Slate vs. 1995 Ranger 2.3 5 speed

[5ohbrad]

Just my thoughts- if I misrepresented anything here feel free to correct me. I have owned 3 mid 90’s Rangers over the years and absolutely love the rugged simplicity that those trucks represented. I present that this is the truck the Slate should be compared to- not the Maverick.

	1995 Ranger	2026 Slate EV
Drivetrain	2.3 4 cyl 5 speed RWD	Single 150kw motor RWD
Cost	$11k ($23k in 2025)	$27.5k - ($7.5k tax credit)
HP/TQ	112/135	201/195
Curb Weight	2950 lbs	3650 lbs
Range	360	150
Towing	6000lbs	1000lbs
payload	1000lbs	1400lbs
0-60mph	9.5 sec	8.0 sec
Mileage	22mpg combined	95 eMPG (33.7kWh= 1 gal gas)

I get the range, towing and stereo arguments against the Slate, but stay objective with me here- most people wouldn’t drive a Ranger 150+ miles in a day. I can tell you from experience that while towing 6000 lbs may be possible, it’s not a realistic expectation of a Ranger. The Slate also has tons of dry secure storage up front that doesn’t eat up passenger space or cargo space like a tool box. While it’s heavier, the weight is down low and to the rear where the Ranger was often too light causing poor traction. For daily commuters with another family vehicle, auto parts delivery, pool cleaners, pest control services, security, etc.- I think this will be the perfect vehicle.

 

[Daley]

Nice breakdown and totally agree the old Ranger is a better comp, especially a regular cab. I’d say though that the Slate looks more like an 80’s Ranger than a 90’s Ranger. Learned to drive on an ‘88.

 

[63surf]

Had a ‘99 Ranger XLT 2door, 4 banger with 5 speed manual. Harvest Gold with wheat colored interior. Bought it new.
Selling that little truck was BY FAR my biggest auto regret!
I’m hoping a rather basic Slate can help recapture that connection.

 

[slateya]

The money in my hand did not fill the hole in my soul when I sold my 91 Toyota pick up or 92 Cherokee. Looking forward to this one.

 

[Charliegti]

Had a '90 reg cab, full bed 5spd Ranger. Reliable and I carried a lot more then 1000lbs several times. Drove like a truck and was slow. Slate hopefully will be a much better driver.

 

[professor_hank]

Nice breakdown and totally agree the old Ranger is a better comp, especially a regular cab. I’d say though that the Slate looks more like an 80’s Ranger than a 90’s Ranger. Learned to drive on an ‘88.

When I look at the slate I see 1st. Gen. Scout, kinda like it

 

[ScooterAsheville]

I also owned two old-generation, single cab, 2.3 liter 4-cyl, manual, rwd Rangers. I put several hundred thousand miles on each of them and used them hard. I averaged 29 mpg on the highway.

I used the BLS inflation calculator once to compare what I'd paid for those old Rangers to my Maverick when I bought it in 2022. The Maverick was essentially the same price as those old, lovable, axle-hopping rattletraps. But the Maverick was amazingly better in every way except the one that mattered most to me. I had to bite my tongue and accept 4 doors and an extra foot in length, and a worse turning circle. OTOH, I sure got a lot more sophistication and creature comfort and driving dynamics for the same money.

So the Maverick is the obvious legal descendent of the old Ranger. But the Slate is definitely the illegitimate love child. It's the two-door son the Ranger never had. It definitely inherited the genes for "a cheap and small punishment box". And I'd challenge anyone who actually owned one of those ancient two-door, 4 cyl, manual Rangers to describe it as anything but a "cheap and small punishment box".

I guess after writing all that, I find myself agreeing wtih the OP more than disagreeing. The Slate probably better matches the spirit of those old Rangers. I guess we should call the Maverick "the nepo kid".

PS: Have grown to love my Maverick. Also love the Slate. Love the Telo. There's room for all of them in this world.

PD: I had serious buyer's remorse driving out of the dealership in Sep 2022 in my new Maverick. I have to admit it really grew on me over the last four years.

 

[ChickenNugs]

I don't think those specs for the 1995 are correct. I took my 2002 Ranger 2.3L to the track and it hit 62mph at 11 seconds for the 1/8 so not close to 9.5 0-60. It has the 2.3L Duratec instead of the 1995's Lima so a bit more power.

6000lbs towing would have to be for the 4.0L engine.

 

[kvermeer]

I don't think those specs for the 1995 are correct. I took my 2002 Ranger 2.3L to the track and it hit 62mph at 11 seconds for the 1/8 so not close to 9.5 0-60. It has the 2.3L Duratec instead of the 1995's Lima so a bit more power.

6000lbs towing would have to be for the 4.0L engine.

My fiance timed my '93 Ranger 2.3L on an onramp, it was over 20 seconds to 60 mph and over 30 seconds to 70. Ostensibly, it had 98 horses when new, but I think a few of those had been put out to pasture after 20 years of service.

 

[sodamo]

I don’t think Slate owes much if anything to Ranger. Ranger was Ford’s attempt to compete with other small pickups that had been around for years, thinking my wife’s 78 Toyota for example.