Bad news. No new Ranger

[seanm]

I will DIE before I even though about buying a Taco, let alone drive one farther than the garage bay.

Gotta make money somhow....

I'm not quite that against the tacoma; if somebody gave me one, I would take it But the odds of me buying one are zero.

Hoping the Ranger lasts a few more years....

 

[Jason]

I will DIE before I even though about buying a Taco, let alone drive one farther than the garage bay.

Gotta make money somhow....

LOL. You should compromise. you obviously already have with your choice of trucks.

The Ranger is good but frankly doesn't do anything better than a similar Tacoma besides being less expensive.

 

[Jason]

Most of the Ford Stockholders are in The US, Canada, and the UK. Not Xhinxzhigz or some place with names with letters in places that don't make sense

Any proof of this? I am a Ford stockholder and I don't see anything to back that up anywhere including my stockholder reports. Also, since you are backpeddling badly, do you know where Toyota's stockholders are located? I figured I would ask you since you seem to hold all the answers to the stock trading world.

BTW, the childish comment about the names of foreign countries pretty much sums up the lack of world exposure that brings you to have such a misguided opinion while repeating misinformation that I am guessing you simply regurgitated from someone.

 

[4x4fun]

i hear everyone talk about save the big three, and buy American. thats all well and good. but why would i spend my hard on money on one of the few crappy things America makes. and you cant blame the consumer that US cars/trucks suck for one reason or another. they fell behind the curve, in alot of different areas. and now trying to use "save the big three" as an excuse. F that. if you can keep up get out of the way.

as fars as were the profits go. any one that would notice my one truck missing from there numbers; payes taxes to uncle sam.

 

[Ozwynn]

I'm sorry ....... I think F-150s are worthless (I apologize to anybody that owns one and thinks they are the cat's ass) as well as any other full size half ton pick up.

They are hard to park, expensive to manufacture/buy, and don't fit on a trail. All they are is a yuppy lifestyle vehicle.

Keep the Ranger, drop the F-150, and make the F-250 the base model Full size.

 

[masterbrenden]

I'm sorry ....... I think F-150s are worthless (I apologize to anybody that owns one and thinks they are the cat's ass) as well as any other full size half ton pick up.

They are hard to park, expensive to manufacture/buy, and don't fit on a trail. All they are is a yuppy lifestyle vehicle.

Keep the Ranger, drop the F-150, and make the F-250 the base model Full size.

and bring back a better more reliable diesel to both of them

 

[mkinney74]

I cant say that i know a whole lot about the economy cause im only 20 and havent seen a lot but i am employed by a foreign auto maker but it is a personal choise of mine to by an american made car i know that most automakers have plants in america and yes anyone can have stock in almost any company but i will still choose ford or dodge over toyota and all cars can last its just how they are taken care of.

 

[akalogan]

How many toyota's were just recalled? There is no such animal as a perfect vehicle. I just perfer fords I like the way they feel and drive. I do think the ranger is one hell of a little truck. It is just not quite big enough for me though and the price difference between a f150 and a f 250 makes that one an easy choice. F250 all the way.

 

[Jason]

How many toyota's were just recalled? There is no such animal as a perfect vehicle. I just perfer fords I like the way they feel and drive. I do think the ranger is one hell of a little truck. It is just not quite big enough for me though and the price difference between a f150 and a f 250 makes that one an easy choice. F250 all the way.

Recalls happen and no one said perfect.

FYI though. The problem they issued a recall for is far less severe than some issues that have existed and been ignored by all of the Big 3.

 

[parapup3]

Here is my two cents worth...if they do stop production on the Ranger in the 2011 model year. I'll switch my thoughts to buying a Dodge Dakota, and will fully change my alligence<sp> to Dodge and FORD can bite the big one after that.

 

[Ozwynn]

Here is my two cents worth...if they do stop production on the Ranger in the 2011 model year. I'll switch my thoughts to buying a Dodge Dakota, and will fully change my alligence<sp> to Dodge and FORD can bite the big one after that.

No Dakota either...... its being dropped in favor of that monstrosity called a 1500.

 

[The Luigiian]

If Ranger is given the 2.0 Ecoboost before its death, I'll get one with 4wd and keep it as long as I can.

If Explorer has any semblance of off-road capability whatsoever once it switches to unibody, I'll get one of that with 4wd and keep it as long as I can.

If both of the above are untrue, I'll see how fuel-efficient the F-150 is and if it gets 20 mpg or better in mixed driving on EPA cycle I'll get one of those.

If none of the above are true, I'll probably end up either buying a used Explorer, or Jeep Patriot, leaky roofs be damned. I wanted to have a fuel-efficient off-roader that I could take to the bus station on Monday and take to some mild trails on Sunday, but the major manufacturers seem to be making that as hard as possible because they won't shrink their vehicles to make them lighter and don't want to get off the stupid crossover fad.

There is no reason for these crossovers to exist, they are as pointless as midsize trucks. Almost the same MPG as a real SUV with none of the capability. Same as the midsize truck with same MPG as a fullsize and none of the fullsize capability.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm sorry ....... I think F-150s are worthless (I apologize to anybody that owns one and thinks they are the cat's ass) as well as any other full size half ton pick up.

They are hard to park, expensive to manufacture/buy, and don't fit on a trail. All they are is a yuppy lifestyle vehicle.

Keep the Ranger, drop the F-150, and make the F-250 the base model Full size.

18mpg unloaded with cheaper than diesel gas, it tows my 5000 lb tractor with ease, and cost me $17k 4.5 years ago with 25k miles on it. A comparable diesel (that would get something resembling milage) was over $30k. 5.4/6.8 trucks were in between and both are notorious gas sucking pigs. My "Yuppie lifestyle vehicle" gets comparable milage to a unloaded 5.4/6.8 when I am pulling a tractor at about 11 or 12mpg, and would rip a 5.4 F-250 apart in acceleration without a trailer.

No I don't think a Ranger or F-250 would do what I do any better any cheaper, and it is much easier to drive and park as well (than my dad's '04 F-250 that drives like an aircraft carrier) If I towed my tractor more often it probably wouldn't be bad, but for 5-6 trips a year at peak load it is hard to justify the extra bulk.

F-250/350 trucks were a major status symbol in the city a few years ago, and now that people have realized that they don't need them there are quite a few of them looking for a new home. Back when dad was looking for one last summer it was surpising hard to find one that wasn't a tricked out diesel.

The niche for a F-150 is bigger for a personal use vehicle than either of the other two, there are a lot of boats and campers that are too big for a Ranger, and too small to justify a F-250/350. I also thought about getting a Ranger, they were a little cheaper but got the same milage, were essentially a two seater no matter the cab configuration, and no more capable than my '85 so why bother?

 

[exbass94]

major manufacturers seem to be making that as hard as possible because they won't shrink their vehicles to make them lighter and don't want to get off the stupid crossover fad.

There is no reason for these crossovers to exist, they are as pointless as midsize trucks. Almost the same MPG as a real SUV with none of the capability. Same as the midsize truck with same MPG as a fullsize and none of the fullsize capability.

Almost the same mpg? My buddy's GMC Terrain gets 30 mpg. Name one "real SUV" that comes close to that. Crossovers are more than capable to do everything that 99.6% of SUV buyers want to do with them. Which is NOT OFF-ROADING!!! My Explorer is pretty off-road capable. Do I ever take it off-road? No. Never. Same as everyone else in this country. Do I wish it got better than 17 mpg and had a more comfy ride (like say, an Escape or a Terrain?) Absolutely. Same as everyone else in this country. Hence the shift away from truck-based SUVs towards crossovers. They ARE way, way WAY more practical for what 99% of everyone uses them for.

 

[The Luigiian]

Almost the same mpg? My buddy's GMC Terrain gets 30 mpg. Name one "real SUV" that comes close to that.

They can't, because the newer SUVs are heavier than the original SUVs that they replaced, and the automakers give them ancient, inefficient powertrains like the 4.0 V6, which is admittedly reliable but guzzles gas.

Crossovers are more than capable to do everything that 99.6% of SUV buyers want to do with them. Which is NOT OFF-ROADING!!! My Explorer is pretty off-road capable. Do I ever take it off-road? No. Never. Same as everyone else in this country. Do I wish it got better than 17 mpg and had a more comfy ride (like say, an Escape or a Terrain?) Absolutely. Same as everyone else in this country.

Everyone else? Hardly. I couldn't care less about ride. Fuel economy, I'll get to in a second.

Hence the shift away from truck-based SUVs towards crossovers. They ARE way, way WAY more practical for what 99% of everyone uses them for.

Yes, and a station wagon would be even more practical. If you want a comfy carlike ride, why not buy a better-handling, more fuel efficient station wagon? Is that SUV "look" really so important?

Crossovers, I say again, are silly. They are built to look like SUVs. That is all they do that they can do better than a wagon or minivan. Wagons can handle better in on-road situations, minivans would have more room.

You can have your crossovers, my mother has an Escape and she loves it. But I'm 21 years old, I don't care about ride, and the only reason I truly care about fuel economy is because I don't like to use natural resources with reckless abandon. If it weren't for that I'd get an Explorer or old-school Cherokee, no question.

The new Explorers, in my humble opinion, have lost their way. They're too heavy, not for safety in crash tests but for increased room, and they have nothing in particular that separates them from station wagons and minivans. The new Explorer only increases that similarity. It's exactly the same as a Flex or Edge. I ask you, is the "look" really important enough to choose the unibody Explorer over the Edge? Or any "crossover" versus its wagon competition for that matter?