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 This one has been replaced by a Weber carb, which is more reliable and easier to deal with.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.
Know why the Datsun’s interior presents so well despite its age and mileage? Because “Portland.” Interior materials get less sun damage if they live their entire lives in a place where the sun never comes out.
(Source: former eleven-year resident of Portland, who can affirm that seasonal affective disorder is very real and as bad for you as it’s good for car interiors.)
BTW, how many people call these things ‘toppers’? Here in CA, they are typically called ‘camper shell’.
In my area of southern New England, I’ve always heard the called a “cap”.
When I bought my first truck as a kid, the ad in the newspaper mentioned a “topper”. I had no idea what it was till my dad and I went to see it. Turns out the guy had recently moved to the area from Nevada.
I thought I was getting a fairly rust-free truck, but the bedsides still turned out to be mostly bondo.
“Topper” (or occasionally “cap”) is how you can tell I’m from the Midwest originally. If you say “camper” in Illinois or Minnesota, people think you mean the big slide-in thingies. Confuesd the hell out of me when I first heard someone on the west coast call it a “camper.”
In West Coast dialect, ‘camper’ is indeed the whole iffy-looking slide-in unit, whereas ‘camper-shell’ is just the topper. I think in the past people also called them ‘camper top’. Although just now I searched on CL just to double-check- and all I see on CL is ‘camper shell’ now.
Toppers here.
Camper is a complete slide in RV version for a truck.
I really like the look of that Nissan and the King Cab but Fuel Injection >> carb. I had an 87 Ranger long bed, 2.9L, 5 speed and it was indestructible until I handed it off to a couple of kids.
EFI is the game changer for me, I still have an old pre-OBD2 Ford scanner.
Actually, this was easy…Datsun! (it’s not a Fix Or Repair Daily) I like it and it sure is clean inside! It’s very useful and I’d keep the camper top
everything works “except for the current owner.”
Ha ha, that’s actually really clever!
Really not a wrong choice, but Ranger is almost always the answer for me. The extra power and usability of a fuel injected V6 seal the deal.
I want the leg room afforded by the extended cab, so Datsun for me. The Ranger is great too. No wrong answers today.
Nissan for me, as I owned a 1983 standard cab version of this exact truck in HS and loved it. Even with a carb and living in CA, I’d make it work.
It was a close call in this household. Spouse voted for the shell, dogs voted for the extended cab, I voted for the Datsun. When we tallied up the results, it somehow came up Nissan instead.
Fuel injection over carburetor any day. Might have to pass smog…especially here in Cali. And most of Oregon. DEQ is no fun. And a 7 foot bed that never has to be made? I’m a Pickup Man.
Oregon is just Medford area (20 years and newer) and Portland area (1975 and newer) and the standards for older carb’d vehicles are pretty lax I think.
I really wish Portland area would switch to an “x years and newer” system but that’s probably engraved in stone.
For sure. Smog era carbureted cars are the worst. They never ran right even when they were new. Port injected cars, on the other hand, have proven to be the most stable and reliable configuration.
You can’t go wrong with the honest Ranger, but I’d prefer a standard bed. The Nissan gets my vote for the King Cab, and selling the topper would drop the cost.
Datsun, only because I’m too damn tall to fit in any regular-cab truck until the Jellybean Fords of 1997.
I voted for the King Cab
I had a Ford Ranger…a 1990 with the 4cylinder. It left me stranded on the side of the road 3 times, so by default its the Nissan today.
Definitely a BOTH day.
I’ll take both and slam them on the ground with hydraulics. Fight me.
Don’t forget the tiny little wheels sticking out past the fenders, which make you go through wheel bearings like toilet paper.
Oh, have I got a video for you!
https://www.instagram.com/madmaxc7/reel/DK5bkNdBUbh/
Expensive to lower a ranger.
Why?
To clarify, why would you lower one?
In the summer of 1989, I drove a Datsun 720 single cab, with 4WD. Dad had a first-gen Ranger XT, long cab. Dad was a contractor, I framed houses with him and worked in a local restaurant by night. Either of the trucks here is a solid choice for a beater truck, doing truck-y things — Except towing. A light pop-up or utility trailer was about the limit for towing with either truck, especially at altitudes over 7000 feet. Living in Colorado, the altitude thing was a real issue.
That’s why for anyone else, I’d go with the Ranger here over the 720. The carb on the 720 was definitely finicky and starting fluid was a must-have for below-zero winter mornings. The Ranger was much easier to live with. For me personally, I’d take the 720, lose the cap over the bed, bolt in a rollover/light bar with a couple of Hella rally lights, and immerse myself in nostalgia.
This is one of those “both” days. The only drawback for me is the Ranger isn’t a year older with the 2.9L (I still have PTSD from my ’93 Ranger with the pile of crap 3.0L Vulcan), but at least the Nissan has a newer carb. Both would be good for truck stuff and living the mini-truck lifestyle.
What problems did the 3.0 have? Some of the older 2.9 engines had a head cracking problem. I think the later 4.0 was the consensus ‘best’ engine’ in this series.
The first few years had headgasket issues as well as casting issues in the heads that caused oiling issues with the valve train. My ’93 had the oiling issue that resulted in the valve train being rebuilt twice in 58,000 miles, and the headgaskets were replaced at the same time as the first valve train rebuild under warranty. I believe the 3.0L also had some issues with severe timing chain wear, but I never experienced that myself.
The OHV 4.0L wasn’t hugely more powerful than the 3.0L, but it was a massively better engine in my experience (200,000+ miles with only routine maintenance in my ’95 Explorer).
the consensus in Ranger forums is usually that the 3.0 outlives the 2.9. Going by the mileage of this Ranger, as well as a 99 3.0 I owned with 230K and how my dad’s 89 Ranger 2.9 got new heads at 190K I’d also go with the 3.0.
91 Rangers could still be had with a 2.9 but as a 4×4 only.
I’ve seen a lot of 4 litre failures
Seems like most of Ranger owners swear by the 4.0. Although I do have to say that the same 4.0 engine in my Aerostar eventually started gulping water at around ~135k. So my own experience was also not the best.
What kinds of failures do you typically see?
They weren’t mine so I don’t know exact causes, but seemed to be head failures as a result of overheating.
Perhaps another case where an uprated cooling system could cure the issues?
I always thought changing to a 302 was a better solution.
Mine is a 4 cylinder and never overheated.
My ’90 Ranger with the 4 banger was totally solid as well engine-wise.
I’m not even a Ford guy but I gotta go with the Ranger. It seems very well kept so is nice enough to live with daily but not too nice to do actual truck stuff with.
Same could be said for the Nissan I guess but I hate toppers and the Ranger’s in the correct color.
Ford fluckin’ Ranger. That little guy just looks like it’s dying to do truck stuff, and it shows in pretty great condition, all things considered.
Tough one! I like both! So I voted for fuel injection.
Longer bed wins it.
Ranger to do truck stuff.
If I wanted a project, I’d take the Nissan / Datsun.
Easy choice between a truck with some actual color inside & out and some actual interior space and a black/greyscale Fix Or Recall Daily. Yeah, already decided my vote from just the headline & the top image, lol.
Nissan with the blue interior! It was a really tough choice because the Ford is probably the better truck with that v6, but I would smile every time I saw that little blue Nissan (sans topper).
These Nissan trucks are still alive in Mexico, the spirit lives in the latest generation work truck from Nissan. I voted Ranger because I live in the US but if I lived in Mexico, Nissan all the way.