Ford to end Ranger Production in 2011

[85_Ranger4x4]

If they try to cram a manual down my throat, I will go across the street to someone else.

Since a current Ranger can't do any more for me than my '85, I don't have much interest in buying a new one anyway.

 

[SpeedNinja]

Think the value on the current trucks will go up or down after they kill them off?

I wonder how many would still be against it if they kept the Ranger name?

People have been crying wanting Super Crews forever, been wanting Ecoboost since it came out, wanting more room in the cab forever... and now that they finally get it they are saying they hate it and think it is stupid that Ford is redesigning a 12 year old platform and that they are so perfect they way they are. Now all the sudden they don't need the updates they have been screaming for over the past couple years... it all makes so much sense

Most of us wanted an expansion of the current vehicle, not the vehicle we could've already had, otherwise we'd already have it. I don't want a massive F150.

I'd have to agree with lub997, Ford is making a big mistake getting rid of the Ranger. Just give the people what they want a 2.5L Duratorq diesel 4 cyl. with a stick that gets some mpg's, quit shoving these automatics down our throats just because the younger generation don't know how to drive stick's while texting. I'm glad I ordered my 2010 when I did. I'm averaging 23 mpg in suburban driving with a stick, 4 cyl.

I hate automatics. I've actually offered to teach people how to drive manual in my truck. 99% of my foreign friends all drive manuals. Honestly, if my old Focus wagon was a manual, I probably wouldn't have sold it.
And it's not that hard to text and drive a manual, without crashing.

 

[4x4junkie]

I wonder how many would still be against it if they kept the Ranger name?

People have been crying wanting Super Crews forever, been wanting Ecoboost since it came out, wanting more room in the cab forever... and now that they finally get it they are saying they hate it and think it is stupid that Ford is redesigning a 12 year old platform and that they are so perfect they way they are. Now all the sudden they don't need the updates they have been screaming for over the past couple years... it all makes so much sense

I would.
Why do I need a big bloated-out *almost* fullsize truck to haul home a few bags of potting soil from the nursery?? Or to take my bike out riding? Or just to drive normally?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I would.
Why do I need a big bloated-out *almost* fullsize truck to haul home a few bags of potting soil from the nursery?? Or to take my bike out riding? Or just to drive normally?

Why do you need to a small truck to do what a car can do anyway?

I used to haul my 26" mountain bike in the back of my car (hatchback). It fit fine with the front wheel off (had a knock off hub) I am not a gardener so I never hauled bags of dirt but I don't see a problem with the mentioned few. Of course driving normally or even abnormally the car beats the snot out of a truck too. Mine didn't notice a crosswind unless it was almost a tornado, had 200hp, ran like a mad monkey, and got close to 30mpg. My Ranger is about the opposite on all counts.

The Ranger isn't selling all that well, so apparently many don't feel they need one.

BTW, I have heard that the F-100 is dead anyway. V-6 F-150's are all you get.

http://www.freep.com/article/201009...-trucks-won-t-be-sold-in-N.-America-after--11

 

[4x4junkie]

Why do you need to a small truck to do what a car can do anyway?

I used to haul my 26" mountain bike in the back of my car (hatchback). It fit fine with the front wheel off (had a knock off hub) I am not a gardener so I never hauled bags of dirt but I don't see a problem with the mentioned few. Of course driving normally or even abnormally the car beats the snot out of a truck too. Mine didn't notice a crosswind unless it was almost a tornado, had 200hp, ran like a mad monkey, and got close to 30mpg. My Ranger is about the opposite on all counts.

The Ranger isn't selling all that well, so apparently many don't feel they need one.

BTW, I have heard that the F-100 is dead anyway. V-6 F-150's are all you get.

http://www.freep.com/article/201009...-trucks-won-t-be-sold-in-N.-America-after--11

Ok... Perhaps I should've been a little more clear...

Why do I need a big huge truck to take my DIRT MOTORCYCLE out riding?

They were merely examples. I don't see a refrigerator or something like that fitting well in a car either (and of course a car also ain't gonna do too well offroad lol). I could go on forever about uses that a small truck fits perfectly for, where an F-150 would be excessive (the only thing I see the F-150 good for is towing a large trailer or boat, something I've never needed to do)

I will agree on one thing, we certainly have become a society of excesses. I do not wish to be a part of it as much as possible.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

And I could go on and on about all the things that a Ranger is too small for that a F-150 is just right for.

Compare. If you are in the truck building business and if you want to make money, what kind of truck would you build that people want? Also consider that fleets are stocking up on bare bones Rangers while they are available with little profit to be made for Ford, so normal civilian trucks are fewer than the 4k shown for last month and the 40k for the year.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/09/august-2010-year-to-date-top-10-pickup-truck-sales.html

 

[4x4junkie]

When is the last time you saw a TV commercial for a Ranger?
I think Ford is purposely allowing sales numbers to dwindle down to levels where they can then have an excuse to can it completely rather than freshen it up to make it more appealing to the masses (You would've thought when the gas crunch hit hard a couple years ago the industry would've learned something, but I guess not).

I'm actually debating whether to buy a 2WD 2011 Ranger and try to make it fit my needs, or just continue keeping my old '94 up (I want a 4x4 std cab stick. 4.0 would've been nice too, though the current 4cyl does have a hair more HP than my '90 2.9L V6, which has proven to be adequate for my uses).

Anyway, if you have the need (want?) for a bigger truck, then by all means go get one. I simply don't need one though, and I will not own something I don't need (this thread shows pretty well that I'm also not alone). I do appreciate the concern though.

 

[superds]

When is the last time you saw a TV commercial for a Ranger?
I think Ford is purposely allowing sales numbers to dwindle down to levels where they can then have an excuse to can it completely rather than freshen it up to make it more appealing to the masses (You would've thought when the gas crunch hit hard a couple years ago the industry would've learned something, but I guess not).

I think you are spot on with this. They don't want to sell the Ranger. They want to sell F150s. They want to keep the F Series as the number one selling truck. If they do build an F100 it will only be to supplement the F Series sales numbers in a continuing effort to be number one.

I suspect that if Ford had their way they would sell three models, the Tudor, the Fordor, and the F Series, possibly all only available in black, just like the Model T.

 

[darkspork]

With all the new engine options for the new F-150 it sorta makes sense. A 3.7, 3.5 twin turbo, 5.0, and 6.2 are the four options I believe, and the 3.7 gets over 30mpg in the Mustang so I imagine it should get better than 20 in an F-150. I still prefer the smaller size of the Ranger though. Not that it matters to me anyways, If I am gonna have a Ranger, it is going to have TTB. No if's (lol), and's or but's.

As a primary vehicle I guess the size could make sense. The backseat in the F-150 is big enough, even in the extended cab. The F-150 is a damn nice truck, I've put some miles on them at work and they are more comfortable rides than the Ranger (in my opinion), but I'd have to fold to mirrors to make it fit in my garage (and it would still stick out).

I'd have to agree with lub997, Ford is making a big mistake getting rid of the Ranger. Just give the people what they want a 2.5L Duratorq diesel 4 cyl. with a stick that gets some mpg's, quit shoving these automatics down our throats just because the younger generation don't know how to drive stick's while texting. I'm glad I ordered my 2010 when I did. I'm averaging 23 mpg in suburban driving with a stick, 4 cyl.

This is what kills the 2011 F-150 for me. I just looked at the numbers for the engines they'll be using and they all look pretty good. But for my own vehicle, I just don't want an automatic. Why can't Ford mate the 3.7L to a 6 speed manual? I know they have a 6 speed manual that bolts to the 3.7L
Ideally, Ford could offer a Ranger with all the things that made me want a Ranger over an F-150. I don't see why they can't make the manual available with one trim level, maybe they could call that trim level "Ranger", it has a nice sound to it.

If I were in the market to buy a new truck I would love to consider the 2011 F-150 but the configuration would have to be as follows:
Extended Cab
Either 3.7L or 3.5 Ecoboost
manual transmission
4 wheel drive
Also it should get slightly better gas mileage than my Ranger, which doesn't seem to be a problem for the F-150. I know this is a tall order so if I need a new truck it will probably be a Tacoma.

Sorry for bringing back up an old topic but I wanted to express my feelings on the whole "F-150 as a Ranger replacement" thing. But I guess discontinuing the Dakota hasn't hurt Ram sales, so I'm just pissing into the wind.