zero Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I drove a Ford Courier (Mazda) for many years. Best mini-truck I ever owned. Can't say I ever saw this motorhome version though. I suspect they were only sold on the West Coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Interesting. Oldest one I have seen and not using the name they ended up with. It later became a Scat motorhome. I didn't know Roll-along made it either. In the 80's Roll-along made a pop top that looked a lot like a Chinook but came on a V6 Ford Ranger chassis. See if you can find out more about that one. Love to get some more info on it. Only thing I know is from the 2 I have seen for sale Linda S That Scat body may have been sold to someone else after this. I seem to remember seeing the door tag on one and Roll-along wasn't listed as the manufacturer. I might be wrong though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 According to the Roll-A-Long ad, the Sportster model came out in 1967. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Found one of those pop top Roll Along Rangers for sale. http://roseburg.craigslist.org/cto/4905569881.html Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 That is a neat looking rig. I wish something like that would pop up (no pun intended) for sale around here. I think the price is a bargain assuming it runs well and is rust-free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbone Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Unfortunately none of their engines had a good MPG rating. I really like it but can't help to wonder about the mileage. There wasn't a big difference between the two 4 cyl's they offered in 85 compared to the 2.8 6 cyl. If I ended up with it I believe I would be looking at a newer 3.0 or 4.0 motor upgrade, probably the 4.0. I noticed it has a tow package on it. Wish there were more photos!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 Unfortunately none of their engines had a good MPG rating. I really like it but can't help to wonder about the mileage. There wasn't a big difference between the two 4 cyl's they offered in 85 compared to the 2.8 6 cyl. If I ended up with it I believe I would be looking at a newer 3.0 or 4.0 motor upgrade, probably the 4.0. I noticed it has a tow package on it. Wish there were more photos!!! Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The early Ford V6s in Rangers were dogs and the early 2 liter four-cylinder had a bad rep as an oil-burner. Chevy's V6s are all dogs as far as I'm concerned. The 2.8 used in the S10 series lacked power and got bad MPGs. The newer GM 4.3 is a very rugged engine but still a dog on fuel mileage. I've been considering putting a Chinook pop-up roof body (from a 1978 Toyota) and putting it onto a 90s Ranger or S10. The Ford or Mazda 2.3 and 2.5 get excellent MPGs. So does the mid-90s Chevy 2.2. The original Toyota Chinook had a wheelbase of 110" but a tiny cab. The mid-90s Chevy S10 longbeds and the late 90s Ranger longbeds (with standard cabs) - both with 117.9" wheelbases fit the Chinook body perfectly. Distance from the rear of the cab to center of the rear axle is perfect. I think either the Ford or Chevy would make a nice swap. Lockup auto trans if wanted, power steering which you cannot get in a 70s Toyota, modern AC, etc. It yet remains to be proven but I bet a Chinook swap like this could result in a gas-powered RV getting an average of 20-22 MPG. On a side-note - I drove new Rangers as service trucks for a John Deere dealership. Got a new one every two years and it was always a four-cylinder. That was up to 1994. Every one I had was an oil-burner and plagued with small "nickel and dime" problems. Never broke down, though. My 1983 Ranger ate oil from the day it was new and Ford refused to fix it under warranty (kind of a long story but I blame it on the dealer more then Ford). Many years later my father-in-law who was a Ford engineer told me that those 2 liter engines were made in Brazil and Ford had a huge quality-control issue. One more side-note. Before the Ranger was invented, my service trucks were International Scouts and a Mazda (badged as a Ford) Courier mini-truck. That 70s Mazda was the most rugged and dependable truck I've ever driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Here are some interior pics from the Ranger Station website. You can see they say it came with the V6. I would be surprised if the one I posted was really a 4 banger. It's amazing that many motorhome owners don't know what engine they have. See it all the time http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/winter2011/roll-a-long.htm Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbone Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Actually, I should say the 5 speed manuals with the 2.3 4cyl did decent, the diesel version better of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbone Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Thanks Linda, Looks just like the one for sale! I admit, I wouldn't mind owning it even though Toyota is my first choice. I didn't realize until I joined these forums that Chevy, Ford, & Mazda had these conversions! Learning quite a lot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 Actually, I should say the 5 speed manuals with the 2.3 4cyl did decent, the diesel version better of course! I suspect the diesel would be horrible unless it was the very rare turbo-diesel that was sold in very few Ford Rangers and Broncos. The turbo-version was some sort of Mitsubishi-clone as I recall. The 2.2 liter naturally aspirated diesel has around the same power as a 1.8 liter gas engine. I still have my 1982 2.2 liter diesel Isuzu 4WD minitruck. I love it but it is gutless. I'd never consider putting a Chinook body on it. It gets 27-28 MPG on the highway. No great claim since diesel fuel is often a full dollar more per gallon then regulator gas. I used to have the 2.2 liter turbo-diesel in my Isuzu Trooper. It too was underpowered but "good enough" for a Trooper. Not well suited for an RV. I drove an International Scout with a Nissan diesel for years. That was over 3 liters and still a true dog on power. I've also had most every diesel sold in the USA from the 60s to the early 90s. Even a rare 1978 Dodge full-size truck with a Mitsubishi 6 cylinder diesel, and also a Jeep with a Perkins diesel. It's hard to use official road tests for micro-mini RVs since there have hardly been any built. Winnebago Phasar and Lesharo is one of the few and the diesel versions did not work out well. Here are some related diesel RV tests: #1, an IH Scout with a 3.5 liter Nissan diesel pulling a 17', 1700 lbs. pop-up camper-trailer. Got 17 MPG @ 55 MPH on a flat road. 0-60 MPH in 36 seconds. #2 a Datsun diesel mini-truck with a 2.2 liter diesel pulling a small Boler 1240 lb. camper. Got 24 MPG @ 55 MPH on a flat highway at sea-level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 The unit that Linda mentioned in post # 8 would be a Carburetor engine, I think 1986 was the last year for that engine...My 86 Aerostar has that engine with an A4LD behind it.....The C3 is a 3 speed & the A4LD is a 4 speed overdrive with lock up....the A4LD will fit the 2.8, 2.9 or the 4.0.. The 4.0 bell is a bit heavier & the 4.0 converter is a lower stall speed with a dual clutch design (from '90 thru '95) VERY HIGH FAILURE RATE.....Ford finally caught the flaw in '95 & went back to a single converter clutch ........as rebuilders we would eliminate this NIGHTMARE in ALL converter builds for the 4.0 the 3.0 is a different bell pattern....same conv. as a 2.9 A FUEL INJECTED 2.9 with an A4LD trans & an open converter (built w/o a lock up clutch) would be NICE in this rig.......donnie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.