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 This one has been replaced by a Weber carb, which is more reliable and easier to deal with.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.
It was the Vulcan that did it. The Cologne is a garbage engine, but the Vulcan is just a simple pushrod V6 that’s durable.
And that goddamn Weber carb on the Nissan is trash. They’re never dialled in “just right” – it’s a cosmic impossibility.
Tough call. I like them both. But the Ranger is newer, FI, and I have to think has waaaaay better parts support. So Ford for me, by a hair.
I’d have to figure out retrofitting A/C though. 2/60 A/C doesn’t cut it in a Florida summer. I’m getting uncomfortably moist just thinking about it as a big hairy ape.
There is no danger
in buying this Ranger
for it is such
a clean machine. 🙂
I wouldn’t kick either one out of my driveway. But for chore duty, which is what an old pickup is for, I’d trust the Ranger more to keep on keepin’ on.
The Datsun is well preserved but I gotta go with fuel injection.
Home, home on the Range(r).
Ford for me. It’s got more power with the V6 and fuel injection. I know this era of Datsun/Nissan trucks has a great reputation, but to me they’ve always seemed a bit cheaply made.
I love small trucks ( Own a small 1996 Tacoma I bought new off the lot ). I am having a hard time deciding. I live in California so we don’t have the rust issues so things stick around. I still see a LOT of those Rangers on the roads here and there’s a guy down the street with the same Nissan in red. I know people with those Rangers and they just fucking go forever. I former coworker of mine had one. It had over 500,000 miles on it at that point. He used it to haul the trash to the dump every week.
The Ferd has EFI. So it’s easier for me to support than the black magic that is a carburetor. Some folks are carb wizards. The Nissan can go to one of those folks.
Ford F@$^in’ Ranger for me. These Smyrna-built Nissan-badged 720s didn’t rust as bad as earlier Datsun trucks which dissolved like Alka-Seltzer in the salty northeast, but I still wouldn’t want it to leave the car-preserving climate of the PNW.
Nissan, please!
You’re 100% right, Mark – this is a tough one.
I really do like the Ranger, and it has a V-6, but the ad states “Odometer readings are off due to unknown issue.” At almost 300k it probably doesn’t matter too much; it still seems odd, though, unless it’s a common failure on these trucks.
The Nissan would be better for light truck things because of the bed height, though I would probably use it without the topper – or “no cap”, as the kids might say. I am curious about the mismatched left rear tire on what appears to be the same factory wheels as the other three. OTOH it’s a 42-year-old truck for $2800.
The Nissan wins by a very small margin but I would be happy with either.
Bet you like many Ford’s of this era, it still has a five digit odometer.
I think odometer failure is common.
I heard cause is a plastic part in the pickup assembly.
That would do it – plastic doesn’t age well, unfortunately
At these prices, definitely a both day.
But forced to choose, the Dissun hits the nostalgia button a tad harder for me. The Ford F-ing Ranger would probably be better for doing truck stuff with the bigger bed and bigger engine, but there’s just something about the 4-eyed 720.
Agree. I figured that one would have a trashed interior by now, but holy cats, both look exceedingly well maintained inside. I’d be happy with either, but I picked the Nissan solely for the dual Datsun/Nissan badging.
Put it this way, if I went to buy one and it was already sold the other is definitely NOT a consolation prize.
That first pic of the Ranger looks like a Norman Rockwell painting with the farm in the background. Going Ranger today just for parts availability, would pic both in a heartbeat though
The latent mini-trucker in me cannot be denied. 720, crank down the torsion bars in front and slam some hockey pucks in the back.
Gimme the Nissan. A regular cab is fine for a mid or full size truck, but on a small truck, it’s just too, well, small.
I have never seen a ranger long bed with larger cab.
The ranger probably has the big gas tank too.
Had a 1988 Ranger 4X4 with the 2.9 and 5-speed stick. It was a great little truck. Traded it in for a Dakota. Sorta miss both of them.
Extended cab is the only truck configuration I’d own. As you mentioned you can put the groceries back there but more importantly most single cabs have a fixed-back bench seat and I need to be able to adjust my seat back from day to day.
Pretty sure seat backs are adjustable in every ranger I’ve been in.
Can’t go as far back is all.
For voting purposes I went with the Ranger, although this is realistically a “both” day for me. The Ford appears to be in better condition. I also think it is overall a nicer design and, while an extended cab may be more practical, single cab trucks look far better than extended cab or crew cab trucks. The fuel injected 6 cylinder is also a bonus compared to the carbureted 4 of the Nissan. It may be high mileage, but assuming it is in good working order at the moment, $2800 is a deal for this thing. Given how popular classic trucks have become, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this exact truck selling on BaT for $10,000+ in a few years. Get it while it is cheap.
I say this frequently, but I genuinely want to buy this truck. I again lament it is over 3,000 miles away.
Had a 89 Ranger XLT with the same drivetrain. Great truck.
Easiest vote in weeks. No shade to the Nissan, but the Ranger is the perfect truck, and that one’s especially nice. If that ad is still up next Monday, I’ll be shocked.
Agreed. That Ford is total utility, and appears in solid shape for a good price.
I’ll take the Nissan. I had nothing but trouble with the Fords in my life.
Both? BOTH!!! I would honestly be happy with either of these. But ease of finding parts draws me to the ranger today if I must choose.
I love those old Nissans but since I own a Ranger, I have to vote for the Ranger. Parts availability and community support is very good and you can fix them with cardboard and bailing wire. I replaced a damaged section of crankcase ventilation hose in mine with some metal conduit that I had laying around and it’s been that way for a decade.
Look at the steering wheel cover on the 720 – it wants to be a Ranger!
Yeah, it’s having a bit of an identity crisis.
I’m feeling blue – I’ll take the Datsun, Cap Delete.