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.
Van > Pickup
But in this battle, I’m going to guess that a 35yo Ford/Mazda is going to be more robust than a 15yo Chrysler.
I would haul my better stuff between town and country, paintings and furniture mostly, in the Chrysler.
The Ranger would probably be better for bulk loads.
But for the better stuff , definitely the Chrysler.
I can’t see the underbody on either, so I’m voting NOPE.
I had the 87 version of that Ranger, same engine but a 5 speed. Aluminum cap with side windows that hinged up so you could reach stuff in the front of the bed. My first pickup and a great one that went a lot of miles took a ton of abuse. Never had to do anything to that 2.9L but change a thermostat and water pump. It leaked oil from the valve covers onto the manifolds so it smoked a bit, but I never bothered to fix that.
I drove an ’89 Ranger, 4wd with the 2.9 V6 and 5 spd. stick for 13 years. I’m in no hurry to drive one again, but I’d feel better about buying one rather than a rotted out Chrysler minivan.
Ranger. I’ve got my eye on a mahogany hutch that needs to remain upright in transit. I can get that cap off and get it home safe and intact.
The FFN will still be moving furniture and 2000lbs of gravel after the heat death of the universe….
There’s a reason no one ever says Chrysler Fucking Town and Country. I’m sticking with the FFR.
My son has a 1990 FFR with the four-banger. That truck is unkillable. The loyalty for FFR’s is strong.
If you’re just hauling “stuff” (like dorm room transit) the van would be fine, but this scenario seems specific to furniture. Unless it’s a modular, you’re not getting a couch inside that van, so the Ranger is the only choice.
I have to tip the hat to the old minivan though. We had one that did yeoman’s duty for years, including being packed to the roof with stuff (and a roof carrier to boot) when we moved our son from PA to GA for a new job.
Never seen THAT part of a car rust completely away. The T&C’s rust must be scary bad.
I had an 88 ranger that would vapor lock? and leave me on the side of the road until the engine cooled if I used any fuel with ethanol in it and it was over 70 degrees. I am sure my 24 year old self was too poor to get it fixed correctly. I did love the 7ft box with topper/cap and the 4wd manual of the thing but I think I would pick the minivan at this point.
Ford Ranger wins. Most customizable, and it won’t make you look like you have 5 kids and a nagging wife bitching at you for going 5 mph over the speed limit..
Whoa, I’m having flashbacks to my minivan days. You mean my wife wasn’t the only one nagging about the five over thing???
When we had a 2000 T&C, my wife would tell me I was driving too slow. Then again, she’ll jump lines frequently at the Meijer check-out thinking she found a faster check lane.
My wife drives faster than I do. Then again she use to drive ambulances and fire trucks.
Cherish every moment with her.
Minivans either go 5 mph under the speed limit or 15 over. Those are the options.
Unless you are getting goods/materials loaded from a front-end-loader, I can’t think of many situations where the Chrysler can’t fit more of it, in an easier fashion.
6′ tall 6′ wide entertainment stand is the only one that I did recently that wouldn’t have fit in the Chrysler.
Every vehicle I’ve ever owned has been a Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, or Chrysler. Still, its the Ranger by a mile. Obviously, you’d need to be crawling underneath both of these to check which one is in better shape, but all things being the same, its the ranger.
Ranger all day.
And F that guy for not holding the fainting couch.