Face off: 2024 Maverick Tremor vs. 1998 FF Ranger

Lighting was good and caught a good photo of my 24 Maverick Tremor and my dad's 98 Ranger today. Tried to buy that truck off of him for years before the Maverick came out.

Love my Maverick but those old Rangers are good old trucks. Had a 94 Ranger for the first vehicle I ever bought back in 96 and it was a lot of fun, but it was only RWD and was useless in any kind of weather. Lots of cussing involved when it snowed usually.

Love the old rangers too. I had an 82 1/2 (83 basically, first year) Ranger, 2.3L 4 cyl with a 1 barrel carb, rear wheel drive, 3.45 rear axle and limited slip. 4 speed manual (the 5 speeds weren't available yet). That old 2.3 was a very durable engine. Sold it with 83K, the guy that bought it from me used it for 3 or 4 years for his stump grinding business.

The ranger was a little challenged by snow, but I used to throw a couple of hundred pounds in the bed and it helped with traction immensely.

k2rizzle said:

Lighting was good and caught a good photo of my 24 Maverick Tremor and my dad's 98 Ranger today. Tried to buy that truck off of him for years before the Maverick came out.

Love my Maverick but those old Rangers are good old trucks. Had a 94 Ranger for the first vehicle I ever bought back in 96 and it was a lot of fun, but it was only RWD and was useless in any kind of weather. Lots of cussing involved when it snowed usually.

Click to expand...

were indeed -two rangers and a Mazda (ranger) all in MN,

Tom 71 Maverick 24 said:

Love the old rangers too. I had an 82 1/2 (83 basically, first year) Ranger, 2.3L 4 cyl with a 1 barrel carb, rear wheel drive, 3.45 rear axle and limited slip. 4 speed manual (the 5 speeds weren't available yet). That old 2.3 was a very durable engine. Sold it with 83K, the guy that bought it from me used it for 3 or 4 years for his stump grinding business.

The ranger was a little challenged by snow, but I used to throw a couple of hundred pounds in the bed and it helped with traction immensely.

Click to expand...

I like those 1st gen Rangers - I'd like to get an 88 extended cab one day as a project truck...not a show piece, just good working order for something fun to mess around in.

My 94 was an extended cab RWD with the 4.0L V6, automatic transmission. Absolutely brilliant one-wheel wonder burnout machine.

Used to load mine down with sand tubes too, held in place with a 2x8 box around the wheel wells. Got into a head on collision and one launched like a torpedo into the front panel of the bed and pushed it into the back of the cab. The least of the problems from that wreck to say the least.

I used to have a 90 Ranger with the four cylinder 5 speed manual. Slowest truck I’ve ever experienced but decent gas mileage and honestly did everything I’d ever asked of it. Hauled stone, mulch, mowers, lumber, ladders, you name it. Despite is lack of gas pedal performance it had an incredibly comfortable seat and with sand bags, handled Ohio winters without a challenge.

I had a crappy first gen I bought for $60 and a awesome 91 4.0 5sp 2wd shortbed. I kept weight in it in the winter, it got me through plenty of snowstorms. I worked 2nd shift so it was rarely plowed on my way home. It was a really fast truck up to 90mph.

You and your dad should do a owners review and switch comparison video.

I had a 2000 Ranger Flare Side in Red until 2012. 4WD with 4L V6 and manual transmission.
Totally reliable for over 100K miles, it would go where no one has gone before. It turned into a 2012 Canyon when Rangers were no longer available.
I like my 2024 Maverick Lariat with the Tremor package, but it ain't no ranger.

Here is my 98, same color too!

k2rizzle said:

Lighting was good and caught a good photo of my 24 Maverick Tremor and my dad's 98 Ranger today. Tried to buy that truck off of him for years before the Maverick came out.

Love my Maverick but those old Rangers are good old trucks. Had a 94 Ranger for the first vehicle I ever bought back in 96 and it was a lot of fun, but it was only RWD and was useless in any kind of weather. Lots of cussing involved when it snowed usually.

Click to expand...

what motor does the ranger have?

wax87 said:

what motor does the ranger have?

Click to expand...

The original Ranger had a 2.3L 4 cylinder, same engine as the option on the Pinto and Mustang II, and a couple of other cars. Unlike the Pinto, the Ranger had a 1 barrel carb instead of 2, and was tuned for torque at a lower RPM range. A 2L also existed initially, I think.

There were a couple of V6 engines, I recall maybe a 2.8L, a 2.9L and a 3.0L, and the 4.0L came later on when the Ranger grew slightly in size.

No Turbos in the Rangers until the newer one popped up.

History & All Generations of Ford Ranger (coverking.com)

wax87 said:

what motor does the ranger have?

Click to expand...

I think it has the 3.0L with manual transmission

wax87 said:

what motor does the ranger have?

Click to expand...

My ‘97 had 4.0, 5 spd rear jump seats (which sure didn’t compare for either seating or just plain hauling ‘stuff’, nor did the fixed sheet metal for access to that area) and only had 150hp vs turbo ecoboost 250hp, but it sold easily in 2023 for $3k with 217k miles. And the 6’ bed was a huge plus. But 14-15mpg city and 18-21 hwy was sure costly. As it was in southern AZ and then coastal OR snow never was a big issue and the 5 speed gave better control with 2wheel RWD but 2 wheel FWD gives the MAV better traction than an empty bed in the ‘97 had. That 5 speed was notchy to shift, the input shaft bearing was worn and shifted down to 1st after a stop from neutral pretty much only by momentarily going to 2nd with clutch still down and then forward on the shifter to first and it felt like an old school real “truck tranny”; sounded like one, too.
The cloth seats were more comfortable than my living room seating at home, showed zero wear after 217k, and left both my wife and me absolutely comfortable even on our 2018 8k transcontinental round trip despite both having over 70 year old bodies! We both really miss those seats when driving the MAV XLT. Lower climb in over door sill height also was easier with the 15” tires.

Tom 71 Maverick 24 said:

The original Ranger had a 2.3L 4 cylinder, same engine as the option on the Pinto and Mustang II, and a couple of other cars. Unlike the Pinto, the Ranger had a 1 barrel carb instead of 2, and was tuned for torque at a lower RPM range. A 2L also existed initially, I think.

There were a couple of V6 engines, I recall maybe a 2.8L, a 2.9L and a 3.0L, and the 4.0L came later on when the Ranger grew slightly in size.

No Turbos in the Rangers until the newer one popped up.

History & All Generations of Ford Ranger (coverking.com)

Click to expand...

There was turbos on the first gen 2.3 rangers. I forget the year but it was extremely limited. I'd be surprised if there were 50 built. Diesels too. But this was all early 80s tech so nothing really over 130hp. I forget the year but it was done.

I miss my old 98 Ranger it was a good rig, it was lowered on a DJM 4/5 kit and rode amazing. The reason I got my Maverick was to do a “modern” version of it.

I miss and don't miss my old Rangers (I had two). Ditto about RWD in the snow, unless I had snow tires mounted and some kind of weight back there. I had manual shift, and I never got stuck, but I got close to getting stuck more than once. Those trucks spent a lot of time axle-hopping and fish-tailing.