New USA Ranger

[XLTsplash]

Has anyone found information on a new Ranger for the USA ? Of all the new Ranger pictures I've seen. I like this one best
http://www.carscoops.com/2013/06/future-cars-drafting-modern-light-duty.html

 

[Ford Doctor]

If I was looking for a 2WD, I like the sporty lines. It reminds me alot of the Holden (GM) Utes down in Australia.

But, the truth of the matter is that anywhere I would need the pick-up bed, I would also need some ground clearance to get there.

 

[Road Angels]

another yuppie piece of useless crap, if I wanted something like that I would buy an older ranchero or el camino and restore it

 

[ridgerunner]

What a piece of urban donkey chit!

 

[LearjetMinako]

Ford needs truck engineers when coming up with ideas for a new Ranger. And not the car artists to come up with something for a working truck.

By now, I would think Ford got the hint to bring back the compact truck, but as long as the F-150 sells rule king, they won't bother. Dodge & Nissan got smart about the 1500 class, they are adding diesel engines to their line-up.

 

[straycat]

My Brother-in-law has worked for Ford for 30 years. He has workd at three locations and even worked at one place that made the Rangers. He said that Ford is not bringing the Ranger to the USA. That's why the Sport Trac came out when Ford knew the Ranger was going away.

 

[Mac]

Just how many people use their trucks as trucks? My guess is very few, very often. Do just as well and cheaper to drive getting a $400 trailer with twice the load capacity behind a Honda. As far as the Ford engineers needing to know, take a look at where GM has placed some of the often replaced parts, starter for example. As far as bring the Ranger back, no plant in the US is capable right now, that leaves the world designed one. My self would love to have one of the earlier Pursuits from down under. UTS they call them, like a Ranchero but some came with a 351 DOHC motor. It's a changing world, get used to it.
Dave

 

[OilPatch197]

What really attracted me to the Ranger was the low entry level price, compactness, economy and the minimalistic design.

I've always viewed the Ranger as an 'econobox' not H.D by any means. It was simple in design.


I feel that if the Ranger should ever come back, it needs to be designed as affordable as possible, coupled with a CVT, and get 35 combined mpg. Target it toward college/graduate students that need simple cheap transport.

Something that is very economical, efficient, and can haul a ATV or Bike.

Sort of like how Nissan had designed the Versa Note hatchback, functional and yet very affordable targeting those who would just normally buy a used car from the car lots, and young adults.

 

[adsm08]

It's not coming back, so stop bitching about it.

Also, CVTs suck. For the price to produce vs the actual benefits to be had they are awful. Plus, if you want to build something that is cheap to purchase, a CVT is the last thing you want to put in it, they are more expensive to make than even a manual trans.

 

[Captain Ledd]

That and CVT's have issues dealing with a lot of weight and/or torque. Those in tractors only really work because they're so geared down and only have to put up with small 40-50hp engines, and even they have issues. Of course, those were mostly in the 1960's, now days a hydro-static accomplishes the same thing, but that's a different animal.

CVT's are made for a compact car moving 4 people at most.

 

[ridgerunner]

I think going to a unibody, independent front and rear axles, AWD instead of a real 4X4 with transfer case, gov. mandated nannies, body shaped like an plastic egg, etc, etc. is the wrong friggin' direction. Look at the Jeep Wranger they can't produce them fast enough to keep up with demand! The jeep has solid front and rear axles, they do have the stupid nannies, they are shaped like a bar of Lifeboy. Heck many don't even have a real roof and have removable doors. They ride like a 3/4 ton or larger truck too. Most vehicle manufacturers don't have a clue here in the US. Look at all the great vehicles all across the world that we cannot have. Pisses me off.

 

[OilPatch197]

CVT's, EVCT's are the future people. It certainly would work in a light duty vehicle like the econobox Ranger. CVT's are much better, even from a year ago, it is new tech and it's going to get better. You're all bitching cause you want to slap some solid axles on it, and take it off roading!!!!

I think going to a unibody, independent front and rear axles, AWD instead of a real 4X4 with transfer case, gov. mandated nannies, body shaped like an plastic egg, etc, etc. is the wrong friggin' direction.

and this my friends is why it will NEVER return! It will never return as a pure pickup truck, EVER!!!! The F-150 is *the* truck Ford is pushing, period. Like I said, if the Ranger comes back, it will be a low priced econobox, or some new fangled imbred vehicle.

 

[ridgerunner]

CVT's, EVCT's are the future people. It certainly would work in a light duty vehicle like the econobox Ranger. CVT's are much better, even from a year ago, it is new tech and it's going to get better. You're all bitching cause you want to slap some solid axles on it, and take it off roading!!!!




and this my friends is why it will NEVER return! It will never return as a pure pickup truck, EVER!!!! The F-150 is *the* truck Ford is pushing, period. Like I said, if the Ranger comes back, it will be a low priced econobox, or some new fangled imbred vehicle.

Yup inbred with severe birth defects for sure! CVT's are fairly new to cars but have been around for decades in snowmobiles and ATV's. I've got one on my wife's subaru outback. It has a chain driven CVT (similar to a transfer case)instead of a belt though and is submursed in ATF fluid (i believe).

 

[straycat]

My Nissan 2010 AWD Rogue has the CVT and I pull my 17ft Flats boat and my trailer a few times a month and never had any issues in the 4 years I have owned it. This is my first ride with a CVT.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

That and CVT's have issues dealing with a lot of weight and/or torque. Those in tractors only really work because they're so geared down and only have to put up with small 40-50hp engines, and even they have issues. Of course, those were mostly in the 1960's, now days a hydro-static accomplishes the same thing, but that's a different animal.

CVT's are made for a compact car moving 4 people at most.

I would rather have a CVT over a hydrostat, at least they can be user rebuildable. Nothing cheap about working on a hydrostat.

I would rather have a straight belt drive transmission in my lawn mower than any of them though. Same goes for a real tractor or combine I didn't plan on trading in every few years.

CVT's seem VERY popular in ATV's nowadays. My brother has one in his Polaris 500 and it works very nice.