Possible Ranger Extension

JohnPi · Jun 25, 2008

Potential new lease on life for the current US-Built Ranger:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080625/AUTO01/806250358

Excerpt:
--------------------------------

Ford may keep building Rangers

U.S. production was to end in '09

Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

With record gasoline prices undermining sales of its full-size pickups, Ford Motor Co. is considering extending the life of its elderly Ford Ranger compact pickup for another two years, according to people familiar with the company's plan.

--------------------------------

Just makes sense at this stage of the game. It is selling, and Ford would be without a compact high-mileage pickup until the global truck is ready. Now we all might have a new last-chance to get into a new Ranger before it's updated.

Jspafford · Jun 25, 2008

Sweet, hopefully by then I will be able to buy a newer one.

exbass94 · Jun 25, 2008

I wish they'd hurry up and just redesign the damn thing already. We've been waiting for a redesign for years, quit putting it off and do it already!

Jim Oaks · Jun 25, 2008

It's all pretty interesting.

Think about it;

The design changes of the Ranger were basically:

1983 (intro)
1989
1993
1998

We basically have the same truck since 1998.

They say the Ranger will have to have side impact air bags by the end of next year and Ford doesn't really want to put to much design in to it since the truck is being replaced.

The fact that the Ranger get's the highest fuel mileage rating (21/26) of the compact pickups on the market says a lot. I love my F150, but it's only rated at 16 mpg on the highway. I use to like the idea of having a tow rig and trailer so I could beat on my Ranger and not have to worry about driving it home. Anymore I wish I had a newer low mileage, reliable Ranger with a respectable build up that I could just drive to the trail and drive home and save fuel.

The Ranger is still the #2 selling compact pickup and was #1 for a long time. It amazes me that Ford neglected the Ranger for so long. If they would have gotten on the ball a couple of years sooner they would probably be selling a crap load of them now.

Captain Ledd · Jun 25, 2008

I'm not sure if '89 could be considered that much of a change even... And again in '93 it was mostly just the cab/front clip.

I've rather liked the rangers long production span, it's easy to find parts and they easily interchangeable and they're fairly cheap for good used stuff. But I agree, enough is enough. Small diesel, 4cyl-4wd, lighter chassis and cab. That would be really nice.

bobbywalter · Jun 26, 2008

Jim Oaks said:
It's all pretty interesting.

Think about it;

The design changes of the Ranger were basically:

1983 (intro)
1989
1993
1998

We basically have the same truck since 1998.

They say the Ranger will have to have side impact air bags by the end of next year and Ford doesn't really want to put to much design in to it since the truck is being replaced.

The fact that the Ranger get's the highest fuel mileage rating (21/26) of the compact pickups on the market says a lot. I love my F150, but it's only rated at 16 mpg on the highway. I use to like the idea of having a tow rig and trailer so I could beat on my Ranger and not have to worry about driving it home. Anymore I wish I had a newer low mileage, reliable Ranger with a respectable build up that I could just drive to the trail and drive home and save fuel.

The Ranger is still the #2 selling compact pickup and was #1 for a long time. It amazes me that Ford neglected the Ranger for so long. If they would have gotten on the ball a couple of years sooner they would probably be selling a crap load of them now.

in world market they are making a killing. so moving mod production principals to it to further lower costs nets gain overall. then we get shit like diesels...and direct injection gassers with cvt stuff ect along with hybrid potential...never ends.

fords definatly fawking up as they could drop the diesels for the ranger and should have 10 years ago and held a 30 city 45 hwy claim.

idiots. hell theres 2 diesel potentials on the 150's been sitting for years.

idiots.

Hillyard · Jun 27, 2008

bobbywalter said:
fords definatly fawking up as they could drop the diesels for the ranger and should have 10 years ago and held a 30 city 45 hwy claim.

idiots. hell theres 2 diesel potentials on the 150's been sitting for years.

idiots.

Ford isn't entirely responsible for its course. Don't you think they would want to sell as many trucks as possible? The EPA doesn't allow for diesels to be placed in eveer car and truck (CAFE requirements). The US burns gas because it is cleaner than diesels of early years. Yes, diesels have made huge gains but I'm sure the laws haven't, people still associate diesels with black spewing clouds on take-offs. Diesels would be the way of the future if you could convince the gov't. The CAFE requirements are killing the US car companies.

I don't remember the exact equation but it is something like for Every F-150 it sells with a V-10 it has to sell 1 Ford Focus with a 2.0 Duratec and 1 Ford Ranger with a 2.3 Duratec. It's something crazy.

And whoever said that 1993 wasn't a major change for the Ranger is wrong. It was a huge improvement because Mazda stepped in and helped with the redesign.

85_Ranger4x4 · Jun 27, 2008

Hillyard said:
I don't remember the exact equation but it is something like for Every F-150 it sells with a V-10 it has to sell 1 Ford Focus with a 2.0 Duratec and 1 Ford Ranger with a 2.3 Duratec. It's something crazy.

That would be my kind of F-150. :3gears:

(FYI, the 5.4 V-8 is the biggest you can get in a half ton Ford)

koda6966 · Jun 30, 2008

85_Ranger4x4 said:
(FYI, the 5.4 V-8 is the biggest you can get in a half ton Ford)

I think he was referring to the whole F-Series line of trucks when he said F-150.

85_Ranger4x4 · Jun 30, 2008

koda6966 said:
I think he was referring to the whole F-Series line of trucks when he said F-150.

3/4 ton and heavier are not included in that, hence why when you look at them at the dealership they have no fuel milage estimations on the sticker in the window.

koda6966 · Jun 30, 2008

85_Ranger4x4 said:
3/4 ton and heavier are not included in that, hence why when you look at them at the dealership they have no fuel milage estimations on the sticker in the window.

How is 3/4 ton and heavier not included in the F-Series?

85_Ranger4x4 · Jun 30, 2008

koda6966 said:
How is 3/4 ton and heavier not included in the F-Series?

They are not included in the EPA regs like the rest of Ford's production. They have their own rules to play by, it is all by GVW.

koda6966 · Jun 30, 2008

85_Ranger4x4 said:
They are not included in the EPA regs like the rest of Ford's production. They have their own rules to play by, it is all by GVW.

What me and Hillyard are saying isn't that they are Included in the same EPA regs though.. were just saying that there are V10's in the F-Series line.

Jspafford · Jun 30, 2008

You should call your insurance agent and see what they say when you tell them you bought an F-350. My agent told me out of 15 insurance companies, only 2 will even insure F-350's because of the GVWR and them being a 1-ton.

There was never a V-10 in a F-150.

Will · Jun 30, 2008

Trucks over 8,500#GVWR and motorcycles are exempt from EPA fuel economy testing.

Possible Ranger Extension

New Member

Logan Andrew Feb 17, 2012

Well-Known Member

Just some guy with a website

Well-Known Member

TRS Technical Staff

New Member

Forum Staff Member

Well-Known Member

Forum Staff Member

Well-Known Member

Forum Staff Member

Well-Known Member

Logan Andrew Feb 17, 2012

Forum Staff Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals