Is This Maybe The New 09 Ford Ranger?

[bobbywalter]

Trucks get about the same milage that they did 20 years ago... Unless they get have the variable engine displacement or are a hybrid.

you forgot to add they also have balls now and iron content along with all the frilly girlie stuff.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

you forgot to add they also have balls now and iron content along with all the frilly girlie stuff.

Sorry, I would rather have a 250hp fullsize truck that got 25mpg than a 400hp one that gets 15mpg.

There is no way modern trucks have more steel in them than older ones, or at least my 2002 doesn't.

 

[hey-you]

Well, the second one is the Ford Ranger, but European version.... they sell them in the UK and anywhere else that is right hand drive, smaller diesel engine.

I was just in the UK, had my B4000 there as well.... went by the local british ford dealer looking to get a couple of parts... he offered to buy my truck on the spot,but couldn't source the parts. His comment was that Ford Europe and Ford America haven't alligned all there divisions as of yet and still make european specific and north americna specific vehicle... regardless of the fact that some of them would likely import well into either market.

My truck ended up having things like the side repeater light added to it to bring it in line with the brit auto standards. All other parts had to come through an auto importing company.... they'd bring in north american trucks and mod them for the brit roads....

 

[addiman09]

the first alright, but they should stick with the 08, it looks much cleaner, the 09 looks like luxury, rangers are offroading badass machines, not made for leisure

 

[bobbywalter]

Sorry, I would rather have a 250hp fullsize truck that got 25mpg than a 400hp one that gets 15mpg.

There is no way modern trucks have more steel in them than older ones, or at least my 2002 doesn't.

you may want to tak an 85 to the scales...and an 08...


i dont think its the extra plastic....girlie frillie stuff adding the weight.


and wheres this 250 hp fullsize truck that gets 25 mpg????i must of missed that...i remember the early 80 302 pullin 20 on the tag...but it was a nutless wheezer too. try towing 10 k with that and be comfortable.


i do get your point though, as i too am not impressed with the trade offs...


our cars are so clean now that they realized some of the smog problems originate in china...nice clean truck...15 mpg....hmmm.


i say make em light weight like the 80's and toss the safety standards and get 30 mpg....

 

[exbass94]

i say make em light weight like the 80's and toss the safety standards and get 30 mpg....

Oh yea, tossing safety standards is a real good idea...I can really use that extra gas money when I'm dead from an accident I should have survived...

 

[bobbywalter]

Oh yea, tossing safety standards is a real good idea...I can really use that extra gas money when I'm dead from an accident I should have survived...

well, holding 2 times the vehicles wt....with its roof is something thats adding weight to vehicles...


this is not needed from what i got out of your post...since the earlier trucks (which are not) are so much heavier and beefier and yet they can not do that...and were not required to do so...regardless. so what changed...more gravity? or less capable drivers?

so why is it needed now? build an 88 ranger with todays powertrain technology so it can perform just as well as todays vehicles with less power...meet tighter emmisions, and get much better fuel economy then possible with todays heavier trucks....

or would that be unsafe? cause i know my antiquated standards unsafe truck has been rolled a few times...

and i am still here.

it sure as hell isnt as safe as a ranger being built today....maybe it should be outlawed??


throw em all in the scrapper??? " unsafe at any speed "

"accident i should have survived"

what constituates that????



riiiight....

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

you may want to tak an 85 to the scales...and an 08...


i dont think its the extra plastic....girlie frillie stuff adding the weight.


and wheres this 250 hp fullsize truck that gets 25 mpg????i must of missed that...i remember the early 80 302 pullin 20 on the tag...but it was a nutless wheezer too. try towing 10 k with that and be comfortable.


i do get your point though, as i too am not impressed with the trade offs...


our cars are so clean now that they realized some of the smog problems originate in china...nice clean truck...15 mpg....hmmm.


i say make em light weight like the 80's and toss the safety standards and get 30 mpg....

As I recall the last time I weighed my Ranger it tipped the scales at about 3700lbs, it will be tough to even weigh a 2008 as they do not make one in the same configuration as mine anymore (4x4, std cab, longbox with a V-6)

My 250hp fullsize that got 25mpg is a hypothetical new truck, not a dinosaur drug out of the 1980's. IMO there is more to a truck than obsene horsepower, and it is nice for a normal person to be able to feed it. A 400hp half ton that gets 15mpg empty is very real. It is very possible for them to make them more effiecent, but it will cost horsepower.

I never said older trucks are stronger or safer. As I walk around my 2002 F-150 I note the thin bodypanels, aluminum hood, giant aluminum cylinder heads, plastic intake manifold, plastic valve covers, and noted that all that is steel (or more of it) or cast iron on a older truck, thus my statement about newer trucks not having as much iron as older ones. They have taken it out of places it isn't really needed due to both cost and weight.

 

[bobbywalter]

As I recall the last time I weighed my Ranger it tipped the scales at about 3700lbs, it will be tough to even weigh a 2008 as they do not make one in the same configuration as mine anymore (4x4, std cab, longbox with a V-6)

My 250hp fullsize that got 25mpg is a hypothetical new truck, not a dinosaur drug out of the 1980's. IMO there is more to a truck than obsene horsepower, and it is nice for a normal person to be able to feed it. A 400hp half ton that gets 15mpg empty is very real. It is very possible for them to make them more effiecent, but it will cost horsepower.

I never said older trucks are stronger or safer. As I walk around my 2002 F-150 I note the thin bodypanels, aluminum hood, giant aluminum cylinder heads, plastic intake manifold, plastic valve covers, and noted that all that is steel (or more of it) or cast iron on a older truck, thus my statement about newer trucks not having as much iron as older ones. They have taken it out of places it isn't really needed due to both cost and weight.

ahhh.

well then it seems i am in agreement with you then.

they have been making 250 hp trucks that can tap at 25 for a few years now. 2wd gm 4.8 reg cabs.

30 mpg hybrid things are in final development....but thats gonna cost...guys who just need work trucks like me are always left out in the cold...


and i sure as hell think it can be better as well.


i want a plain ass non bling 4 door one ton under 25k.....250 hp diesel is fine with me...the 95 i own cracks 20 with the racks off and pulls ok with 750+k on it.....

plenty enough for me. would be great if it was offered as at least a choice.

40-50 g for 15 mpg with a tail wind...

 

[Downfall_2031]

Damn

This is why we need jobs of building them HERE AGAIN. Look at that Euro styled piece of . My daddy said "you cant polish a turd!" but I guess over there they can.

Tell ya what fab me any gen. ranger with a universal engine compartment for ANY drivetrain ever put in one, have the engine in a crate in the bed that I request with all elec.& hardware, and all of it sittin on the suspension and drivetrain that I specify, and SELL IT TO ME....I WILL DO THE REST! aUSSIE or NOT.

 

[mitch4x4]

maybe Nissan and ford are having connections, to MAJOR dealerships just joined together here in Canada just down the highway from me. and guess who it was Nissan and ford joined to make one dealership..you cant tell me they didn't get permission from the big cheese before they made such a move. I know Chevy was going to buy or do deals with Nissan maybe ford bet them to the punch.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

maybe Nissan and ford are having connections, to MAJOR dealerships just joined together here in Canada just down the highway from me. and guess who it was Nissan and ford joined to make one dealership..you cant tell me they didn't get permission from the big cheese before they made such a move. I know Chevy was going to buy or do deals with Nissan maybe ford bet them to the punch.

There is a Ford/Lincoln/Mercury/Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Mazda/Nissan/Porsche dealership right down the road from me. I don't think they are all that picky about what names they can sell.

http://www.woodhouse.com/

 

[arkitekt1]

IMO the first generation Rangers were the best looking. My '03 FX4 isn't bad looking, better than most new trucks on the market, but you can't beat the Gen 1's.

 

[Timo99]

Both suck. If Ford puts either of those for sale, the Ranger as we know it is doomed.

 

[dude772]

Both suck. If Ford puts either of those for sale, the Ranger as we know it is doomed.

Its doomed anyway. They have made 2 dates to kill it off. One was for the ranger to end this year, but they extended it to 2011 or 2012. So were going to have to say bye bye ranger soon enough.


I'd buy the orange one in a heart beat. Gimmie ex cab big motor, 4x4 and liftability for the same price tag as the 08 ranger!