1989 Ranger & 2025 Maverick - brothers separated by 36 years

[NHRider]

Says a lot about what 36 years does to the definition of a small truck.

Sponsored

 

[Hunters Edge]

With the salt used in Michigan, it looks like it held up pretty well. Nice picture, thanks for posting.

 

[Waterick]

Says a lot about what 36 years does to the definition of a small truck.

Looks like near extreme ends of trim line too. Near basic XL vs loaded Lariat/BAP. That version of the Ranger was actually smaller than
the Maverick all the way around (except bed length of course). Much narrower than the follow on Ranger version, I had an '87. Pictured below, found an old photo of that Ranger in 2000.

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

Nice looking Maverick and 1989 Ranger. My cousin had a 1989 Ranger Short Bed 4X4 2.9 with 5 speed manual and it was a great Truck. And believe it or not He had 100,000 miles on the Original Firestone ATX IIRC Tires. He went to get New tires and the Owner of the Tire Shop didn't believe He had that many miles on the Tires until He looked up the Date Code on them.

 

[rk06382]

I wanted to compare my 2025 Maverick to my 1990 Ford Ranger. The Maverick is Larger.

VELOCITY BLUE Maverick Photos Thread [post#671]

 

[NHRider]

Looks like near extreme ends of trim line too. Near basic XL vs loaded Lariat/BAP. That version of the Ranger was actually smaller than the Maverick all the way around (except bed length of course). Much narrower than the follow on Ranger version, I had an '87.

Good eye. Base model "Custom" . This one was fancy as it had A/C and AM/FM and that monster Cologne V6.

 

[Waterick]

Good eye. Base model "Custom" . This one was fancy as it had A/C and AM/FM and that monster Cologne V6.

Don't forget the sliding rear window, hard to find that on a Maverick now.

 

[ScottyC]

I had a 1989 Ranger extended cab 2WD truck with an automatic and a 2.3L dual spark plug 4 cylinder...you had to give it a day's notice when you wanted to pass anything....but she was a comfy little truck for sure.

 

[Fcnrwy]

LOL, My FIrst Ranger was a 1985 "S" model.. As Basic as there was.. (7-foot bed).

My 2022 "XL" (Base Model) looks like a "Lariat" to compare...

Jerry

 

[grumpyunk]

I still have my '85 and use it for hauling things I don't want to put in the Mav. It's over 40 years old, bought in December, 1984. I swapped in a roller cam from a later model year, but all else is factory. It will be there until I no longer drive...
The Mav is larger except for the bed, and a LOT more comfortable and a LOT LOT easier to take on a long trip. Gets better fuel economy too.
If the Maverick has been offered as a regular cab/longer bed, with a 5-speed, I would have bought one of them. This pic from July 2019

This is from 1229 after driving home from the dealer.

 

[Tom 71 Maverick 24]

I've had a couple of Rangers over the years. The first one, an 83 when they first came out, was a 2.3L with a 4 speed, rear wheel drive. The 5 speed came out a few years later, and would have been welcome. Anyway, my friend and I drove it out to Indy on a whim, to watch the race one year. Got decent mileage and ran great.

Drove it downtown in Cleveland to the Cleveland 500 race, where they used Burke Lakefront Airport as a road course for indy cars. They were giving away Skoal Bandit tobacco pouches at that race, and my friend and I both took a couple of samples. On the way home, we chewed the pouches, laughed, and spit out the door as we were travelling down the freeway at 60 mph. When I got to his house to drop him off, both sides of the truck from behind the doors back, had ugly brown stains from spitting the chew juice out. Went nice with that dark blue paint.

Sold it to a friend that used it to tow a stump grinder for his own business. He had it a few years. I don't know how many miles it ended up going, but that 2.3L, in its 1-barrel form (same engine as the Pinto/Capri, but those had a 2 barrel carb) was very durable, a solid engine in its day.

No relation to today's 2.3L that you find in the new Rangers.

 

[Tom 71 Maverick 24]

I still have my '85 and use it for hauling things I don't want to put in the Mav. It's over 40 years old, bought in December, 1984. I swapped in a roller cam from a later model year, but all else is factory. It will be there until I no longer drive...
The Mav is larger except for the bed, and a LOT more comfortable and a LOT LOT easier to take on a long trip. Gets better fuel economy too.
If the Maverick has been offered as a regular cab/longer bed, with a 5-speed, I would have bought one of them. This pic from July 2019

I think the reason that we probably won't ever see a regular cab/long bed Maverick is that the unibody construction NEEDS that bigger cab for structural strength. The Ranger was body-on-frame construction so the frame was the strength. Like the F-150, the cab and bed are separate pieces.

 

[NHRider]

Nice looking Maverick and 1989 Ranger. My cousin had a 1989 Ranger Short Bed 4X4 2.9 with 5 speed manual and it was a great Truck. And believe it or not He had 100,000 miles on the Original Firestone ATX IIRC Tires. He went to get New tires and the Owner of the Tire Shop didn't believe He had that many miles on the Tires until He looked up the Date Code on them.

that's a great Ranger spec. I'd have liked to have the manual and 4x4 instead of the auto and 4x2. ranger never sees snow...

 

[mysdak]

Says a lot about what 36 years does to the definition of a small truck.

This truck really should have been called a Ranger instead of a Maverick. It's definitely truer to the Ranger name than the new Ranger is.

 

[B2000]

My 1987 B2000 was about the same size but had a 7.5 foot bed. It went on to a new owner who is still driving it. 5 speed manual and over 200k miles.

Sponsored