Handy Little Trucks: 1992 Ford Ranger vs 1995 Nissan Hardbody

Sbsd 2 15 2024 1024x576
ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome to another Shitbox Showdown! Today we’re looking at a couple of basic, no-bullshit compact pickup trucks. You know, the kind no one makes anymore.

But first, we need to get the results from yesterday’s rear-engine love-fest. Lots of love for the Corvair in the comments, and it won handily. I get it; the second-gen Corvair coupe is one of the prettiest cars GM ever made, and the turbocharged Corsa with a four-speed is the most desirable version.

But man, that rust. Since moving to the West Coast, I’ve become a wimp about two things: the weather, and rusty cars. I tried to warn David before he moved to Los Angeles that the same thing was going to happen to him, and it sounds like I was right. It just happens. You find out that stuff you’ve been putting up with for years just isn’t necessary, and you lose your tolerance for it. So yeah, that Corvair is a hard pass for me. I’ll answer a thousand questions about a funny-looking little convertible instead.

Screenshot From 2024 02 14 15 43 05

And speaking of rust-free cars: I was in a hurry choosing vehicles today, so I just opened up Portland Craigslist and grabbed the first two small manual-transmission trucks that looked good. These are both still common sights on the road around here, nothing special at all, though I know they’ve all dissolved like wet newspaper in northern climates. So hey, if you want a rust-free small truck, come to the West Coast and prepare to road-trip one home. Here are two you can choose from.

1992 Ford Ranger – $2,799

00c0c 3kfmaxr2chb 0ci0t2 1200x900

Engine/drivetrain: 2.3 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD

Location: Beavercreek, OR

Odometer reading: 130,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives great

When Ford set out to replace its captive-import Courier pickup with something homegrown, it did the most sensible thing in the world: it stuck an F-150 in a copy machine, set it to “75%” and hit the green button. The result was twenty years of rock-solid little trucks, a surprising number of which are stil in service twenty years after the last one was built. GM did much the same with the S-series, with nearly as much success. Why reinvent the wheel? Just shrink it a bit.

00w0w 6tpm6i4cdyq 0ci0t2 1200x900

The Ranger’s similarity to the bigger F-series trucks isn’t just cosmetic, either. It has a scaled-down version of the same Twin I-Beam front suspension, and Ford’s 2.3 liter overhead-cam four, which really is a smaller counterpart to the legendary 300 inline six. That little engine drives a solid rear axle on leaf springs through a five-speed stick. It’s all simple, durable, and cheap to maintain and repair, like a good truck should be.

01111 7ggpdiguqpx 0ci0t2 1200x900

This truck’s five-digit odometer reads 30,000 miles, and the seller assumes it has rolled over once, but looking at its condition, I’m not so sure. I can’t even remember the last time I saw a Ranger interior this clean. And the “Ford Racing Beige” paint outside looks great, too. It looks like someone swapped black-painted Explorer wheels onto it, in place of what were probably steelies with dog-dish hubcaps, which is kind of too bad; I like base-model rolling stock.

01010 Homwjgrduio 0ci0t2 1200x900

Hell, the bed barely even looks used. Someone needs to buy this truck and put it to work, stat.

1995 Nissan Hardbody – $3,250

00o0o 3ymo7hlks50 0ci0t2 1200x900

Engine/drivetrain: 2.4 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD

Location: Vancouver, WA

Odometer reading: 148,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives great

And here we have one of the reasons Ford had to develop a small truck. Nissan (Datsun back then) was one of the first companies to offer a small truck in America, but it wasn’t until the mini-truck craze of the 1970s that sales really took off. Nissan’s 620 and 720 trucks were good, but the D21 “Hardbody” series introduced in 1986 was really something. It has great styling, muscular without being intimidating. It performs well and drives very nicely for a truck. And it’s as durable as all get-out.

00e0e De77rvgh6gm 0ci0t2 1200x900

This one is about as basic as they come, with a KA24E four-cylinder, a five-speed stick, and a bench seat that allegedly seats three across, but you’d better all know each other really well. The one option that the original purchaser of this truck seems to have sprung for is air conditioning, and it still works! The rest of the truck is in fine mechanical shape as well, and I know for a fact that with only 148,000 miles on the odometer, it’s just getting started.

00z0z 6lyt332mvcb 0ci0t2 1200x900

It’s not in the greatest shape cosmetically. The front fenders and hood look like they were painted with rattle cans, making me suspect they’ve been replaced, possibly with junkyard parts. I’d like to know what happened there. It does have those sweet ’90s graphics on the sides, though.

00j0j C9ozuy8uzyj 0ci0t2 1200x900

It also has a topper, or camper, or cap, or whatever you want to call it. After all these years, having owned several trucks both with and without toppers, I’m still not sure whether I like them or not. They mess up the looks of most trucks, and make it harder to load and unload certain things, but then on rainy days when you have to make a grocery store run and cram all the groceries in the cab with you, you start envying all that dry storage. I guess the best solution would be to have a topper, and a place to store it, and some easy way of getting it on and off. Perhaps something involving pulleys…?

So there they are, a couple of basic motorized wheelbarrows, ready to take on whatever chores you need them for, even if it’s commuting. These are both probably more expensive than they would have been a couple years ago, but that’s the current market for you. They both still feel like decent deals to me. But no, I’m not going to include a “both” option. You can only have one.

(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)

About the Author

View All My Posts

78 thoughts on “Handy Little Trucks: 1992 Ford Ranger vs 1995 Nissan Hardbody

  1. Definitely a hard choice – both a cool little trucks. I have a soft spot for the ranger with the 4-banger. It’s surprisingly fun. Also, cool side note – this Ranger is a great example of what happens when you remove the brushed aluminum trim from the tailgate – it shows the old-school Ford lettering is still stamped in underneath.

  2. These trucks are virtually the same, but I’ll lean toward the Ranger. The Nissan is probably better mechanically, but I envision that parts are probably cheaper on the Ford. Like I said, they’re virtually the same, so something had to be a tipping point.

  3. Love ’em both, but we’ll take the Ranger for its super-comfy-looking Explorer XLT-grade interior … and the first thing we’ll do is un-Plasti-Dip those wheels.

  4. I went with the Nissan because my uncle used to auto-x a ’92 Hardbody and it was pretty quick with the 4-banger.. Also, the Ranger is the color of a Band-Aid and my wife wouldn’t let it in the driveway for that reason alone, regardless of the condition.

  5. I own a ’98 Ranger. The Nissan is unquestionably a better built and refined vehicle, but the Ranger is cheap and easy to work on. You can build an entire truck using parts from Rock Auto for about $23. In Atlanta I rarely see an old Nissan hardbody but old Rangers refuse to give up.

  6. Nissan, please!

    Like many others here I would be quite happy to have both of them, but the bench seat and the working AC tip the scales firmly in the Hardbody’s favor. The topper would probably need to go as it would interfere with doing some truck things.

    It’s interesting: the Nissan (as mentioned) has some weirdness in the paint on the hood and front fenders, but the Ford’s front end doesn’t seem to match paint-wise, either. Picture 2 in the CL ad shows this pretty clearly:

    https://images.craigslist.org/00S0S_e2axSgK8qXB_0CI0t2_1200x900.jpg

    Still, these are excellent Showdown choices today!

  7. Both great picks, and that Ranger is really quite nice…. but I went the Nissan route, after having worked on an acquaintance’s Ranger of that vintage recently. Dual sets of spark plugs not easily accessed and a fuel pump only accessible after removing the entire bed makes it easy to choose the Nissan.

  8. I voted Nissan because for 2 years I drove a ranger just like that as a work truck, and it’s been stuck in my head ever since that not all cars are better with a manual. The throws are about a foot long, you have no feedback other than auditory for did you move the stick far enough or too far to the side, the clutch travel is about the length of the cab… but it never ever broke down.

  9. One has graphics and has my vote. Also I saw a grey Hardbody last week and it was surprisingly rust free for NY. The underbody might’ve been covered in rust but the shell was pristine, a little faded but no rust to be found.

  10. There are no losers here. This is definitely a “Why not both?” day. I picked the Nissan based on nostalgia. You see, I am a middle school shop teacher. When I was in middle school, my middle school shop teacher, Mr. Moretti, drove that EXACT spec Nissan Hardbody. Black, 2wd, stick shift, aluminum bed cap, even had those same green side graphics. Mr. Moretti RULED, and I would love to drive a truck just like his.

    Also, when I turned 16 in ’97, the local Nissan dealer was advertising brand new strippo Hardbodies like this one for $7800. I wanted one in a big bad way. I did not have the cheddar, and could not convince my dad to help me get one.

  11. I had a ranger, and my dad had the hardbody. They were both decent trucks, but the Nissan is the better choice. The ranger is just way underpowered. The Nissan feels more powerful than it is. They are both dead simple to work on.

  12. I like the Nissan more, but I don’t trust the sloppy junkyard rebuild after the crash/fire/whatever ruined the original fenders and hood. I’ll take the Ford and use the savings to source a new emergency brake cable and some graphics to break up all that beige.

  13. Obvious answer for me is both. But if I have to choose one, I’m going with the Ranger. I don’t particularly like the color, but I can’t pass up an old truck in this condition for this price. The interior appears perfect. If there was any practical way for me to buy this truck I would absolutely do so.

  14. What’s with all the holes drilled on the inside of the Ranger tailgate? busted latch mechanism? Even so, the Ranger is definitely the pick here, refrigerator beige paint and all.

    1. Some Rangers had a tailgate trim panel. I presume this truck had that panel at one time; the holes were for the panel mounting hardware.

      (Edit: I just saw all the random holes near the top of the tailgate; I have no idea what those are but I can’t delete this comment.)

      1. …but I can’t delete this comment

        But you can! On the left side of the bar below the “## COMMENTS” text at the top of each comments section is an icon with a humanoid shape overlaid with a gear. Click on that and you can review a list of your comments (albeit only three to a page), and on the right side of each list entry is a garbage can icon to delete it.

    2. If you look on the outside of the tailgate in that area it looks a bit wavy and obviously had paint touched up poorly. I suspect a dent and the holes on the inside were to allow it to be punched back out. Makes me wonder how much bondo is in that area.

  15. I wanted to vote for the Nissan, my grandpa had one as a farm truck when I was a kid and there’s a lot of good memories there. But that Ranger is in excellent condition. I rarely see Rangers (or Nissan hardbodies) of that generation around southern Indiana, but the next iteration of Ranger are still everywhere, and there’s currently two of them in my extended family.

    1. It is so VERY clean and beige, it looks like it won’t need any parts for a while; as if it’s been pulled through a beigifying wormhole from about 1994. There’s something quite wonderful about it, although I love them both

Leave a Reply