and other small trucks were still catching up.
Power for the 720 series comes from Nissan’s NAPS-Z four-cylinder, with two spark plugs per cylinder. It came from the factory with a Mikuni feedback-type carburetor, which I know from experience is incredibly finicky. This one has been replaced by a Weber carb, which is more reliable and easier to deal with. It has had a bunch of other work done as well, and the seller says it runs and drives great.
I can hardly believe how nice this truck is on the inside, considering its mileage. I owned a 720 in college, more than thirty years ago and with half the mileage, and it was, shall we say, rougher than this. The upholstery and carpet look great, and the top of the dash doesn’t even look cracked. And the seller says everything works “except for the current owner.”
1983 was in the middle of the name change from Datsun to Nissan, so this truck carries both badges: it says Nissan on the front fenders and in large embossed letters on the tailgate, and Datsun in smaller letters on the tailgate for those who hadn’t yet caught up. It’s not perfect outside, but it’s more or less rust-free, and the only real damage I see is that dent in the rear bumper. It comes with that big-ass topper, which you may or may not want to keep; it looks too big for the truck, and it can’t do much for aerodynamics.
1991 Ford Ranger XLT – $2,800
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0 liter overhead valve V6, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Bothell, WA
Odometer reading: 278,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
In 1983, Ford joined the small truck market with its own offering, after selling the Mazda-based Courier for a decade. The Ranger was essentially a scaled-down F-series, with the same twin I-beam front suspension, and a collection of engines borrowed from the Pinto. The little Ranger punched well above its weight, and quickly gained a reputation for toughness and reliability that has since been immortalized in song.
The optional V6 in most first-generation Rangers was a 2.8 or 2.9 liter version of Ford’s “Cologne” 60-degree V6, but in 1991, Ford began offering the 3.0 liter “Vulcan” V6 from the Taurus. It puts out about the same power as the 2.9 liter Cologne, but it gets better fuel economy. This one is backed by a Mazda M5OD five-speed manual transmission. It has a lot of miles on it, but the seller says it runs and drives well, and has had recent work to the cooling system, brakes, and power steering.
It’s an XLT, so it has nice cloth upholstery, carpet on the floor, and a tachometer. For the mileage, it’s holding up remarkably well; I see a little wear on the driver’s seat, but it’s not bad at all. One thing I don’t think it has is air conditioning, but neither does the Nissan, and neither did a lot of small trucks in the 80s and 90s, even “fancy” ones. Roll down the windows, slide open the back window, and let the breeze flow through.
Standard-cab Rangers were available with either a six- or a seven-foot bed; this is the seven-footer. It’s in good condition outside, with just a few dings and dents to let you know it has earned its keep. I’ve always liked the alloy wheels Ford chose for Rangers of this era; they really suit it. And of course, it has stripes, like any good small truck from this era.
These are both really nice little trucks, and fair deals, as far as I’m concerned. Three grand doesn’t buy you much these days. But if you’re in need of a good compact truck, I suggest you head to the Pacific Northwest and check out one of these. You can either have an extended cab, or a long bed. The choice is yours.
King cab + suuuper easy to tune Weber carb, tempting.
The parts availability and nice interior for the Ranger won me over. I always liked the the updated headlights from the boxy first version. When I see these, I think of the teal ones that were very popular circa 1989.
Ford has shittiest headlamps and doesn’t have taillamps with amber turn signal indicators. So, no go for Ford.
My ranger has amber turn signals.
Depends on the year.
Of course, the Ranger profiled in this article doesn’t have them. So no go for me.
The headlamps are so bad that the first-generation Explorer exported to Europe has headlamp capsules stuffed in the redesigned bezels. The taillamps were taken from Mazda Navajo with reverse lamps coloured amber and reconfigured as amber turn signal indicators.
The 1998–2004 Ranger has ECE headlamps with glass lens for South American markets, namely Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.
I might have to get some of those.
I was going for bi xenon.
The tail lights can be interchanged, but might require some wiring modification.
LED native amber can be used for turn signals.
That’s how I’ll fix my all red Dodge tail lights.
A replacement carb likely won’t pass smog here in California. So Ranger for sure.
In the mid 90’s I worked for a company that had a small fleet of Rangers. We had bed caps fitted with tool bins for home/retail/commercial security systems. Ladder racks included. They were maintained via oil change only yet all made it into the 200k mileage and all ran really well. I would have bought the one issued to me if it ever went on the market.
I pass on the 720 because I firmly believe there is more rust there than what is stated. And I don’t like carbs. My father spent every Saturday tweaking the carbs on his Super Beetle (nothing stock on that one). I doubt this would be the same. Nonetheless I hate adjusting the carb on my wife’s scooter so much I told her to park it temporarily. That was 8 years ago! LOL
Tough call today. I had an ’82 720 KingCab 4×2 and was fortunate enough to never have carb issues. But I’ll take the Ford this time around.
This was a tough one. I’ve always loved Datsun’s, had a 210 in high school.
Then again I also had a ’91 Ranger with the same drivetrain as this one but extended cab. It was high mileage and needed some expensive work I wasn’t comfortable doing myself, so I sold it before too long. But I loved how it drove. It got decent mileage, had decent power and was surprisingly comfortable.
As the years have gone by, I’ve found my thoughts drifting back to Rangers every so often. So the Ranger gets the vote today.
I don’t know if it’s a rule, but every long bed I’ve seen had the high load capacity.
If you don’t need that, you won’t like the ride.
I don’t think the sixes hold up as well as the four.
Incredibly tough trucks though.
Managed to destroy a universal joint and found it was only one size below the F150 one, and can be upgraded.
Correct replacement is a sealed Spicer.
The only clutch replacement should be a self adjusting LUK.
So legendary in austere environments, there are jihadis with Canadian flag tattoos, as they saw it as a sign of an authentic Ranger.
Nothing better in that size.
Nothing wrong with a Datsun though.
Wish I could find either of these in my local area. $2800 here seems to get you a pickup with a giant rust hole in the bed…or cab…or a frame you can see through.
Lean Ranger just because I’d imagine the parts are easier to get.
I’m torn, I prefer an extended cab but I really like the late first generation Ranger, and the Vulcan V6.
Personally I’ll hold out for a Ranger Supercab
Ranger for me because I don’t like carbs.
Couldn’t bring that Nissan to California. Not old enough to be ignored by the baleful eye of the state and that Weber, nice as it is, just won’t pass the visual, regardless of what the tailpipe sez.
The Weber is crazy easy to tune. I switched from it to fuel injection on my Jeep and regretted that decision until I tossed $600 at an in tank fuel pump.
Ooh, tough call as I like both of them! But I’ve always liked first gen Rangers and S-10s the most, so the slightest of edges to the Ford. I’m also guessing replacement parts will be more plentiful for the Ranger too.
Gong Datsun, because I have a lot of fond memories of my Datsun pickup (and just one non-fond memory that involved nearly killing a couple of my best friends who were riding in the back). Otherwise, it would be a coin flip.
Really like that vintage Ranger for some reason, so it’s a pretty easy choice.
Basically dealers choice here. Both are great trucks. I’d lean towards the Ranger ( personal bias, I’ve had 3 Rangers as third vehicles in the past). The 3.0 Vulcan engine is pretty reliable and more modern than the than the older Nissan.
We had a couple 720s on the farm, one gas and one diesel. Other than bending the frame occasionally by hauling the tracks from a D6 and hitting the railroad tracks a little to hard and other abuse, the thing was unkillable. Pretty fun to drive before the frame was patched up by eye.
I would consider buying this 720 if it were nearer to me.
My high school chemistry teacher Mr. Chandler had one in that exact same color with the same color. I had to vote for it. R.I.P. Mr. Chandler.
The stripe made the difference!
Dang it! What a difficult vote today.
I owned a 720 4×4 for 3 years and my dad owned the same Ranger config for almost 10 years except for it being an 89 with the 2.9 and it had a blue interior . That’s the truck I learned to drive stickshift with so it also has a special place in my heart.
The Ranger is way more livable than the 720 on a daily basis, with adequate power and more aftermarket and OEM parts support. The bed size is more than welcome, too. The Nissan is a bit more charming and has got the carb addressed (I got mine rebuilt 2 times, no one wanted to mess with the OEM Hitachi).
I went Ranger by a nose. But you can’t really go wrong with any of these two.
I only went Ranger because I figure both of these will need parts down the road, and the ones for the Ranger are probably available at Auto Zone while the Datsun’s are probably all special order from randos on the Internet. Otherwise, the Nissan/Datsun is more my speed.
Yeah, remembering the number of good Vulcan v6 engines sitting in wrecked or rusted-out cars in the local junkyards is what tipped the scales for me. Forget autozone, I can get parts for the Ranger from any junkyard.
I don’t hate either, but the Ranger ekes it out.
same