Bad news. No new Ranger

[exbass94]

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.

They can't? Umm, they CAN, and they DO. How does my buddy actually get 30 mpg? Someone is sneaking gas into his tank when he's not looking?

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

Ok, you're in the vast minority then. Everyone else, yes everyone else wants good ride quality.

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?

Because station wagons are practically extinct by now. Minivans aren't far behind.

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.

People want SUVs but don't need off-road capability and want good gas mileage. What you end up with is a crossover. Nobody wants a wagon or a minivan. Simple supply and demand.

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.

I'm 21 years old too, what's your point? That all 21 year old's don't care about ride quality? You're wrong.

I ask you, is the "look" really important enough to choose the unibody Explorer over the Edge?

The unibody Explorer isn't out yet. If I were in the market for such a vehicle (and I'm not) I would consider it and compare it to the Edge. (I really do like the Edge btw.) I would choose whichever is better in power, features, price, etc.

Or any "crossover" versus its wagon competition for that matter?

WHAT wagon competition? Where are these wagons you speak of? Which car company, besides maybe Subaru, is building wagons?

 

[The Luigiian]

Apologies for the snippy debate exbass.

I simply don't understand crossovers, and I especially don't get this "ride" thing that everybody always talks about. (Dead serious.) You must understand, I've ridden, since I was a child, in primarily Jeep Cherokees, Ford F-150s, Chevy Silverados, and Rangers. And for most of that time my family lived on a piece of land connected to Albuquerque by about twenty miles of dirt road. Since then I primarily take the bus, or various cars that just don't appeal to me. When you're taking the bus every day, things like "ride" and "sumptuous interior" don't mean much.

As for your first comment, when I say I think an SUV could match the mileage of a crossover, what I mean is, "if you were to take an early Explorer and put in the new 2.0 Ecoboost, six-speed automatic, and four-wheel drive it would be light enough that it could match the new ones."

Nevermind. Even the Patriot I mentioned is a crossover, just one with a bit of underbody protection and some token nods towards going on nasty trails, so I suppose even I don't mind the crossovers that much. The Patriot reminds me of our old Cherokee, and that's what I like the most about it and the other tough-looking utes like the Terrain (and what separates it from the rather bland RAV-4s and CR-Vs, no offense to those people).

Anyway, if they can make that little Jeep crossover get 30 mpg, I'll take everything I said about crossovers. Maybe not as capable as I would like, but at least I wouldn't have to pay as much to drive it.

 

[exbass94]

 

[Fargo Wolf]

I don't know about you guys, but I don't want that "Global Ford Ranger" shown in the link.

Yeah... I don't like the instrument panel of the European Rangers either. I DO wish the Rangers here were sold with the crew cab (double cab) and/or flat deck like they are in New Zealand.

They cant kill the Ranger.

Far too many compaines rely on them for fleet vehicles. Like delivery trucks 'n such. (2.3L, Short bed, Single cab.)

I noticed the City of Kamloops has switched to using a fair number of Rangers in the last couple of years. Parks dept. mostly. Prior to this, they had been using full size trucks.

How many Fords sold here are built here? I know my Chrysler came from Mexico and my Silverado came from Canada

Even the new 6.7L powerstroke (AKA Scorpion) that everybody is drooling over will be built in Mexico.

Could be worse. Far worse. Your Ranger COULD have been made in Chinkland. Be thankful it was made in North America at all. The quality of Canadian made vehicles is on par with US ones. The Scorpion may be made in Mexico, but at least the Mexicans will put considerable effort into making it a quality product, unlike Chinkland who doesn't give a rats ass whether or not it blows up in your face. Anyone who says Chinks make quality products needs to be shot and/or die a slow, horrible death.

That sucks but how far could it have gone? It's not like they stole it for a chop shop.

Probably for the cargo capacity. You could pop a couple of dirt bikes or a quad in the back. If it had a canopy on it, then one could use it for hauling drugs (both legal and/or illegal), electronics and so on. If it had a frame hitch, all of the above, just in greater quantities.

Good night everyone I am off to work in my $250.000 U.S made grader, plowing snow

I want your job. It pays a lot more....

 

[93project]

there is a euro ranger thats real nice i want the front clip to mod on to a 93 it is produced in Thailand and they are fixing to bring it to america but its 4 door. india is making a small truck and bringing it into the market replace the ranger for real cheap they were going to build in ohio then switched to build in india but it will come in 2011 the thailand ranger front end is elegant and nice what do you guys think

 

[nitrofan1]

there is a euro ranger thats real nice i want the front clip to mod on to a 93 it is produced in Thailand and they are fixing to bring it to america but its 4 door. india is making a small truck and bringing it into the market replace the ranger for real cheap they were going to build in ohio then switched to build in india but it will come in 2011 the thailand ranger front end is elegant and nice what do you guys think

Um, no they are not bringing anything to the U.S. Didn't you read the thread title? LOL

 

[Southern_Trendkill]

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.

You have a right to your opinion, but there are many reasons to use an F-150.

I have one because the Ranger does not work for me. I like them, and think they're great trucks, but I'm 6'4", and I can barely fit in a Ranger. In my F-150, I have plenty of room, a backseat/storage area, and an 8' bed. I can't get that in a Ranger.

And yes, I do need an 8' bed. I regularly carry 2 motorcycles, 10-15 gallons of gas, bike stands, full riding gear for 2 riders, enough tools to rebuild my bikes, food, water, and lots of other supplies. I could fit that in my Ranger, but not with the tailgate up, and I don't like having to lash down everything in the bed. Plus, if I wanted to take more than 2 people, I'd have to take a second vehicle. I've tried this in my Ranger, and the backseat was unusable, and I had to leave the tailgate down, which I hate doing, just in case the straps come loose. With the tailgate up, I may damage it, but if it was down, I'd be cleaning parts off the interstate.

I don't do hardcore off-roading, but I've gotten my 20' long truck with no lift through some pretty tight, muddy areas, and never had an issue.


So my truck isn't good for rockcrawling, but could Ranger carry three riders, their bikes, and gear through the woods? And could an F350 do it without getting stuck?

 

[Ozwynn]

You have a right to your opinion, but there are many reasons to use an F-150.

I have one because the Ranger does not work for me. I like them, and think they're great trucks, but I'm 6'4", and I can barely fit in a Ranger. In my F-150, I have plenty of room, a backseat/storage area, and an 8' bed. I can't get that in a Ranger.

And yes, I do need an 8' bed. I regularly carry 2 motorcycles, 10-15 gallons of gas, bike stands, full riding gear for 2 riders, enough tools to rebuild my bikes, food, water, and lots of other supplies. I could fit that in my Ranger, but not with the tailgate up, and I don't like having to lash down everything in the bed. Plus, if I wanted to take more than 2 people, I'd have to take a second vehicle. I've tried this in my Ranger, and the backseat was unusable, and I had to leave the tailgate down, which I hate doing, just in case the straps come loose. With the tailgate up, I may damage it, but if it was down, I'd be cleaning parts off the interstate.

I don't do hardcore off-roading, but I've gotten my 20' long truck with no lift through some pretty tight, muddy areas, and never had an issue.


So my truck isn't good for rockcrawling, but could Ranger carry three riders, their bikes, and gear through the woods? And could an F350 do it without getting stuck?

and I still think they are a useless yuppy lifestyle vehicle. F250 and the F150 are of comparable size........ and with the F250 you an have an 8' bed AND a 4 door cab...... And an F150 is still not going to get the mileage that a 4 cyl 5spd ranger gets. The big 3 are going to lose fleet sale business because of dropping an economically priced compact pick up.

 

[Southern_Trendkill]

and I still think they are a useless yuppy lifestyle vehicle. F250 and the F150 are of comparable size........ and with the F250 you an have an 8' bed AND a 4 door cab...... And an F150 is still not going to get the mileage that a 4 cyl 5spd ranger gets. The big 3 are going to lose fleet sale business because of dropping an economically priced compact pick up.

I don't know about Michigan, but I pay taxes based on the GVWR of my truck.

Plus, it's been the best selling truck pretty much since it came out. Call it a yuppy vehicle all you want, but numbers don't lie. It would be stupid for Ford to drop their best-selling vehicle just to appease a handful of purists.

 

[Ozwynn]

we pay based on MSRP. so like that POS minivan cost more a year to register than my 3/4 ton chevy and the 'Kick put together ......

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

and I still think they are a useless yuppy lifestyle vehicle. F250 and the F150 are of comparable size........ and with the F250 you an have an 8' bed AND a 4 door cab...... And an F150 is still not going to get the mileage that a 4 cyl 5spd ranger gets. The big 3 are going to lose fleet sale business because of dropping an economically priced compact pick up.

Dad's F-250 is wider, longer and the front wheels don't turn as sharp. The thing turns like an aircraft carrier to my F-150. Like I mentioned before it is also a slow gas sucking pig compared to my F-150 as well. Supposed to be the same engine but you can't tell by driving them, and with 3.73's vs my 3.31's he should rip me apart with fairly similar sized tires. It has a different transmixer (which isn't any stronger) and must have a lot more weight in it.

I haven't spent spent much time in newer Rangers or newer F-150's, but my '02 pretty much splits up the difference in interior width between my Ranger and dad's F-250.

It is just like buying computers, for just a little more money you can get such a bigger truck that the cheaper one isn't really justifyable until you end up with a monster you don't need and somehow you have spent a lot more money than you meant to. I have heard a lot of people say the F-250 is a waste because for a couple hundred more you can get a F-350, which is far more plausable than killing off the number one selling vehicle (not just truck) in the US.

If I got a F-250, it would be a '97-'98 F-250LD that shared the same body as a half ton, I have no use for the extra bulk. Later they just called it a F-150.

 

[Josh40601]

I have to agree that the F150 is a great truck. As far as the subject of the forum, it does such very much that Ford is killing off the Ranger. I think when it comes to B4B, the ranger is the best in the midsize class. The Tacoma is 27 grand for the extracab v6 and the Frontier is 28 grand for the extracab V6. I honestly think the I5 in the Colorado doesnt have enough "ass" to compare to the V6 in the Ranger. Although the Ranger might not be the nicest of the whole group, I think it serves it purpose as a smaller pickup that can help you move, haul your dirtbike, and still fit into a compact parking spot for a realatively cheap price.

 

[86_cookiemonster]

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.

see not everyone uses their trucks for trail ridding, some people use them for pulling boats, or work trucks, where you need something bigger. I get what you are saying, but to cut the F-150 is like cutting off the foot thats not in the bear trap.

 

[Josh40601]

cutting off the foot thats not in the bear trap.

What the hell does that mean?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What the hell does that mean?

When trapped, animals have been known to chew off limbs to get out of traps. His point was that cutting the F-150 wouldn't improve Fords situation.