Welcome to Scenario Week! This week, we’re getting back to our roots with some good old-fashioned crappy beaters, but instead of just leaving you to your own devices to choose between them, I’m going to give you a use-case scenario, and it will be up to you to choose which car fits that mission better.
We finished up last week with a couple of just-barely-under-$8,000 cars from Southern California, and as I might have guessed, the tired old Mustang just couldn’t hold its own against that gorgeous BMW. The green machine from Germany took eighty percent of the vote. I knew I should have looked for another automatic; that might have evened the playing field a little bit.
That BMW is beautiful, and if it’s as good mechanically as they say, it’s a good deal. But there’s just something about that Mustang that calls to me. Maybe it’s because my dad wouldn’t let me buy a ’73 Mustang after my Scirocco died (well, he said I could buy it, but he’d stop paying for my insurance). Or maybe it’s just my Charlie Brown complex; I go for the rattiest Christmas tree on the lot because “it needs me.” Whatever it is, I’ll take the Mustang – assuming the non-enhanced photos are an honest assessment of its condition.
Now then: Our first scenario for the week involves hauling stuff. You’ve just moved into a really cool old Victorian house, and your hodgepodge collection of furniture amassed over the years looks terribly out-of-place. So you’ve been traveling around to antique shops, flea markets, and estate sales in search of the proper pieces to fill your new home. Whenever something didn’t fit in your RAV4, you’ve rented a truck or a van to bring your treasure home.
But last week, disaster struck. You found an absolutely gorgeous purple velvet fainting couch at an estate sale that would have looked spectacular in your front parlor. There was no way it was going to fit in the RAV4, and the estate sale manager refused to hold it for you, so you hauled ass across town to U-Haul and came back with a nice big Econoline, only to find out that the fainting couch had sold ten minutes earlier.
To avoid missing out on any more perfect finds, you’ve been given dispensation to buy a cheap vehicle capable of carrying furniture. You don’t care how it looks, only how well it runs and how much stuff it can hold. You’ve narrowed the field down to these two. Let’s take a look at them.
1990 Ford Ranger XLT – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.9-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Trenton, MI
Odometer reading: 109,000 miles (or maybe 209,000?)
Operational status: Runs and drives well
You know this truck. It ain’t no stranger. Ford’s compact Ranger pickup has gained a reputation over the years for being capable of some amazing feats of strength, and for shrugging off abuse and neglect, making it a perfect choice for a cheap stuff-hauler. And this one is even better suited for such tasks, with a long seven-foot bed. It has a cap to keep things dry, but you can take it off if you need to carry something tall.
The seller has this mislabeled in the ad as a four-cylinder, but it’s a 2.9-liter Cologne V6. It’s mated to an A4LD overdrive automatic, hardly one of Ford’s better efforts, but the seller says it’s in good condition. You’d be wise to keep an eye on the fluid level, though; it leaks a little. It has had a bunch of recent work done to the steering and brakes, as well as a new alternator, battery, and air conditioning compressor.
It’s an XLT, so it’s a little fancier inside than some other Rangers. It has a split bench seat that’s in good condition, the aforementioned air conditioning, and even a tachometer – hardly necessary with an automatic, but nice to have. It’s been a while since I saw the inside of a Ranger this age, but I’m pretty sure that’s not where the rearview mirror is supposed to go. It’s easy enough to glue it back up, though.
It’s rusty, of course; thirty-five years of Michigan road salt will do that. But I have to believe it’s purely cosmetic, not structural; no one would bother putting a new steering box and new brakes in a truck that’s about to break in half. Hit the frame with some rust inhibitor just to be sure, and don’t worry about the rest.
2010 Chrysler Town & Country – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8-liter OHV V6, six-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Columbus, OH
Odometer reading: 159,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Pickup trucks are the quintessential stuff-haulers, but since the 1980s, a new breed of vehicle has taken over those duties for some households: the minivan. Over the years, the breed has been improved, with more power, more versatility, and more comfort. This Chrysler Town & Country is new enough to have some of the cool modern features, but old enough to have hit the bottom of its depreciation curve.
It’s powered by a 3.8-liter version of the pushrod V6 that first appeared in Chrysler minivans in the early 1990s, along with a six-speed automatic that makes it a bit more efficient. We don’t get a lot of information about its mechanical condition or history, apart from “drives great.” But for a vehicle this age and price, the history doesn’t matter much anyway. If it runs fine now, just maintain it as-is.
The best part of depreciation is that it’s the great equalizer; this van was a lot more expensive new than a plain-Jane Dodge Caravan, but at this age, you can get all the fancy stuff for the same price. It’s got leather seats and all the power goodies, and the seller says the air conditioning works fine. And as far as stuff-hauling capability goes, it has Chrysler’s clever Stow ‘N Go seats that simply fold flat into the floor.
The tin worm has been snacking on this van, too, and it’s a bigger deal since it’s a unibody. Any rust is potentially structural. It doesn’t look too advanced yet, but best take a look underneath to make sure. It also has a little body damage here and there, but you’re not buying it for its looks.
Either one of these would be a fine choice for a second or third vehicle strictly for occasional stuff-hauling duty. And I made sure they’re the same price, just to take that out of the equation. So which one would you choose? Hurry up; there’s a great armoire in an antique shop downtown with your name on it. It’s not going to haul itself home.
I’d rather spend $8-10k on a really nice Ranger.
Neither really, at that price, but I think you might get more out of the Ford. Who knows until you’ve crawled under them and had a good look.
The ratio in this race is going about the way I expected.
With the cap off, you can fit just about any home furniture thing in the back of the Ranger. The van has a finite amount of space.
And the Jesus Chrysler (sorry, God) just looks depressingly and disturbingly rusty. And I saw what Ohio salt could do to the underside of a ’94 Jeep Grand Cherokee. In a single year, before we moved to Seattle. Where they just used sand (and unfortunately, some pebbles) and contributed to the premature demise of many a windshield. Oh, and a couple of my ribs and a helmet when I hit a patch of it making a left turn on a motorcycle on an otherwise nice sunny day in January.
Now, they are more into pre-treating the roadways with potassium chloride.
I guess I’ll go Ford Fucking Ranger even though it’s a Fix Or Repair Daily/Found On Road Dead. The rust on that van (DOWN BY THE RIVER!) is worse and I don’t want it. Plus it’s a junky Chrysler minivan. “Armoire?”
ELAINE: All right. All right. Give me a taste. Mmm! Oh God, I gotta sit
down. What happened? Where’s my armoire?
KRAMER: Well, b — it was stolen.
ELAINE: Wha–?
KRAMER: These street toughs, they robbed me.
ELAINE: Street toughs took my armoire?
KRAMER: Yeah. It was very frightening. My life was in danger. You should’ve seen the way they talked to me.
ELAINE: I can’t believe this!
KRAMER: Well, where’s the soup?
ELAINE: Wha — the Soup Nazi threw me out.
KRAMER: Oh…yeah!
The minivan came straight from the auction (sticker in windshield corner) and has some visible bluetooth body structure. Danger Ranger all the freakin way.
EZ choice have to go minivan as a Butler Chair, China Hutch and appliances will not fit well in a mini pickup with a camper top. Although that purple fainting couch would look great opposite my orange French style longe chair.
That van is my company vehicle but with a better interior. Despite my efforts to get the company to upgrade, by abusing it like a rented mule, it won’t die. I even got rear ended and not only did it not die but the tailgate still functions depsite the big ass dent in it.
As for the Ranger, by modern (or ancient) standards that cab is too small. You have to get out of it to change your mind. Might was well find a full size for $2500 that gets you a bigger bed and some elbow room.
Dang, I’d normally vote minivan, but with that rust, it’s no longer road-legal in MA, and it’s not in a place where a patch is going to last long. Also, if the upper parts of the body are that far gone, I’d hate to see underneath. I’d go with the truck, just because it’s probably got more life left.
Minivan for me. So say they voted for the Ford because that Chrysler is rusty. But if you look closely, that Ranger is rusty too.
Rusty 80s ford vs rusty 10s chrysler? Hard choice. Not a willing choice
Easier to load my drums into the minivan, so…
I’m not sure about the rust on the minivan, but I helped someone move with a rented Chrysler minivan and it was great. Seats folded flat into the floor and then the back was like a carpted room on wheels. Just fill the room with stuff and drive the room down the road. Very comfortable and easy to drive.
I like the Ranger but I don’t think the grungy old bed with cap on it would be as functional for moving furniture. Except the fringe case of needing to move something tall upright, in which case the cap could come off the Ranger bed and move it.
I am concerned about the rust on the front fender of the minivan and elsewhere. At least with a BOF truck as long as the frame is there, the body can rot away. Knowing nothing about the reliability of either vehicle, I am going to pick the Ranger because I think it has more staying power, but normally when it comes to hauling Minivans are better. I hate having to get larger things from the front of a pickup bed with a topper, minivan you just have to open the side door.
Ranger frames are made from compressed rust, so really BOF is not as good as one would think. You’re right about the van, it;s no doubt hiding a lot of rust under the skirts.
You can get a lot into a van. And that van can keep up with traffic. Those rangers have a hard time doing so. The ranger is probably a better deal though those square rangers were having a moment and will probably again.
I’ll take the devil I know. The Ranger is close enough to the 93 Ranger we owned. I’ve gotta say used pickups have gotten more expensive. In 2020 I paid $3000 for a 2002 F150 XLT Super Cab long bed, which was 20′ of truck, 8′ of cargo bed, and no rust because it was a a Central Oregon truck.
If we only get one, it HAS to be the Ranger. Antique furniture is big and heavy. The first piece you buy that is more than 4 ft tall makes the van useless. Stuffing big/heavy stuff through a liftgate sucks. You can put four guys in the corners of the bed and lift just about anything up and in/out.
And, I HAVE taken my beat up Ranger to buy Antique furniture. I got a lot of disgusted looks, but I was loaded up and gone while others were struggling to load their fancy SUVs!
The minivan is only 1.5hrs away vs 5 or so for the truck, guess I’ll take the van.
I absolutely love both Rangers and minivans. In this case, I’m going minivan.
The 2.9L Cologne in the Ranger is too prone to issues such as cylinder head cracking, is underpowered, and delivers underwhelming gas mileage. It’s far from my favorite engine in the Ranger.
The T&C on the other hand, has the 3.8, which, while not spectacular, is surprisingly reliable for a Chrysler engine, and if the transmission has been rebuilt and had the factory defects corrected? It’s got a long life ahead of it.
WRT to the van:
That front fender is not a typical rust spot on these, IMO this thing is on it’s last leg and the seller is trying to get what they can out of it before it’s completely done.
I very recently did a spark plug replacement on a V6 Chrysler minivan and do not want to go through that for a beater.
I’ll take the Ranger.
Exactly this. If rust is that bad in a really uncommon spot, there’s probably a lot that has already been patched up, and the underside is toast.
I don’t hate the Ranger, and it looks pretty clean for a work-ish truck. But I’m going to take my most common haulin’ use case: band equipment. You can fit a looooooooot of stuff that can’t get wet and best be under lock and key in that van. It’s also an easier lifting experience to get to the bottom of the hatch than the tailgate. Would I haul dirt/brush/leaves/whatever in it? No. But just about anything else will go in there.
I have driven a couple, and have friends who have had the 2.9L V6 in Rangers.
I went with the Chrysler based on that knowledge. What a gutless turd.
I voted Ranger. I had a 1990 XLT single cab with the 2.3L, 5 speed manual and 7ft bed. That truck was indestructible.
I’ve also owned a 1986 Bronco II when I was a teenager. 2.9L, 5 speed and 4wd. The only time the 2.9L stopped leaking from every gasketed surface was when there was no oil left to leak out.
Too bad the Ranger offered here has the A4LD. A4LD stands for “About 4 Long Drives”. It’s a turd of a transmission.