Good morning! It’s time for another Shitbox Showdown, and today, we’re looking at a pair of economical vehicles from the Age of Lollapalooza. Before we do, however, let’s settle the score on our project cars from yesterday:
Closer than I thought, actually. I expected the BMW to run away with it and leave the poor old Jensen languishing in obscurity. Personally, given the choice between these two, I’d probably take the Jensen, mainly because it’s as close as I’ll ever get to a Lotus.
Moving on: Somehow, amid the baggy jeans and the Pauly Shore movies and the saxophone-playing politicians, a funny thing happened in the 1990s: Cars got good. Really, surprisingly good. Performance started creeping up again after years in the doldrums, styling emerged from the crisp-edged but same-old-same-old ’80s designs into excitingly swoopy shapes, and build quality and reliability rose dramatically across the board (though in many cases there was nowhere to go but up). Technology like multi-port fuel injection and distributorless ignition made stumbling and stalling a thing of the past, and improved fuel economy. [Editor’s Note: I’m pro-distributor, actually. Not a fan of multiple coil packs multiplying the vehicle’s potential failure culprits, even if I have had my share of issues with long spark plug wires on distributor’d cars. -DT]
These improvements are easy to see now, when the remaining cars from that era have twenty or thirty years under their belts, and hundreds of thousands of miles. In places where rust didn’t claim them, ’90s cars are still a common sight on the road, still chugging along. Once again, I’ve had to stay on the West Coast to find good examples; sorry, rust-belters.
1993 Ford Ranger Splash – $2,200
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3 liter inline 4, 5 speed manual, RWD
Location: Concord, CA
Odometer reading: 159,000 miles
Runs/drives? Daily driven currently
I’d be hard-pressed to think of a vehicle more emblematic of the 1990s than the Ford Ranger Splash. The second-generation Ranger was everywhere, and the Splash, with its fiberglass stepside bed and color options that came out of a bag of Skittles, was the one everyone wanted.
This Ranger is equipped with the best available powertrain: Ford’s basic 2.3 liter “Lima” four, here with two spark plugs per cylinder, and a Mazda-made five speed manual. It’s not the most powerful combination, but it’s essentially indestructible, and gets decent gas mileage (26 MPG on the highway!). It’s had a recent tune-up and some other work, and is driven daily, which means the seller trusts it. Always a good sign.
Outside, it’s a little beat-up and faded, but overall it wears its 29 years well. We don’t get any photos of the inside, or under the hood, unfortunately. Being a Splash, this truck will have bucket seats and a center armrest. Sadly, it is not equipped with air conditioning, so summertime driving is strictly a windows-down affair.
The ad mentions a matching camper shell, but it isn’t shown in the photos. If it is included, that would be a nice bonus, because just any old standard small truck canopy won’t fit this stepside bed.
1995 Saturn SC1 – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.9 liter inline 4, 5 speed manual, FWD
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Odometer reading: 185,000 miles
Runs/drives? Great, according to the ad
A different kind of company, they said. A different kind of car. Saturn was meant to be GM’s import-fighter division, but in practice, they stole more sales of Chevy Cavaliers than they did Honda Civics. But they were pretty good cars. Cheap, plasticky, and unrefined, but reliable and reasonably fun to drive.
Saturn model names were about as simple as you could get: SL for sedans, SC for coupes, SW for wagons, followed by a 1 for the economy-minded model with a single-overhead-cam engine or a 2 for the sportier twin-cam version. Gearing and suspension tuning were different between the 1 and the 2 as well. As a former owner of an SC1 similar to this, I can tell you right now it’s no sports car, no matter how swoopy and stylish it is; the tall gearing and skinny tires of the 1 soak up a lot of the fun. It is good for fuel economy, though, rated at over 30 MPG highway .
It looks like it’s in good shape, but Saturn’s famous plastic doors and fenders hide a lot of sins. If this has been an Orange County car its whole life, I wouldn’t expect any rust hiding under the plastic, but it is always a possibility. The driver’s seat shows some wear, with the leather upholstery coming apart, but it’s nothing a seat cover couldn’t fix. The rest of the interior looks decent, and pretty fancy for a Saturn.
No mention of its mechanical condition is given other than “runs and drives great,” but these are stout little cars, and having current registration means it hasn’t been sitting around. They do mention that the headliner is falling down; this is a common problem. I can tell you from experience that spray adhesive will not work to fix it, at least not for long.
So there they are, two relics from that decade when everything seemed to be going so well. Both run and drive just fine, so it’s a matter of style choice – do you want the sporty-looking pickup, or the zoomy-looking coupe?
I chose the Splash. Yes, it would be damn near impossible to retrofit an A/C into it. But it would be quite easy to retrofit that bed onto a better Ranger with A/C, lower miles, and maybe a bigger engine(6 bolts and an overhead chain-fall, will switch that bed). And maybe an auto trans.
The fiber-glass bed is fiber-fabulous, and does not rust! Although, It’s much lighter that the steel bed, so this ride would be even worse on ice and snow. Keep it to the sunbelt, peeps.
I rejected the Saturn, as they sucked then, and now it’s even 30 years worse.
I’ve always found the “Splash” branding to be very polarizing because it seems feminine. That’s not a problem for me, so Ford it is.
Old trucks aren’t worth buying around here because by the time the prices are reasonable, the rust is unreasonable.
I’m waiting for 2017 and newer F-150s to depreciate. In the meantime, I may import an older truck from Cali. A fly & buy includes a different, unfamiliar sort of risk, but lately I think it’s probably a risk worth taking.
As someone who had a 95 ranger extended cab 2wd 4 banger 5 speed sorta splash as one of their first vehicles I have to show my love. Thing was amazing and I am probably a dumbass for ever selling it but rust was forming and I wanted 4wd which I had on later rangers and now my obs f150.
The Saturn is cool and all but the color combo falls short and just doesn’t crack the cool coupe econobox. Maybe if it was that dark blue they made them in?
Splash. It just looks more fun. What the heck ever happened to step side pickups? I understand cargo room, but if one is buying a fun truck the step side looks sportier. It seems like a law was passed banning step sides and I didn’t watch the news that day.
I had a similar Ranger for a couple years, manual, manual windows, no power steering, no AC. I loved it for weekend Menards runs, but sadly it was rotting away, and I sold it. Test drive a couple of the Saturn’s as well, though many years ago.
Both of them seem to live on like cockroaches, and, along with old Neons, are the bottom feeders of the cheap used car food chain.
Kind of an obvious answer but if I need to haul stuff the truck, if I want a cheap commute the Saturn, the two vehicles are really good for very different things.
Since I have cars to commute in I guess I take the Ranger.
man, I recall my mom’s Nissan sentra with no AC and the fact that she was able to add AC for less than the option from the dealer. You can add AC to the splash, the really cool part is the parts are likely available to to so using ford factory ones. That engine was used forever and is not yet unobtanium like the Saturn Euro 4 engine parts.
If you want to use less fuel, the Saturn will use a lot less than the Ranger. My vote went to the Saturn for that reason and it’s likely a much nicer vehicle to drive.
Ranger. Bought a ’92 XLT new that I loved. Only got rid of it for a bigger ’98 F-150 XLT.
I am the most nostalgic for the Ranger Splash. I guess you could call it *Ranger Things* even though it’s not from the 80’s. 😉
As a kid, I liked those SCs when they came out. Wouldn’t have cried about getting one as a first car.
With that said, if I am buying a “shitbox”, you can’t beat a shitbox with a bed. Ranger wins.
Shortly before my first marriage I bought a new 1994 Hilux (the only vehicle I’ve ever bought new), in October of 1994, about a week before the new ’95 Tacomas were due to arrive, and so it was heavily discounted. I got the stripper base model (4 cyl 22R-E, 5 speed stick, no AC, no radio, no rear bumper), and the only extra was “premium” paint for $150 because I liked that shade of blue. Came to $7,649 with the fancy paint, and was by far the screamingest deal I ever encountered in my life. That truck is still running up in Alaska today with close to 300K miles on it. Anyway, right around the same time my sister-in-law bought a ’94 Ranger similarly equipped–4cylinder, 5-speed, no AC, etc.–but it cost over ten grand, and it had no carpet, no headliner, and vinyl upholstery (the Hilux had comfy cloth). The original tires on her Ford lasted fewer than 20K miles and the battery only a year. My Toyota’s original tires lasted 80K miles, and I got 3+ years from that battery. By the time her Ranger was 4 years old it was a beat-up POS, though she didn’t abuse it.
I always kinda liked the look of the Ranger Splash in a Mtn Dew XXX-Treme skateboarding commercial kind of way, but I was never tempted to get one because my sister-in-law’s Ranger of that era sucked so hard. But this one’s still kicking around, and looks okay for the period. The Saturn doesn’t interest me at all. Boring, ugly, plastic, not useful for any purpose I couldn’t already meet with one of my current vehicles. But I could use a small pickup again, even if I know it’ll never be nearly as good as my ol’ Hilux.
The Ranger is just useful enough to carry stuff around and yet it is a reasonable size.
I got curious what was in the back in the pictures and it’s this
https://www.target.com/p/graco-4ever-dlx-4-in-1-convertible-car-seat-bryant/-/A-75665512
Seems like a bad job of installing a car seat!
“This is not an edit button”
Forgot to mention that the matching camper shell makes it very attractive!
Plus it’s “just been slogged” so there’s that.
Ranger is cooler, but it doesn’t have a/c and I live in Texas.
These are adjacent to two of our former rides. I voted Ranger because it’s a first year Splash and they are totally 90s. I would counter that the 3.0 V6 and auto is better than the Lima 4. Our 93 Ranger long bed got mileage in the mid 20s because the Vulcan 6 wasn’t working as hard. Also my wife’s legs were too short to comfortably depress the clutch in a manual Ranger.
I also had a Saturn SL2 for many years. The twin cam engine and bigger tires made it a fun drive since we did a lot of mountain roads. I don’t think an SC1 or SL1 would be as enjoyable. The other concern with a Saturn is the differential pin of death which will punch a hole in the transaxle case and leave you stuck.
The Ranger would’ve been my pick for the better deal, but since you mentioned “Gas-Saver” specifically in the title, I voted for the Saturn. Years ago I picked up a manual ’94 Saturn SL for $200 that burned a quart of oil every two weeks like clockwork. Routinely got high-30’s, even low-40’s a few times for gas mileage. Drove it for a year and sold it to my neighbor for $350. Anyway, a few years later I picked up a ’97 Ford Ranger – same setup as this, but just black – not the Splash version. That was a great truck, with one exception – I could never get the claimed “great” gas mileage out of it. Instead of 26, I usually got around 18. Even after a tune-up, replacing all 8 spark plugs, fresh fluids and filters, etc., I could only squeeze an absolute best of 24 mpg, and that was driving like an old man with an egg between my foot and the go-pedal.
My dad has had his ’96 2.3 5 speed since new and never gotten to 24, so you did well. 18 or 19 sounds about right.
At least it’s been reliable. 26 years with no major surgery needed.
I’ll take the blue, unibrowed weekend warrior please.
That’s a good deal for a little odd job truck.
I had a 97’ with the 2.3 liter, it didn’t do anything the best but it was adequate at damn near everything.
Hell it towed a small box trailer full of two peoples belongings from Oklahoma City to Seattle in January without a problem (I may have ground my teeth down a fraction of an inch driving through Wyoming and Utah Though).
The only thing that needed replacing in my 150,000 miles of ownership (aside from maintenance wear and tear items) was an alternator.
Sold it with 210,000 miles running like a champ and I rode that thing hard and learned to drive clutch in it.
They are great little trucks, honestly I would love to have one if I could find a 2.3l extended cab in decent shape but those are hard to come by.
These are both great for the price, so I’ll get picky. I can’t vote for a 2WD pickup, and as much as I love the stepside I’ve never liked Ford’s trucks’ front end from this era. I wouldn’t normally ding it for not having AC, but my AC at home is broken right now and it’s been around 100° the past couple weeks, so I’m a little sensitive on the subject.
Meanwhile I had a ’95 SL1 that I loved. Not fast, but fun to drive with a great manual, and enough power to keep up highway speed on I-70 west out of Denver, which is more than I can say for some shitboxes I’ve owned. It was surprisingly fun through the twisty mountain passes I was driving every weekend, and with a set of Blizzaks it was unstoppable in the snow. Dead reliable too, even after 150k and 10+ years.
An SC2 with a little more power and comfort, and popup freakin’ headlights? Hell yes.
For a daily… Saturn.
For a second vehicle (which this price and year fits for me)… Ranger.
The no A/C hurts, but would need to check if it is non-existent or just gave up the ghost. Southern California gets hot in the summer, but there are ways around it if it is truly your second/third vehicle (i.e. only take it out at night or for short bursts in the summer heat). Otherwise, put the windows down during the fall, winter, and spring.
I voted Ranger. I’ve got a 93, but not a Splash. Extended cab, shortbed, in Fords tan/brown/gold color. It’s rusty as sin, but is probably the most trustworthy vehicle I’ve got! Just soldiers on no matter the abuse. My middle child is taking it to college in the fall. I’m going to have to find another one. She is convinced that she is going to keep her newly purchased Ninja in the bed (first “adult” purchase without Dad) so she doesn’t have to buy two parking permits!
I voted for the Ranger not because I want it but I think it’s slightly more versatile. I had an ’87 with the standard bed, single cab, 2.3 and manual. Swore I’d never again buy a small single cab pickup as there’s room for 2 and not much else. I’m not a fan of stepsides but the fibreglass does take care of fender-well rust issues.
This seems awful loaded for an SC1, are we sure this isn’t an SC2? In which case yes please that engine is a hoot.
“styling emerged into excitingly swoopy shapes” Suppositories is what the evolved into.
Styling of 90s cars is not at all an example of cars getting good. By far the ugliest decade for car design.
It’s why the Ranger wins, because being a truck, it doesn’t have as much of the horrible styling imposed on it.
As a person with a small driveway I love old Rangers because they freaking fit in it! And when your primary use for a truck is hauling stuff between the hardware store, your relatives’ houses, and the dump, it doesn’t really matter if it’s slow. If you’ve drawn the straw for “Guy in the family with power tools and a reasonably reliable vehicle,” you know what I mean…
I guess I should be into Mavericks but the idea of a FWD truck makes me nervous???
Yes, yes, you’re all correct – this is an SC2. I should have checked more closely.
In my defense, I was distracted. My wife and I have just adopted two 1-year-old rescue cats who do not like each other, and one of them keeps beating up on our dog. Wrangling this menagerie has left us both addled and sleep-deprived. I love the little fuzzballs, but man, it’s chaos…
Mark. Come on. Seriously? Are you trying to break my brain? It’s already hard enough with the jetlag from hell.
Both of these are great shitboxes. Assuming they have no rust beyond surface corrosion? They’re both good picks.
The SC2’s air conditioning definitely gives it an edge over the basest-of-base Rangers. Especially since deadly heatwaves are here to stay and only going to get worse. And adding A/C is not an easy task. (It’s not just the compressor and condenser; it’s the whole front cooling, the HVAC controls, and the entire motor and blend assembly.)
But the SC2 also loses quite a few points for the ruined seat cover, because the foam will degrade rather quickly if not properly repaired. Just slapping an Autozone Hawaiian-print universal seat cover on it is not a fix. It’s at least going to need to be taped up adequately, or a junkyard unit sourced. And the leather seems to have been a pretty rare option. (In fact, I only found a single leather car with a quick search, and it’s in far worse shape than this one.)
Can’t go wrong with either one.
Small window AC unit, some tin, and a harbor freight power inverter and you’ve got shitbox AC.