Is This Maybe The New 09 Ford Ranger?

[Matthew18]

Well i found these pictures while surfing the web of rangers
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1774/894ranger01sz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

OR Could it be
http://gam.boo.jp/blog/images/ford_ranger_2002_02_m.jpg

me if i was in charge at ford ill put the 1st one into production lol

[BlackBII]

It looks like a Nissan Frontier

[mhughes165]

sooner or later all cars/trucks will look the same, u will be either drivin around in a cemicircle, ors a semi oval, as they change vehicles for better aerodynamics, although idk why a truck needs ot be very aerodynamic, it shouldnt go any faster then 75-80mph anyways

[Gabe8810]

the first one looks too platic like. breakable

[mjonesjr]

I like the first one.....

[NorCalBronco]

sooner or later all cars/trucks will look the same, u will be either drivin around in a cemicircle, ors a semi oval, as they change vehicles for better aerodynamics, although idk why a truck needs ot be very aerodynamic, it shouldnt go any faster then 75-80mph anyways

Aerodynamics isn't for speed, its for mileage. The car companies have to produce cars with better and better mpg nowadays and the only way to do that as we still use our 100 year old internal combustion engine technology is to make things flow better.

[gnardoom]

I wouldnt drive the first one if it was free, and the second one looks like a little girl truck. I hope they dont make them look like that. 83-05 looked badass, 06, 07 arent bad looking either I dont see why they keeping messing around with it making the trucks look stupid like everyone elses, and what happend to that 4 door slightly wider explorer based ranger that was supposed to replace the old body style? that truck wasnt bad

[Thumper113]

Here's the Rangers offered in Australia (http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1163397392649&pagename=Page&c=DFYPage) < < clicky

They seem to offer them in more flavors over there.

[pineypower1186]

ford should just redesign a first gen and try to sell it. i think it would work

[holyford86]

the first one looks like a face lift of the current style. The bottom one definitely isn't for the US market, its right hand drive.

[michowski]

That body looks to big for the truck with those wheels/tires. Looks like its made of glass.

[30coupe]

I just hope my '07 lasts a loooong time. I like it better than either of those.

Now, if I could get the turbo diesel the sell the Aussies, that would be a different story altogether! A 40+ mpg 4x4 would work for me. If the boneheads at Ford would sell them here, the Ranger model would live forever.

As far as a diesel not being sold here because of emissions, that is BS as well. I watched a thing on the Discovery Channel where Volvo (I think) puts a filter (albeit a complicated one) on the exhaust of their diesels, and they even meet the Imperial State of California emissions standards. There is no reason a similar setup wouldn't work on a Ranger.

Until then, I'll be happy with the Ranger I already have...that's paid for! :yahoo:

[wahlstrom1]

I'd take the first one and build a few kickass bumper for it and be done. I think it looks pretty sweet other then the car style one piece front clip....nothing the cutoff wheel can't fix though....

-andrew

[86isuzu]

ford should just redesign a first gen and try to sell it. i think it would work

oh i love the looks of the 1st gens. i dont know if ford could pull it off again tho

[85_Ranger4x4]

Aerodynamics isn't for speed, its for mileage. The car companies have to produce cars with better and better mpg nowadays and the only way to do that as we still use our 100 year old internal combustion engine technology is to make things flow better.

Trucks get about the same milage that they did 20 years ago... Unless they get have the variable engine displacement or are a hybrid.

[human5]

I like the first one. Although, it looks like a Frontier. Really rugged looking too.

The second one looks like a Tacoma and pretty weak looking.

[mkpecor]

i hate new shit cant work on them it sucks

[Broaner]

Aerodynamics isn't for speed, its for mileage. The car companies have to produce cars with better and better mpg nowadays and the only way to do that as we still use our 100 year old internal combustion engine technology is to make things flow better.

Aero is not the only way to improve fuel econ. Below 45mph you could basically be driving a cube and it wouldn't get any worse mileage than a vehicle with a Cd of .3. Reducing weight is one of the best ways to increase econ. Granted on a 4x4 that is a bit more difficult. But the manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The American consumer being the rock. The consumer wants all the stupid little features and still get better fuel econ. Individually these features seem insignificant but they all add up to a lot of weight.

Hybrids aren't the answer to our problems either. It think of hybrids as bandaids.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Aero is not the only way to improve fuel econ. Below 45mph you could basically be driving a cube and it wouldn't get any worse mileage than a vehicle with a Cd of .3. Reducing weight is one of the best ways to increase econ. Granted on a 4x4 that is a bit more difficult. But the manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The American consumer being the rock. The consumer wants all the stupid little features and still get better fuel econ. Individually these features seem insignificant but they all add up to a lot of weight.

Hybrids aren't the answer to our problems either. It think of hybrids as bandaids.

Trucks need to be able to take some abuse, and their basic shape and size is dictated by their duties, neither have really changed a whole lot since trucks were first built. So the weight thing and aerodynamics can be tweaked with a little bit, but as long as they are going to be worked will never really go away.

Band Aids are not all bad either, they help seal up leaks until a better fix comes along and the bleeding stops, kind of like what they are doing now with the fuel situation.

[Broaner]

Don't get me wrong. I want trucks to have the beefiest running gear and thickest body panels practical but interior accessories and features that are standard on these trucks now add an incredible amount of weight. I wish every car produced today could be had with crank windows, manual locks and no A/C. But that isn't the case so I'll have to keep to my older stuff.

The main reason I hate on hybrids is because anybody with half a brain can go out and get a mint as hell 10+ year old four door civic with a 5Spd and no power options for less than $6k. It'll cost a helluva lot less, will still carry the same amount of junk or people and will still get 35+mpg if properly running. Apply new engine technology with the curb weights of cars 10+ years ago and everybody on the road would see 40+mpg no problem. All that without the feds forking out our income tax in the form of tax rebates to the tree huggers that decided to spend nearly 40g's on a Prius. The only manufacturer that comes close to fullfilling this is Kia and nobody with half a sack on him will drive 'em because they're too fruity. Toss some none gay styling on one of those and I'd be at the dealership tomorrow to get myself a daily.

Dammit! Now I'm all worked up.

[reno]

Here's the Rangers offered in Australia (http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1163397392649&pagename=Page&c=DFYPage) < < clicky

They seem to offer them in more flavors over there.

Wow, wonder if this is a stolen truck, it is from that link,
https://www.fordusedcars.com.au/vehicle_details.jsp?rec_id=17181547
I took the VIN, and checked it,this is what came up. Chk digit 9 invalid.



Vehicle Identification Number:
1
M 2
N 3
A 4
U 5
S 6
F 7
E 8
9 9
0 10
7 11
W 12
6 13
9 14
3 15
3 16
3 17
1
blank
Description Position Raw Data Decoded Data
Region: 1 M Asia
Country: 1-2 MN Thailand
Manufacturer: 2-3 NA Unknown
Model Specific: 4-8 USFE9 Unknown
Check Digit: 9 0 Invalid
Year: 10 7 2007
Assembly Plant: 11 W W
Serial Number: 12-17 693331 693331

[rangerjr]

i like the first

[cobrasplash]

i like the first on as well. Aero on a pickup is pointless there made for pulling and hauling. areo doesnt' due much till ya hit 70+ and by 80 ya start losing mpg. weight and overall size is what kill's mpg on pickups. aero plays a big part in high speed and handleing. that's how the 69-70 daytona and superbird were able to hit well over 200+ and stay on the track.

[injun_ben]

Id give anything to have one of those diesel rangers that the aussies can get....dang emission laws......

[Twizzler09]

I prefer the first one of the two rangers pictured there... the second one looks like a mash-up of the Gen III Rangers and the modern ones.... and it didn't go so well....

[Broaner]

areo doesnt' due much till ya hit 70+ and by 80 ya start losing mpg.

Believing this is totally... um, naive to put it nicely. Generally 29mph is the accepted most effecient speed for most vehicles. Aero plays a very slight part in this but other associated frictional losses are responsible for the remaining enefficiency.

Being that I live in Madison I'm exposed to the tree hugging lefties on a regular basis. So much so that they have sactioned fuel econ competitions on city streets. They all drive their hybrids or homemade contraptions at roughly 29mph no matter the speed limit.

[exbass94]

So much so that they have sactioned fuel econ competitions on city streets. They all drive their hybrids or homemade contraptions at roughly 29mph no matter the speed limit.

Soo....they all needlessly drive around burning gas just to prove how good for the environment they are? :dunno:

[MAranger]

Here's the Rangers offered in Australia (http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1163397392649&pagename=Page&c=DFYPage) < < clicky

They seem to offer them in more flavors over there.

I saw this same model on vaction in the Czech Republic, really retty good looking, but its unibody IIRC

Just noticed manual T-case, nice to see

[Danger FX4 Ranger]

Here's the Rangers offered in Australia (http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1163397392649&pagename=Page&c=DFYPage) < < clicky

They seem to offer them in more flavors over there.
Looks too much like the Chevy Colorado, although, I would still drive it before I drove the Nissan Frontier looking pile in the first picture, or the Tacoma resembling turd in the second picture. Damn Japs.

[Danger FX4 Ranger]

http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1163397725587&pagename=FOA%2FDFYPage%2FDefault1024&c=DFYPage
"4X4 shift-on-the-fly with electronic remote front wheel hub lock"? It also has "Passenger side sliding lunch tray".

[gnardoom]

those are both ugly heaps. doesnt matter to me though my next one is going to be about a 99 with a sohc 4.0, they are way nicer those those piles of crap.

[94 4.0 5-spd 4wd ranger]

the cab on the first looks like a generation 3 or 4's cab. the hood kinda looks like a late 90's early 2000's explorer sport trac hood with modified fenders, grill, and bumper. The bed looks like they may have actually designed it. I just hope to god that if that is the new ranger that they left a solid axle under the back and didn't do what they did to the explorer sport trac

[alaskan155]

if ford was smart, do what dodge fullsize does 2wd gets ifs and 4wd ranger gets solid axle front, bring the new diesel over/(or **** oil companies and make it hydrogen v6/v8 ), crewcab. and id buy anew 1.

oh yeah skip on the plastic 2

[LearjetMinako]

I like them both. If Ford imported the Thailand Ranger without screwing it up. I may buy one. But as usually, we all know the answer, which it will never happen because we Americans are special. So 250K miles sounds like a good mark to aim for on my 96' Ranger. Maybe by then, I can show my future son/daughter what a real truck was back in the day.

[alain]

The first one is nice looking. Bet, any truck worth it's name need metal bumbers, chrome one the better. Not plastic cover...

[85_Ranger4x4]

What hapeened to tough @ss american styling?

That died in 1988 :clapping:

[volrath]

I like the first one. Although, it looks like a Frontier. Really rugged looking too.

The second one looks like a Tacoma and pretty weak looking.

totaly. the second is week for sure. but i bet it would look good with a diferent front bumber and lowered. but the first one looks cool :icon_thumby:

[backerm]

eh, either way no matter how bad ford will screw up theres gunna be some aftermarket company to make it all better.

[stegomon]

i like it...it does look like the sploder...but it could grow on me...way better than the new SD

[twxsby]

Ranger XLT 4x4 Crew Cab Diesel. Make it a bio-diesel and I'd buy one.

[texasredneck]

all diesels can run on bio

[twxsby]

all diesels can run on bio
I've heard they do and they don't. I don't currently own a diesel, so I haven't botherd to do the research, but I do know that it takes about $1000 to "convert" a diesel engine into a bio-diesel. I would love to see someone take a brand new $45,000 truck off the lot, and do nothing but dump some veggie / peanut oil into it. I can't imagine it would work (properly).

[exbass94]

You only need to do a conversion if you want to run WVO. (Waste vegetable oil). That's old frying oil that came straight from a restaurant, no refining or anything. Bio-diesel is diesel fuel made from vegetable oil that has already been refined. You can run it in any diesel engine without any sort of conversion.

[low~n~blue]

the first one would look soooo baddass lowered with some nice deep dish wheels!!! i'd be a happy guy if it comes out looking like the first one, id NEVER buy the second one, id rather walk.

[177CIOfPureLove]

I dont know. The only reason I am with the first one is because its still a compact pickup. Other than that i think its really goofy looking. The second one looks just like the tacoma or a colorado....the thing that bothers me is that with gas the way it is why arent people looking at the economical Ranger? It seems these bigger pigish trucks are still selling despite. Call me crazy.

[bobbywalter]

Trucks get about the same milage that they did 20 years ago... Unless they get have the variable engine displacement or are a hybrid.




you forgot to add they also have balls now and iron content along with all the frilly girlie stuff.

[85_Ranger4x4]

you forgot to add they also have balls now and iron content along with all the frilly girlie stuff.

Sorry, I would rather have a 250hp fullsize truck that got 25mpg than a 400hp one that gets 15mpg.

There is no way modern trucks have more steel in them than older ones, or at least my 2002 doesn't.

[hey-you]

Well, the second one is the Ford Ranger, but European version.... they sell them in the UK and anywhere else that is right hand drive, smaller diesel engine.

I was just in the UK, had my B4000 there as well.... went by the local british ford dealer looking to get a couple of parts... he offered to buy my truck on the spot,but couldn't source the parts. His comment was that Ford Europe and Ford America haven't alligned all there divisions as of yet and still make european specific and north americna specific vehicle... regardless of the fact that some of them would likely import well into either market.

My truck ended up having things like the side repeater light added to it to bring it in line with the brit auto standards. All other parts had to come through an auto importing company.... they'd bring in north american trucks and mod them for the brit roads....

[addiman09]

the first alright, but they should stick with the 08, it looks much cleaner, the 09 looks like luxury, rangers are offroading badass machines, not made for leisure

[bobbywalter]

Sorry, I would rather have a 250hp fullsize truck that got 25mpg than a 400hp one that gets 15mpg.

There is no way modern trucks have more steel in them than older ones, or at least my 2002 doesn't.



you may want to tak an 85 to the scales...and an 08...


i dont think its the extra plastic....girlie frillie stuff adding the weight.


and wheres this 250 hp fullsize truck that gets 25 mpg????i must of missed that...i remember the early 80 302 pullin 20 on the tag...but it was a nutless wheezer too. try towing 10 k with that and be comfortable.


i do get your point though, as i too am not impressed with the trade offs...


our cars are so clean now that they realized some of the smog problems originate in china:D...nice clean truck...15 mpg....hmmm.


i say make em light weight like the 80's and toss the safety standards and get 30 mpg....

[exbass94]

i say make em light weight like the 80's and toss the safety standards and get 30 mpg....

Oh yea, tossing safety standards is a real good idea...I can really use that extra gas money when I'm dead from an accident I should have survived...:rolleyes:

[bobbywalter]

Oh yea, tossing safety standards is a real good idea...I can really use that extra gas money when I'm dead from an accident I should have survived...:rolleyes:

well, holding 2 times the vehicles wt....with its roof is something thats adding weight to vehicles...


this is not needed from what i got out of your post...since the earlier trucks (which are not) are so much heavier and beefier and yet they can not do that...and were not required to do so...regardless. so what changed...more gravity? or less capable drivers?

so why is it needed now? build an 88 ranger with todays powertrain technology so it can perform just as well as todays vehicles with less power...meet tighter emmisions, and get much better fuel economy then possible with todays heavier trucks....

or would that be unsafe? cause i know my antiquated standards unsafe truck has been rolled a few times...

and i am still here.

it sure as hell isnt as safe as a ranger being built today....maybe it should be outlawed??


throw em all in the scrapper??? " unsafe at any speed "

"accident i should have survived"

what constituates that????:rolleyes:



riiiight....:icon_confused:

[85_Ranger4x4]

you may want to tak an 85 to the scales...and an 08...


i dont think its the extra plastic....girlie frillie stuff adding the weight.


and wheres this 250 hp fullsize truck that gets 25 mpg????i must of missed that...i remember the early 80 302 pullin 20 on the tag...but it was a nutless wheezer too. try towing 10 k with that and be comfortable.


i do get your point though, as i too am not impressed with the trade offs...


our cars are so clean now that they realized some of the smog problems originate in china:D...nice clean truck...15 mpg....hmmm.


i say make em light weight like the 80's and toss the safety standards and get 30 mpg....

As I recall the last time I weighed my Ranger it tipped the scales at about 3700lbs, it will be tough to even weigh a 2008 as they do not make one in the same configuration as mine anymore (4x4, std cab, longbox with a V-6)

My 250hp fullsize that got 25mpg is a hypothetical new truck, not a dinosaur drug out of the 1980's. IMO there is more to a truck than obsene horsepower, and it is nice for a normal person to be able to feed it. A 400hp half ton that gets 15mpg empty is very real. It is very possible for them to make them more effiecent, but it will cost horsepower.

I never said older trucks are stronger or safer. As I walk around my 2002 F-150 I note the thin bodypanels, aluminum hood, giant aluminum cylinder heads, plastic intake manifold, plastic valve covers, and noted that all that is steel (or more of it) or cast iron on a older truck, thus my statement about newer trucks not having as much iron as older ones. They have taken it out of places it isn't really needed due to both cost and weight.

[bobbywalter]

As I recall the last time I weighed my Ranger it tipped the scales at about 3700lbs, it will be tough to even weigh a 2008 as they do not make one in the same configuration as mine anymore (4x4, std cab, longbox with a V-6)

My 250hp fullsize that got 25mpg is a hypothetical new truck, not a dinosaur drug out of the 1980's. IMO there is more to a truck than obsene horsepower, and it is nice for a normal person to be able to feed it. A 400hp half ton that gets 15mpg empty is very real. It is very possible for them to make them more effiecent, but it will cost horsepower.

I never said older trucks are stronger or safer. As I walk around my 2002 F-150 I note the thin bodypanels, aluminum hood, giant aluminum cylinder heads, plastic intake manifold, plastic valve covers, and noted that all that is steel (or more of it) or cast iron on a older truck, thus my statement about newer trucks not having as much iron as older ones. They have taken it out of places it isn't really needed due to both cost and weight.


ahhh.

well then it seems i am in agreement with you then.

they have been making 250 hp trucks that can tap at 25 for a few years now. 2wd gm 4.8 reg cabs.

30 mpg hybrid things are in final development....but thats gonna cost...guys who just need work trucks like me are always left out in the cold...


and i sure as hell think it can be better as well.


i want a plain ass non bling 4 door one ton under 25k.....250 hp diesel is fine with me...the 95 i own cracks 20 with the racks off and pulls ok with 750+k on it.....

plenty enough for me. would be great if it was offered as at least a choice.

40-50 g for 15 mpg with a tail wind...:fie:

[Downfall_2031]

This is why we need jobs of building them HERE AGAIN. Look at that Euro styled piece of . My daddy said "you cant polish a turd!" but I guess over there they can.

Tell ya what fab me any gen. ranger with a universal engine compartment for ANY drivetrain ever put in one, have the engine in a crate in the bed that I request with all elec.& hardware, and all of it sittin on the suspension and drivetrain that I specify, and SELL IT TO ME....I WILL DO THE REST! aUSSIE or NOT. :stirthepot:

[mitch4x4]

maybe Nissan and ford are having connections, to MAJOR dealerships just joined together here in Canada just down the highway from me. and guess who it was Nissan and ford joined to make one dealership..you cant tell me they didn't get permission from the big cheese before they made such a move. I know Chevy was going to buy or do deals with Nissan maybe ford bet them to the punch.

[85_Ranger4x4]

maybe Nissan and ford are having connections, to MAJOR dealerships just joined together here in Canada just down the highway from me. and guess who it was Nissan and ford joined to make one dealership..you cant tell me they didn't get permission from the big cheese before they made such a move. I know Chevy was going to buy or do deals with Nissan maybe ford bet them to the punch.

There is a Ford/Lincoln/Mercury/Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Mazda/Nissan/Porsche dealership right down the road from me. I don't think they are all that picky about what names they can sell.

http://www.woodhouse.com/

[arkitekt1]

IMO the first generation Rangers were the best looking. My '03 FX4 isn't bad looking, better than most new trucks on the market, but you can't beat the Gen 1's.

[Timo99]

Both suck. If Ford puts either of those for sale, the Ranger as we know it is doomed. :nopityA:

[dude772]

Both suck. If Ford puts either of those for sale, the Ranger as we know it is doomed. :nopityA:


Its doomed anyway. They have made 2 dates to kill it off. One was for the ranger to end this year, but they extended it to 2011 or 2012. So were going to have to say bye bye ranger soon enough.


I'd buy the orange one in a heart beat. Gimmie ex cab big motor, 4x4 and liftability for the same price tag as the 08 ranger!

[mtm006]

I think that both of those are just variations of what is being sold over seas in both australia and south africa they look like those.

[bmxryder]

the first one looks like a ranger with a range rover front end slapped to it. it also looks like it would never look good as a desert truck.

the second once looks like a cross between 93-97, 07, rangers and a frontier. but with fiberglass all the way around and some 35's it will look good. (just like any other ranger)

[1999-Intruder]

Too Bad that Ford is going to bastardize a perfectly good truck. The first one is fine but the second is what I fear the ranger will become. I have been the German Ford site and seen the Ranger to come. It looks like a puffed up version of the Nissan frontier and has a 4-door cab with a 4 foot bed. Yes it would be nice to have the 2.5 or the 3.0 diesel that they are built with, because the 3.0 gets 25MPG and can tow up to 6000lbs, with the 2.5 getting almost 30MPG. But come on this truck is American don't F it up please.....

:thefinger:to Imports