Why did Ford change so much in 2010 Rangers only to stop production less than two years later?

[Garth Libre]

In 2010 Ford added rear disk brakes, stability control and side air bags to the Ranger, but 2011 was their last year of production. Why add so many incentives to keep the line alive only to kill it the next year, especially since they sold quite few Rangers in 2010 and 11?

 

[Shran]

Federal/crash test regulations would be my guess. I am sure some of those features/parts could carry over to other vehicles as well.

Rangers in the last few years of production were ridiculously expensive as well...just like they are now... and IIRC sales were way down from the peak in the late 90's/early 2000's.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The side bags and stabili trac were due to the govt.

The rear disc im assuming is because at that point the ranger was the only thing running an 8.8 with drums

 

[snoranger]

The side bags and stabili trac were due to the govt.

The rear disc im assuming is because at that point the ranger was the only thing running an 8.8 with drums

The rear disc is part of Stabilitrac. It’s got separate lines to each side instead of the old common feed. I read a report (supposedly from Ford) that said they switched to rear disc because drum adjustment wasn’t wasn’t reliable enough to guarantee proper control of Stabilitrac.

 

[Garth Libre]

The rear disc is part of Stabilitrac. It’s got separate lines to each side instead of the old common feed. I read a report (supposedly from Ford) that said they switched to rear disc because drum adjustment wasn’t wasn’t reliable enough to guarantee proper control of Stabilitrac.

That makes sense. Drum brakes are reliable in the sense that they are cheap to work on and proven (Corvette kept them for a long time) but there are so many moving parts and pivots that it would figure that only discs could adapt to the new technology. Corvettes got disc brakes in 65 but some Vette buyers insisted on drums all around and recieved a $64.50 credit. Wow! That was penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[don4331]

The disc brakes of '65 probably weren't better than the drums - the binding material in the pads off gassed pretty bad - hence drilled rotors. 60 years later, brake pad material has moved along so far, that it looks silly, but there are lots of examples of not seeing what future was bringing.

 

[19Walt93]

60's Vette disc brakes had 4 piston calipers and the seals were on the pistons and sealed against the bore- until moisture condensed in the brake fluid and the caliper bores got pitted. I hated those things. There are companies now that will bore them out and install stainless steel sleeves, that should help.
I hate rear disc brakes, unless you're doing heavy towing they are useless. If you're braking hard, all the weight is on the front wheels anyway. On my 2004 Ranger I'd pull the drums every spring( my inspection is due in May), dump out the dust and put the drums back on for another year. On my 2011 Ranger I'd tear the rear brakes all apart, grind the rust off the slide and pivot points, grind the rust off the edges of the rotors, block sand the pads and clean the rust of the tabs, then lube everything up for another year. The next spring I'd do it all over again. I know how to do brakes and do not need more practice.
Traction control and abs are both extra money for nothing and abs is actually a hazard on snowy roads. On clean, dry, bare, paved roads, abs stops faster, supposedly.

 

[4x4junkie]

In 2010 Ford added rear disk brakes, stability control and side air bags to the Ranger, but 2011 was their last year of production. Why add so many incentives to keep the line alive only to kill it the next year, especially since they sold quite few Rangers in 2010 and 11?

Sometimes I wish I knew WTF goes on at Ford...
The Ranger was infact the #2-selling non-fullsize truck in North America when they killed it (2nd only to the Tacoma, which Toyota had kept up-to-date all along). Ahead of the Nissan Frontier, even. Fast-forward 5 or 6 years and they're then scrambling to get a smaller truck back into the NA market again (I guess to compete with GM who brought theirs back for 2015, I think it was).

There's plenty of other senseless decisions that have come from Ford, though that's probably best for another thread...

The rear disc is part of Stabilitrac. It’s got separate lines to each side instead of the old common feed. I read a report (supposedly from Ford) that said they switched to rear disc because drum adjustment wasn’t wasn’t reliable enough to guarantee proper control of Stabilitrac.

Interesting how Toyota did it with drums on their Tacoma (though it is amazing any truck still has drum brakes at all these days ).

 

[ekrampitzjr]

Here's what I remember of that time.

Ford under Alan Mulally was consolidating production and closing plants that were not in states bordering Michigan. So in 2007–2008 came the announcement that the F-150 plant in Norfolk, Virginia, and the Ranger plant in Minneapolis–St. Paul would be chopped. The F-150 was made in other plants, but the Ranger was made only at the one plant.

Sales of the Ranger had slowly dropped, but production ended up having to be phased out because of continued demand. Ford was still selling 50,000+ per year without advertising. There are imports that would kill to have that sales volume for one model. So the Minnesota plant continued a few more years. By contrast, once the Norfolk plant announcement came, just a few months later it was done.

By the way, I'm originally from the Tidewater area, and there were a lot of hard feelings over that closure. Lots of people in southeastern Virginia had been loyal to Ford pickups. People thought the Norfolk plant was safe because Ford had spent big money just a few years earlier to upgrade the paint operation. By contrast, to show how attitudes changed, one of the employees won the last F-150 built there in a drawing, but soon sold it.

Ford finally set December 2011 as the final date for the Ranger plant. The truck had been upgraded as necessary for 2010 to meet government requirements, as another poster here noted to answer Garth Libre's questions. Sales were high that last year. I looked at new Rangers in 2011 at a large local dealer, and it had only a few on the lot. In about September 2011 the plant switched to 2012 VINs and those Rangers went to commercial buyers.

I would say that compact and smaller mid-sized pickups were never as successful as full-sized ones were. Ford sold over 7 million Rangers in 30 years, but F-150 sales dwarfed Ranger sales. Keep in mind 2011 was also the last year for the Dodge/Ram Dakota, which never sold as well as the Chevrolet and Ford small pickups.

The one mystery to me is why the 2011 4.0 is marginally larger in displacement than the earlier 4.0s (if the Haynes manual is correct). That was the last year the Cologne V-6 was in the Ford line, and why bother with that change?

 

[don4331]

The US gov't required the Ford Ranger to get 30mpg in '12;

The 2.3l manual RCSB 2wd only got 24 mpg combined. (4.0l auto SCRB 4wd got 16 mpg)​

​

We will not the F-150 with 3.5/auto RCSB 2wd got 18 mpg and 5.0/auto CCSB 4wd for 16 mpg. (F-150s needed to get 22mpg)​

​

That's what did it in - Ford wasn't giving up the F-150 and Ranger sales were hurting the corporate average too much.

I've only seen bore and stroke 100 mm × 84 mm (3.94 in × 3.31 in) for 4.0....

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The US gov't required the Ford Ranger to get 30mpg in '12

How did the 19+ get around that?

 

[rubydist]

All that CAFE stuff is just smoke for those who think they are saving the planet. There are only 1 or 2 automakers that actually meet the CAFE standards. Every other manufacturer just pays the penalties for not meeting the standard and adds that to the price of the vehicle. On the really low mileage vehicles, they actually put the "gas guzzler tax" on the window sticker. All that to say that Ford did not cancel the Ranger for fuel economy reasons. They cancelled it because the old body style was not able to meet the continually more stringent safety standards, which are real requirements. Eventually they made the current body style comply with US standards and started selling it here. And eventually, we will get the new body style that Australia and Asia already have for 2023.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

IMO they cancelled the Ranger because after years of neglect it was struggling to sell enough numbers to keep the plant running on its own.

They initially wanted to pull the plug on it around '06 instead of updating it but the stupid thing was selling too well then.

 

[don4331]

Newer Ranger has larger footprint (no RCSB); the 2.3EB/10spd gets better economy in the test, and most important, the gov't in between '12 and '19, paused the CAFE increase.

There were lots of nails in the coffin which all contributed to Ford stopping production.

 

[Garth Libre]

I know the new 2.3 Ecoboost is a much more powerful truck, but I get 29 mpg with a simple 5 speed manual and a 2010 4 cylinder engine, while the Ecoboost only claims 21 city, 26 hwy. I know I live in an uncrowded area of Tennessee that enables me to get really good gas milage and I know that when I load 1000 pounds in the bed I must drive very conservatively so as not to strain the rear end or the engine, but the new Ecoboost is a lot of money for the hauling I normally do with less apparent mpg.