Rare Rides: The Shocking 2002 Ford Ranger Thunderbolt

Corey Lewis
by Corey Lewis

Rare Rides previously featured the weather-inspired SVT Lightning, an effort that saw Ford add a healthy dose of power and sporty handling to its full-size pickup.

Today we’ll have a look at Lightning’s smaller sibling, which is named after the same weather event: the Ranger Thunderbolt, from 2002.

Much like the Lightning, the Thunderbolt had its roots in a standard Ford truck. The truck in question was the very long-lived third-generation Ranger, built from model years 1998 to 2012. The truck was updated on three occasions through its life, in 2001, 2004, and 2006. Today’s 2002 wears the updated 2001 refresh treatment, which included a new grille, headlamps, and slightly revised tail lamps. But Ford knew Ranger customers wanted more sports from their compact pickup, and signed a deal with SLP Performance Parts.

The Thunderbolt package was always installed prior to a Ranger’s delivery to a dealer, and was covered by the warranty. New trucks traveled from St. Paul, Minnesota or Edison, New Jersey to Kentucky, where SLP worked on them for about a week. SLP offered three different levels of Thunderbolt alteration, plus an additional Performance Package for those of truly sporty intent.

All SLP-modified Rangers were black, red, or white. Base packages included the Thunderbolt badging, hood scoop, some color-keyed trim to include the cladding, grille, bumper, and extended front fascia, as well as some headrest stickers. This could be upgraded with fog lamps, a vinyl tonneau cover, and a spoiler at Level I. Level II layered on the Performance Package, while Level III added a hard tonneau cover with an optional hoop-style spoiler. Other a la carte options included two different Thunderbolt wheel designs, a Handling Package, tape stripe graphics, body-colored custom bumper, and themed floor mats and key chains.

The thunder part of the special model was achieved via the Performance Package. SLP replaced the air intake under hood and modified the exhaust into a dual outlet system. This was available on the Vulcan V6 for 160 horsepower, or on the Cologne 4.0-liter V6 for 222 horses. Seemingly all examples were rear-drive.

Thunderbolt was available in 2002 and 2003, but there’s no information to suggest they were made beyond those two years. No word on which engine powers today’s truck, but given it has all the optional extras, the 4.0L is a good bet. The stock wheels were replaced with some awful period-correct ones, and the tail lamps are AutoZone specials too. Yours in Florida for an optimistic $12,000.

[Images: seller]

Corey Lewis
Corey Lewis

Interested in lots of cars and their various historical contexts. Started writing articles for TTAC in late 2016, when my first posts were QOTDs. From there I started a few new series like Rare Rides, Buy/Drive/Burn, Abandoned History, and most recently Rare Rides Icons. Operating from a home base in Cincinnati, Ohio, a relative auto journalist dead zone. Many of my articles are prompted by something I'll see on social media that sparks my interest and causes me to research. Finding articles and information from the early days of the internet and beyond that covers the little details lost to time: trim packages, color and wheel choices, interior fabrics. Beyond those, I'm fascinated by automotive industry experiments, both failures and successes. Lately I've taken an interest in AI, and generating "what if" type images for car models long dead. Reincarnating a modern Toyota Paseo, Lincoln Mark IX, or Isuzu Trooper through a text prompt is fun. Fun to post them on Twitter too, and watch people overreact. To that end, the social media I use most is Twitter, @CoreyLewis86. I also contribute pieces for Forbes Wheels and Forbes Home.

More by Corey Lewis

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 19 comments
  • DenverMike DenverMike on Mar 23, 2020

    I guess pimpin' IS easy.

  • Cprescott Cprescott on Mar 26, 2020

    There was even a Ranger GT model available before this front end redesign. I remember seeing it when I was buying my first new Ford back in the mid to late 80's. It was a very boxy Ranger with molded plastic addons - it was not a dealer thing - actual production version.

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next