Now this from Ford....OMG

[Original_Ranger84]

I agree with that big meeting outside ford... Get all of our rangers old and new and just sit there and revv up and stuff!

Thats BS, I don't think they could do it... for doing almost nothing to the truck for 10 years looks wise and even longer drivetrain wise its still kickin. And the MPG F150 comparison... if you look at it the ranger gets 7/6 mpg better then the f150, how is that similar?assuming they both had 20 gallon tanks. The ranger gets 440/540 miles per tank and the F150 gets 300/420.miles per tank. really similar... it can't even match the rangers city driving. And if people buy the rangers for just crusin (that should already say they don't want a car) why would they buy something bigger that gets worse mileage for the exact same thing?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Thats BS, I don't think they could do it... for doing almost nothing to the truck for 10 years looks wise and even longer drivetrain wise its still kickin. And the MPG F150 comparison... if you look at it the ranger gets 7/6 mpg better then the f150, how is that similar?assuming they both had 20 gallon tanks. The ranger gets 440/540 miles per tank and the F150 gets 300/420.miles per tank. really similar... it can't even match the rangers city driving. And if people buy the rangers for just crusin (that should already say they don't want a car) why would they buy something bigger that gets worse mileage for the exact same thing?

Automatic 2.3 Rangers get 24mpg hwy, automatic 4.6 F-150's get 21, that is twice the truck for 3mpg. The F-150 only gives up 4mpg city. Throw an ecoboost V-6 in the F-150 like they plan to and it would be a blowout compared to the current Ranger drivetrain.

The only hang up on that is no matter what they do, an F-150 will cost more than a compact/midsize... which I highly doubt will go away.

 

[Jason]

I agree with that big meeting outside ford... Get all of our rangers old and new and just sit there and revv up and stuff!

Thats BS, I don't think they could do it... for doing almost nothing to the truck for 10 years looks wise and even longer drivetrain wise its still kickin. And the MPG F150 comparison... if you look at it the ranger gets 7/6 mpg better then the f150, how is that similar?assuming they both had 20 gallon tanks. The ranger gets 440/540 miles per tank and the F150 gets 300/420.miles per tank. really similar... it can't even match the rangers city driving. And if people buy the rangers for just crusin (that should already say they don't want a car) why would they buy something bigger that gets worse mileage for the exact same thing?

Most of the country you will find pickups get driven almost all year while hauling or pulling nothing. People like bigger vehicles apparently.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Most of the country you will find pickups get driven almost all year while hauling or pulling nothing. People like bigger vehicles apparently.

I don't tow or haul everyday, but when I do unless I am hauling brush to the city lawn waste disposal thing a Ranger will not cut it. For hauling hay or tractors I might as well have a car because I will be borrowing a truck from someone either way.

The extra room in the cab (especially for my long legs), space in the bed, power and comparable milage to a 4.0 Ranger sold me on my F-150.

Ranger's have their place, but by the time everyone that doesn't need a truck whatsoever shifts away from them the guy mentioned in the article is concerned that there will not be a huge market for them.

 

[TheTopher]

Sigh. They need to decide what they're doing with the ranger. I do NOT want nor do I need something as large as the f150. as far as the arguement that the f150 would get better mileage with an ecoboost motor the ranger would benefit just as much, most likely more since it's been so long since a drivetrain update. So the ranger wins again, go figure.

 

[Ozwynn]

The Ranger is dieing because Ford intentionally priced it out of the market so they would have a reason for killing off its internal competition to the F150 and the Focus...... Thats right ..... Ford did this on purpose .... it is another example of corporate america telling us what we will buy ...... all the while blaming the market for the demise of the Ranger ..... they would sell more Rangers if they would again offer Base model 4wds like they used to before they got all full of themselves and started marketing it to the Yuppy class.... you know .. the people that tend to buy fad vehicles ......... ofcourse the sales dropped .... the people that used to buy the ranger because they could afford it no longer can and the people that can afford the Ranger would rather have the F-150...... I am getting tired of being dictated too about what I will and won't buy ....... so Ford will not get a dime from me on a new car until I can afford a mustang.

 

[TheTopher]

I agree. When I first started shopping around for a pickup back in roughly 2007 the base price for a Ranger was about $14,500 now it's $3,000 more.


If I wanted an overpriced pickup I'd buy a used toyota, and if they get rid of the Ranger that's exactly what I'll end up doing.

 

[Original_Ranger84]

Automatic 2.3 Rangers get 24mpg hwy, automatic 4.6 F-150's get 21, that is twice the truck for 3mpg. The F-150 only gives up 4mpg city. Throw an ecoboost V-6 in the F-150 like they plan to and it would be a blowout compared to the current Ranger drivetrain.

The only hang up on that is no matter what they do, an F-150 will cost more than a compact/midsize... which I highly doubt will go away.

Yeah but... the manual ranger gets that and there are still people who want a manual, which none of the big trucks offer anymore. Not to mention you only get that good with a big v8 if you drive it just right... where as the 4 cylinder you can tear around on a bit and still achieve that mileage (usually).

My main hate on the F150 is the size... I can't stand how massive these things are compared to my ranger. My ranger fits just right and does everything i need it to do while still being drivable.

 

[Buckeyeman]

The Ranger has always been a very good seller despite their prehistoric engine choices. If Ford would offer the 2.5L diesel and the new Ecoboost 4 cyl. with a manual transmission they would sell like crazy. Not everyone likes to be forced into a automatic. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't afford a F-150 nor would I want one because I don't have the need for towing or payload capacity. I want decent gas mileage and be able to bring home items from a home improvement store or appliances etc. without having to borrow a friends pickup. If the dumb ass bean counters at Ford decide to drop the Ranger it's just going to open up business to the rest of the mfgs. Wait till Kia/Hyundai try their hand at the compact truck segment and sell it fully loaded for $16K-$18K.

 

[mattpresley]

When ford drops the ranger a gotta go with a tacoma . If they keep the ranger they will have me as a loyal customer for a long long time

 

[cohendmr]

Hello every one,
I have turned down GREAT Deals on full sized trucks for my Ranger. It is the perfect size. I only have a 2WD but I use it off hi way all the time working. The bed is a perfect size for me to mount my welder and tanks and still reach everything. I can maneuver it into tight areas around trees, and yes, take it into buildings.
The V6 is a little tired (203984mi) but I can still pull a 16ft trailer with it (Modified to a goose neck configuration w/elec brakes). if I need to haul bulky items. I still get 22mpg avg.
If I need to really move something I will use my 2001 f350 7.3l crew cab short bed or my 69 Chevy C60 flatbed.
Personally, I believe if they want to get rid of anything it should be the f150. It is the most useless size of new truck out there. No fuel economy and no payload.
Most people I know with rangers use them more than people with 150s. I think the truck line should look like this:
Ranger-Great little runaround and work truck
F250- good comprimise between fuel and workit can do.Payload and towing
F350- like the 250, but stick with short bed and use for towing
F550- Best for heavy work and towing
But the above also need the 6spd and the 7.3l back. That is why I havn't traded in my 350. 11-14 mpg with a 4 horse full living quarter trailer in tow. My father in law with the "New improved" auto only 2008 F350 with my trailer gets only 7-9 mpg. He could out pull me a little and has a little better exceleration, But I can pass a fuel station.
enough rant.
Well, if nothing else this is all the more reason to finish getting my other two rangers restored. An 84 that was hit while at the paint shop and a 90 that I let someone borrow and they forgot to put the drain plug in after getting the oil changed and drove it about 150mi.Still runs but kinda rough.Wonder why?
HMMM, I just saw a 92 down the road that just needs a slave cyl and muffler for $250 and I was just told about a 96 4WD that runs but leaks oil...

 

[Jason]

I understand what guys are saying. The Rangers smaller size is nice for some people. I also get buying a Tacoma. I picked up a 2007 TRD Sport and I LOVE THAT TRUCK. It's quiet, rides nice, and handles more than my Ranger could dream of. Plus it has more room. However, there are a few places I like to go that the Ranger JUST makes it with the mirrors folded in and the Tacoma doesn't stand a chance unless I scrape the sides on the trees.

 

[Ranger97XL]

I wish Ford would out a small turbo diesel in the ranger, hell I wish they would offer a diesel in the f150. Don't get me wrong I love my ranger but not having a full back seat really turns me off to buying a new one that and the fact that I can get a f250 with a diesel that gets nearly the same mileage as my ranger? It really makes the ranger look bad especially when diesel prices are cheaper than gas around me, that an diesels don't die.

 

[Spootnuke]

To all whom speak of MPGs. All tests results coming from the Government site are strictly reputible sources that average out how the average daily driver would use the vehicle. Motor companies will do the same thing as well. It will always depend on the condition of the vehicle and the drivers tendencies. Full-size pickups can't be hyper-miled very well without modifications to the vehicles for losing weight. In my B3000, I've gotten 28 combined before. I'm sure if I hyper-mile I could get more. Of course, I shifted at extremely low RPMs to achieve such a high gas-mileage, most likely not healthy for the engine, but i showed that all MPGs are not guaranteed. I'm sure if Ford would hop off of the big oil companies d*cks, we would have our small turbo diesels getting insane mileage. I'm kinda liking the Eco-boosts as well, but not as much diesels because of what diesels are capable of. I like the BT-50 and Ranger Max a bit, wish I could import one from South America, but expenses hurt. What Ford is doing is just like every other corporate business. Looking for ways to profit more with something they're are already profiting with. Businesses almost always never give the customers what they want, and that becomes their downfall. I love Rangers in the sense of their capabilities, light maintenance, strength, and affordability. They are the only small truck left pretty much. If they do this, tons of Ford truck enthusiasts hearts will be crushed including mine.

 

[Ozwynn]

Ford is talking about killing the Ranger in favor of the F150, Dodge is doing away with the Dakota, Chevy is/has done away with the Colorado/Canyon........ infavor of the Full size 1/2 tons ..... Toyota and Nissan are talking about downsizing the Tacoma and Frontier. Mahindra is going to import a pick up that is everything we have been asking for ........ even Suzuki is talking about making a Ranger sized pick up (prolly gonna be more like the VW Rabbit pick up ........ my VW caddy was rated as a 3/4 ton)...... Hyundai and Kia both are exploring a Ranger sized pick up and what about the import the Chinese keep threatening up with ....... it will also be in a pick up platform ......

So go ahead Ford ...... Abandon this market ..........