This is a somewhat different Road Test from previous vintage ones. In practice, it is more of a long-term test rather than a typical review of the new ’66 Ford Ranchero. As Car Life’s text explains, their sample was on a long-term loan and staffers had plenty of opportunities to hop on the vehicle and try it in daily life. No mention of how long a period that was, but it was an extended one.
As such, it’s a better setup to try and test a model’s strengths and weaknesses in the real world. In the case of the ’66 Ranchero, all time well spent as the vehicle left a very good impression on those who used it.
Some will notice the magazine refers to the vehicle as the Falcon Ranchero, which had been the model’s name from ’60-’65. Regardless of carrying the ’66 Falcon’s front clip, Ford would officially drop the ‘Falcon’ part when referring to the ’66 Rancheros. A sign the ’66 Falcon-Rancheros were going through a transition. A natural move, since the new the new models now shared much of its platform with the mid-size Fairlane. That connection resulted in a more substantial Ranchero (and Falcon), with the car moving up the ladder in options, size, and comfort.
Whenever a vintage Ranchero (or El Camino) has appeared on our pages, comments often mention that these utility vehicles seemed to have much favor with single and active men. An idea Car Life’s text seems to support. After all, users found the car awfully appealing for its convenience, maneuverability, and power delivery. As for its 2-seat packaging, they felt it made the Ranchero very personal, and almost “sports like.”
About those sporty pretenses, they were not lacking in Car Life’s Ranchero. The test vehicle was a Custom model and carried Ford’s 289 with 4-barrel carburetion. Shifting was via a 3-speed automatic, and brakes were drums all around; power-assisted. Interior arrangements were nicely fitted, with full instrumentation, bucket seats, and a console.
Under use, the Ranchero “was sprightly enough” for daily use. Being a unitized vehicle, users felt that against El Camino, the car was a more solid vehicle without sacrificing ride comfort. Handling was found to be good, with “no problems in proper control.” A result of Ford’s revised suspension geometry for the models.
Unladen, weight distribution was considered better than first glances would indicate. With the back end doing a fairer share of the work than expected. Braking was only average, with resistance to fading but showing occasional rear wheel lock.
The 2-passenger cabin was a cozy environment, that along interior fittings, provided a sporty ambiance. There were the usual quibbles on ergonomics; the bucket seats being too flat and complaints about Ford’s seating position. That, plus the usual, minor issues about fit and finish. But overall, a feeling that Ford had improved in all those areas with the ’66s.
In all, reviewers were very pleased with the Ranchero’s overall execution. “The Ranchero had enough charm about it make one forget he was… only riding a pickup truck… There was an exhilaration about the Ranchero, not form a wind in the face sportiness, but in a delightfully capable, nimble and responsive vehicle…”
Finally, the ’66’s Falcon front clip would be a one-year event. For ’67, the Ranchero would adopt the Fairlane’s face. A sensible decision, since after all, the new ’66 Ranchero was an upgraded vehicle “of virtual Fairlane standards”.
Related CC reading:
Is this the car we need today?
That flimsy unibody would need to be reinforced, but surely some weight savings would be gleaned from an aluminum engine.
IMO going to the Fairlane nose was smart in the short run but would be the beginning of the Ranchero’s end as it faced the gas crunch era on the too-big-for-midsize BOF Torino platform.
In the medium term, putting the Ranchero (and Falcon/Fairlane wagons) on a compromise 113″ wb put them at a disadvantage against the GM A wagons and El Camino, but kept Ford’s compact nameplate in the wagon game longer than anyone else when compact wagons were being culled in the late ’60s. Even AMC took a one-year hiatus from the segment in 1970.
That was a delightful read—thanks!
Yeah, the Mustang was getting the attention then, but I’d be delighted to have one of these for a “hobby car” IF I could find one neither beaten to death nor nut-bolt restored. There must be one somewhere……
Looks nice, I wonder how well one would do as a daily driver & light hauler, up grade the brakes to front disc at least .
-Nate
Discs, power steer and A/C. And modern 3 point seat belts. Bonus is the cargo bed isn’t waist or chest high.
The ’66 through ’67 Rancheros were both good vehicles. Personally, I prefer the front clip styling of the ’67 better, but they are both essentially the same vehicle.
The ’66-’67 Falcon and Fairlane front-clip interchangeablity was a clever Ford, Studebaker-like sleight-of-hand, with the most evident being the1966-67 2-door sedans where both the Falcon and Fairlane used the same center passenger section with different front and rear ends, and is quite similar to how Studebaker created the Lark.
For more details, there was an informative CC about it.
Falcon ute, light in the tail most of the fragility had gone by then, they were ok.
Our next door neighbor Larry in Westminster (MD) had a red ’67 Ranchero 289 that he bought new. He loved that thing and drove it every day until it rusted to pieces, then he got a red & white S-10 Chevy. His faithful dog “Rivets” loved to ride in the passenger seat when he did his weekend errands. My wife, who has an a bit of dyslexia/pronunciation issue, always called it Larry’s Rancher-roo.
Seeing these always brings back fond memories of good neighbors.
This vehicle was also assembled in Argentina until year 1991 , yes 1991 ! , but with a different more annoying bodywork , following exactly the sedan’s proportions and offered with a different engine. Everything was tight unsufficed in this car : so poor sized the cabin, loading capacity only 1212 lbs , rides like a kart , cargo volume really fair . Not surprisingly any Peugeot 504 pickup with half the engine of a Falcon ( 2 liters the French vs. 3600cc the Ranchero ) had best output in everything, even 2200 lbs loading capacity , not to mention fuel comsumption and acceleration . No wonder those days the Peugeot 504 pickup was the unbeatable best selling vehicle in the small-utes’ niche. The Ford Ranchero was just built for the nostalgia’s targeted customer
Why are the wipers “stuck: in that awkward position?
I enjoyed a 1966 Falcon Futura wagon with the magic gate, 289, AT, cold AC. It took me everywhere without a stumble. Rear seat down, 6.5 feet long for 2 people camping. Although eventually I did need to add helper spring shocks and 1/2 leaf as it sagged over the years. Front disc brake would have been nice.
Never should have sold it.