Said to have been sitting for a very long time, this 1994 Ford Ranger SuperCab 4×4 Splash looks like it was plucked right out of a Ranger Splash brochure. I always expected splashier graphics on the Splash than there were; you can hardly notice the graphics on this truck. The seller has it posted here on craigslist just west of Yakima, Washington, and they’re asking $7,500. Here is the original listing, and thanks to Curvette for the tip!
As with the new Ford Ranger, this one (or maybe it’s all of the earlier Rangers) looks high in the rear end to me. I know, it’s a truck, it’s meant for hauling and towing, and it needs heavy springs in the back. I’ve been wanting a Ford Maverick pickup for a few years now, just for occasional hauling, bags of mulch, and small things like a riding mower or small motorcycles. If they had a longer bed like on this Ranger, I’d have one by now. I don’t need four doors on a pickup, but I would like a longer bed. My Rokon wouldn’t even fit diagonally in the Maverick, and that wouldn’t work. Enough of that.
I can’t tell if the graphics on the tailgate are faded, but this truck looks fantastic to me from what I can see. The second-generation Ranger was made from 1992 for the 1993 model year until the end of 1997, and the Splash was made for 1993 through 1997, and they came with the Flareside bed. They came in this Vibrant Red color, and also in Brilliant Blue, Oxford White, and Raven Black.
I think it would be rare to find a bench seat in a Splash edition, as most buyers got the optional sport bucket seats. I wish we knew more about this example, as far as how long it was parked. The seller says it has 47,000 miles, and it sure looks like a low-mile truck to me. The Opal Gray seats look almost perfect, and the SuperCab rear seating and storage area look great.Ā Page 7 of this 1994 Ford Ranger brochure says that the Splash is the industry’s first compact pickup with a Flareside-type bed, and the Ranger Splash is the first compact flareside truck with a SuperCab-type cab. Don’t blame me if (when) you get AI working on that claim; I’m taking it right out of an official Ford brochure.
The engine is Ford’s 4.0-liter OHV V6, according to the window sticker photo that the seller included. It would have had 140 horsepower and 160 lb-ft of torque, and in this case, it’s sent through a transfer case and a four-speed automatic to all four wheels as needed. This truck was $23,773 in 1993, which equates to a whopping $53,593 in 2026 dollars, yowsa. And it only got 16 mpg in the city and 20 on the highway, about what a new F-150 4×4 with a V8 gets. The seller says they got it running and washed it and that’s the only description they have, basically. It sure looks great, and $7,500 is nothing for a truck this nice looking if everything works as it should. Any thoughts on this Ranger Splash SuperCab 4×4?
Mitch Buchanan to the rescue ā±ļø š“ šāāļø
A truck like this would shatter sales records if it was made today. Had an 89 and loved it.
The Ranger was impressive for what it was. I feel like they were better than the S10.
Wow. This really looks solid, and original. I agree with what Dave said above ( so to keep accurate score, the Dave writing this is agreeing with a different Dave above) if Ford built this today, it would sell in my opinion. I think if you wanted the 6, the 4.0 was a great way to go. Seeing this brings back memories of my wife and I buying our first new car, a ’94 Escort. I remember seeing these on the lot at the time and not being able to afford them at all. The Escort was less than half the original sticker for this truck. But this seller has what looks like a reasonable price. Thanks Curvette and Scotty.
I’m surprised this is still for sale. These trucks seem to have a good reputation
and the price looks reasonable. Too bad for me that it’s on the other side of the country. Is that an a/c compressor peeking out in the engine shot?
Yes,it has A/C.
Nice Ranger. They have a reputation of being tough critters. This sporty Splash looks great. I didn’t realize they were that pricey back then, and this one even had the “Addition Dealer Markup” (suggesting it was in high demand and/or short supply at the time). It would be just fine for what many “truck guys” need (which, to be honest, might be more appropriately described as “Home Depot truck guys”).
Good job SG.
Same truck as the Mazda 3000. I have a 95 2300 with now about 160K on it, and yes it is a reliable and tough truck. I keep looking for a wrecked or damaged 3000 to replace the underpowered 2.3 L engine (very reliable but needs more testosterone). It’s the 4WD, auto, and extended cab that adds to the price. Some of them came with other amenities like PW and PDL. The interiors seem particularly tough. Mine is still very nice and unworn. I also have not a spot of rust. Paint has held up really well too.
Sorry, Driveinstile, I didn’t mean to highjack your comment about a reasonable price.
You didn’t. I’m glad somebody agrees with me.
It would be better if a 5 speed transmission. As the automatic transmission is not near as robust as the rest of the truck. In my opinion (and I have had many Rangers. About 21-22.) The last of the “bullet proof” Rangers was 1999. Changes and quality suffered after that.
Brings back memories. Had one just like it- black with the green Splash graphics. Great truck that I put over 100K on the odometer. Rochester, NY salt finally got to it. Looked at another Ranger to replace it but but by then they were crappy. Bought a Tacoma instead and kept that 10 years. Just recently bought one of the new V6 Rangers and that’s a great truck again!
I had a ranger very similar to this one same color but not four wheel drive. It did have a manual transmission.on a trip one day to see my daughter and her family the transmission went out. I was surprised to find out it had a Mazda transmission. I loved this truck. Just the right size for my needs. I’d be interested if I wasn’t on the other side of the country.
A bargain, IMO. These are very popular in the South. My neighbor has two of this generation and works them pretty hard for a smaller truck without any major issues. His are both automatics.
For some reason the Craigslist links today just go to the Craigslist homepage instead of the item?
I searched and found this truck is still posted. Cute lil thing. Iād go knock on his door if it had a 5 speed..
I have a 1997 green metallic one of these without the graphics , with chrome bumpers front and back . and its called a “Splash” because of the bed . I believe Ford called them “Splash ” because of the fiberglass step side type bed option. Thru the years they had various decal treatments . Certain years of them were used on the Bay Watch TV show……the ones with the loud -orange and yellow paint options. But you probly did not notice them, oggling at the other 2 legged body works on the show. Of course you could buy them with the regular tame paint also.
I have never understood why GM, Ford or whoever cannot build a nice pickup with a decent gas mileage. Why didn’t GM put a 231 FI V6 in the S10. That with a decent 342 rear gear could have gotten some serious gas mileage. My S10 with the V6 got a shade over 20mpg on the highway and 16 in the city. A 231 would have done much better.
The majority of these small pickups were never used to haul loads to pull trailers yet the had motors and rear gears to do so. I wish they had built a work truck version and a good ole boy version.
The seller has removed the listing, did one of you grab it?
Had a ’94 4wd Ranger. Watch out for that AT. The A4LD was a real POS. That and the electronics were a problem. Ended up giving it away.