Sevensecondsuv

I don't know. Perhaps you should ask Mulally himself since he has spoken of a new Ranger in regards to the US market multiple times recently. Market trends are not static (now we're talking about 2nd-order derivitives for those of us who remember calculus ). The compact/midsize market could just as well pick up again. If gas prices increase substantially, it only makes sense that it would. With CAFE coming, the auto makers might not even have a choice.

There is a difference between the Camry/Fusion and Tacoma/Ranger. In the case of the sedans, Camry had been a market leader for years and Ford introduced a brand new model without any name recognition or history. 4 Years later, the Fusion is considered a success by any reasonable person. In the case of the pickups, Ranger has a very established name and history and dominated the market for years. Tacoma definately has its core buyers who won't even consider any thing else, but I'd venture to guess that these are not the majority of Tacoma buyers (I don't have the data to prove it, but you don't have the data to disprove it either). Rather, a lot of Tacoma buyers are just in the market for a well-appointed, class leading compact/midsize pickup, and the Tacoma happens to be it. Heck, even as much as I dislike Toyota, I'd have bought one by now was the manual trans available in the crew cab. To think that Ford couldn't come out with a new Ranger and, building off it's strong history, once again dominate the market, is naive. Toyota sells a lot of $25K-$35K Tacomas. The market isn't all about 15K 2wd regular cabs like some here make it out to be. Throw in a new purpose-built offroad SUV on the platform to help the business case. To say that the current compact/midsize truck market won't support a devoted platform is ludicrous, given that it's apparently possible to make money on products like the Flex and Mustang. A new Ranger is coming. Mulally and Ford's other brass have unofficially stated as much. The coming CAFE regs demand it. No, it probably won't be here by the time the current Ranger quits production. Ford is just keeping mum about it. I, personally, can't wait to see what they have planned.

The first post in a while based on fact instead of opinion. The problem is that fact doesn't make for lively debate.

Nope, actually the frames were all identical, unless you were getting a 4x4 F-350 with a solid front axle. Then the front bracketry was slightly different than the TTB-equipped F-150 and F-250. Heck, a lot of those same frame components were (and still are) used on the Ranger. And people wonder why you can't kill a Ranger...

I hope you're right. As much as I don't like it, I can see Ford's case for the D3 based Explorer. I just can't see a similar case for a small pickup. I was more referring to the new unibody, front-wheel-drive architecture Explorer, and killing the CV without a RWD replacement in the works. I've got nothing but Kudos for Ford with what they did with the new Mustang. The new engines for the F-150 are also outstanding. Nothing but praise there either. I am, however, still pouting about the cancellation of an available manual transmission in the F-Series. (Although I do understand why Ford did that one - I must be one of a minute minority who actually prefers a manual transmission in a full-size or heavy-duty pickup)

Amen to that. Now let's just hope they don't neuter it in the process. Given Ford's recent product decisions, I'm sure you can understand why I'm fearful of that happening.

Yeah, I remember that. The Probe was supposed to the be the "Mustang of the future". For some reason, that FWD/V6 replacement for a RWD/V8 muscle car was just an impossibly tough sell. But don't worry, selling a Fiesta as a replacement for the Ranger will be a piece of cake!

I'm with you 100% on that one. I, however, will give Ford the benefit of the doubt and assume that there will be a Ranger replacement in 2-3 years. If they keep it as a real truck (i.e. it'd better have a frame, a live axle in the rear, a north-south engine, and a low-range transfercase on the 4x4 models) I'll be first in line to buy one. On the other hand, if what they come out with is on a unibody platform or has the engine pointing the wrong way, then forget about it. I'd sooner drive my 92 Explorer for another 20 years. Heck. I'd rather walk. Fortunately though, I won't have to. Someone will build such a vehicle, despite the fact that the marketing experts at Ford have declared it "unprofitable". Oh, and it's laughable that Ford actually thinks I'd consider a Fiesta or Transit Connect. You want me to buy a FWD, sub-compact econobox (no matter how gussied-up it is) or a small stripped down front wheel drive 4-cylinder excuse for a van to replace a Ranger. Ha Ha Ha is all I have to say. And no, I won't even consider a 3-ton, $40K F-150 either. Just when I was starting to think that Ford finally knew what they were doing and making good decisions. All I have to say is that they better have plans for a new NA Ranger and are just being tight lipped about it.

But this is the US. Truck buyers (Ranger buyers included) here are a bit different. Most will run far and fast from a truck with a unibody or fwd. Hence the failure of the Ridgeline. My personal preference for a BOF/RWD platform is based on ease of maintence, repair, modification, and the fact that a frame holds up to continued daily beatings without issue. All attributes that are important in any size pickup. While there are some pretty stout unibody platforms running around out there, there is a reason they divide the BOF and unibodies vehicles into different classes at the demolition derbys.

I agree. We don't need another dodge dakota - i.e. 90% of the size with the same fuel economy. I would rather wait a few years and have them get the size right rather than rushing the T6 here and compromising on size. Also, building a 2-door SUV off the new platform could help the business case I'd think. I think we can all agree that something is coming - Ford just hasn't said what yet. Mulally's been saying "new Ranger" too much lately for it to not be true. Lets just hope he isn't talking about some FWD unibodied fiesta or escape based thing. Honda already tried that and proved that unibody pickups are a bad idea. Also, with CAFE coming, Ford has to realize that they'll need a small pickup with great MPGs unless they're planning on making the F-150 a LOT smaller and lighter.

While I may not "like" a 25-30k price tag on a new Ranger, that is the going price of nicely equipped vehicle nowadays that the average person can be comfortable driving every day. I mean, what else am I going to buy for cheaper? The Fiesta and Focus are both too small for me. The smallest thing I could fit in would be a Fusion, but then again it only takes me about 0.5 miles to get sick of driving around in a FWD. That takes Taurus, Edge, Flex, Escape, and Explorer off the list as well. A 5.0 6-speed stick mustang would be awesome but I can't bring myself to pay 35 grand for something so impractical for everything except getting speeding tickets. I have no inclination to drive (or fuel) something the size of the current F-150 day in and day out. I like the panthers and current Ranger, but why should I spend $$$ to get the same powertrains and associated gas mileage as I already have parked in my driveway. Shiny new paint isn't worth that much. And people wonder why I'm still driving junk from the early 90s when I could easily afford a new car (that and I do all my own maintenance, which really makes driving an old truck very cheap). And so I sit waiting for a new Ranger so I can finally buy a new vehicle... Oh heck Yeah! Back when mine was still naturally aspirated, I loved that truck! I almost regret turbocharging it. I've had most iterations of Rangers over the years and the 4-banger is the only way to go in a 2wd. I'm actually pretty impressed with the current 2.3L / 5-spd stick powertrain in the current Ranger. The only thing stopping me from buying one is that it would be foolish to get anything but a crew cab now that my single days are over and kids are probably in the not-too-distant future. Although I think the 2.3 might be a little weak for a crew cab, even if it was only a 2wd crew cab. I'd have no qualms about an Ecoboost 4-cyl crew cab though. My first hand experience with a 4-cylinder turbo motor in a Ranger tells me it'd be plenty for even a crew cab 4x4.

Meh - My other driver - a lifted 92 Explorer Sport (2 door with a 102" wheelbase!) has to be far more rollover-prone than a crew cab Ranger with 30" more wheelbase. I've been driving that thing for 8 years / 130,000 miles and never even come close to rolling it. I've even had it sliding sideways a time or two (on purpose most of the time ) You can understand why I might think the rollover thing is way overblown. Then again a bad enough driver is capable of rolling just about anything.

Maybe if you accept the NHTSA ratings as gospel - which, unfortunately, many shoppers do because they didn't pay enough attention in high school physics to make a judgment for themselves. I really don't want to get started on a whole new debate - but the problem with those NTHSA tests is that only one object is ever moving. They never take two moving vehicles and smash them into each other. If you have enough physics/engineering background to understand the energy principals at work during a crash, you can see why these crash tests can't really accurately predict what's going to happen in the real world. For instance, NTHSA says that the Smart Fortwo does OK in a front end collision with a concrete barrier (note that the only thing with kinetic energy is the Smart car itself in this situation). Out in the real world, that car in a head-on with a 6000 lb SUV gets strewn all over the pavement. The NTHSA test didn't predict this because it didn't take into account the massive amount of kinetic energy the SUV brought to the collision. The real world crashes I've seen (I spend a lot of time in junkyards collecting parts) tell me that there are far less safe vehicles than compact pickups. But then again, a five-star rating from the government (the most trustworthy source for everything...NOT) does a much better job of selling cars than a long winded physics discussion.

You just can't seem to understand. I know plenty of people, myself included, who would pay 27k for a nicely optioned 4-door 4x4 Ranger. It's not all about capability, and even then the Ranger has plenty for most people. The F-150 is a nice truck, but it is a very large truck. For a lot of people, that size gets very annoying to drive around, park, and fuel as a daily driver. A Ranger sized vehicle that will still do truck jobs they need it to makes more sense than an oversized F-150. The current Ranger is rated to tow 6000 some lbs. Think about how much trailer that is.... That's a 2010 Taurus on a two-axle flatbed trailer. 90% of home owners (or anyone else looking for a daily driver / chore truck) don't need more towing capacity than that. As for gas mileage, look at what the 3.5L is getting in the Edge, which has a similar frontal area and curb weight as the Ranger. I suspect a 3.5L 4x4 Ranger could do 18/25 MPG. That is significantly better than a 4x4 F-150. A 2wd extended cab 4-banger ecoboost Ranger could probably do 22/32 pretty easily for those who want even better mileage.

That's what the current F-150 is compared to my 95. The bed in my 95 is a full 8' long (compared to the 4.5' and 6.5' beds commonly found on full-size pickups with extended/crew cabs these days), a little wider (not sure how much exactly), and most importantly, has a bedside heigth that the average 6' tall male can easily reach into - unlike the current 4x4 F-150s. As for the Ranger bed being useless - I think not! And that's based on my personal real-world experience. You'd be amazed at some of the things I've managed to haul in a 4-banger Ranger....

Actually, quite often. I swapped the rear end (and front differential, since it's a 4x4) on my Explorer after I put bigger tires on it. Swapping a rear end with 3.73 gears was about 4 times cheaper than installing 3.73 gears in the old rear end would have been. When I turbocharged the Ranger, the old 7.5" axle wasn't going to be stout enough, so I bolted in an 8.8 from an Explorer. I'm getting ready to swap the 3.08 geared 8.8 axle out of my F-150 in favor of a big-bearing 9 inch with 4.10 gears from an 83 Bronco. I've also helped friends swap rear ends numerous times - Chevy 10 bolt rear axles seem to need replacement every 100,000 miles. Also, leaf-sprung live axles are not allignable - meaning you never have to spend money on a rear-end allignment. IRS means you have to pay for a rear alignment any time you replace ball joints, bushings, change tire size, etc, etc.

Well, there are 4 more u-joints (or CV joints, depending on specific model) to wear out and need replaced. Also, IRS is coil sprung, vs. leaf sprung for the majority of live axles in trucks. Leaf springs are much easier to modify for a different spring rate (something that is usually done only once the truck is old and hauling a big load is more important than a comfy ride). Leaf sprung live axles are also lifted much easier. Finally swapping out a live axle is as simple as sawzalling 4 u-bolts, disconnecting two brake lines, 2 shocks, and 4 bolts at the drive shaft / pinion flange. Swapping an IRS unit is much more complicated. Don't get me wrong, I love the IRS in our Lincoln LS. I even think that it made sense in the Expedition and outgoing Explorer. But in a pickup truck, I prefer the simplicity of a leaf sprung live axle. It wouldn't even be a deal-breaker for me if the new Ranger ends up with IRS (doubtful, given that the more expensive F-150 has a leaf-sprung live axle). It's just the straw that broke the camel's back in the case of the Sport Trac.

Exactly. I'm starting to get a little sick of bouncing around in a 20 year old pickup day in and day out but the stupid thing wont die. I mean, it never even breaks down. Why should I spend 20 grand to get a newer version of the same thing I already have that isn't broken? However, now that I'm married and kids are probably in the not-to-distant future, a new crew cab Ranger would really fit the bill for me - if only they made such a thing. FWIW, the sport trac won't work for me because: 1. The V6 powertrain isn't any good. 2. There's no manual transmission option. 3. I just can't accept IRS on a pickup truck. Nor do I want the more complex maintenance tasks that go along with it.

Here's something for you guys to chew on: I own both a Ranger and an F-150. The ranger is a 1990 regular cab 4-banger 5-spd with a 2.3 turbo motor retrofitted from a 1988 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe (with 265k miles on everything but the motor). The F-150 is a 1995 regular cab 4x4 with a straight six and auto trans (for now, until I get to swapping a ZF heavy duty 5-spd). Guess which one I drive every day? Yep, the Ranger. It's much more nimble, gets 25 mpg to the F-150's 18 mpg, is SO much easier to park, actually fits through the 8' wide garage door without folding the mirrors in, etc etc etc. The only time the F-150 gets driven is if I'm hauling a bed full of dirt or lumber or towing anything bigger than the 3500 lbs the Ranger is comfortable with. Before I had the F-150 I just used the Ranger to haul everything. Until you've abused one like I have, you really have no idea just how much the little buggers are capable of. I would venture to say that even the current Ranger provides more capability than 75% of retail truck buyers need - It's just that people are afraid to push a truck to its limits. If Ford built a new Ranger with a real 4-5 passenger crew cab, a current fuel-efficient powertrain (like they're putting in everything else lately), and kept the BOF design with it's current towing, hauling, and 4x4 capacity, I'd have no problem spending 25 - 30 grand on such a vehicle. I don't care if I could get a stripper F-150 crew cab for the same price. My brother has an 06 F-150 4x4 extended cab. Driving that thing reminds of driving a bus. Why the heck would I want to mess with driving something that huge just to get to work every day?

Yeah, I'd just love to see a significant recall for an under-car issue on nearly 20-year old vehicles. The fix would undoubtedly be some sort of modification to the rear frame and/or suspension and/or gas tank. The repair would go something like this: "Yes, sir. We had to total your vehicle because the bolts we have to remove to install the modification were only rusty stubs at this point..." At least here in the salt belt that is... And no, I don't think there is an issue here. Dumb drivers roll SUVs. It doesn't take much of a crash (in ANY vehicle) to knock loose and/or puncture a big plastic gas tank. Statistics show that these vehicles were no worse than most any other model.

I've had my hands on plenty of 93-97 4x4 4-bangers. Never seen a 98+ 4x4 4-banger though. If you get the 3.73 or 4.10 gears and keep the tire size to 235/75R15 or smaller they're not that terrible. Not fast at all, but they'll still go highway speeds with a loaded bed. There is slower stuff on the road.

That's how I see it as well.

And there-in lies my beef with Ford about the new Explorer. The new "4x4" system doesn't have a low range gear. Therefore, it's not really a 4x4, it should be labeled as an AWD. Don't get me wrong, the new Explorer will appeal to the masses and I'm sure Ford will make a good profit off it. I completely understand why Ford did what they did with it. I just find it annoying that they insist on twisting the definition of 4x4, because it really shouldn't wear a 4x4 badge when it's really an AWD. This is the same beef I had with the Ridgeline or other vehicles marketed as an SUV that are clearly CUVs. It just bugs me when manufacturers use misleading labeling. But like I said, the manufacturers throw these terms around pretty loosely. Of course, as we all know, perception makes a far better sales tool than reality when you're trying to sell vehicles to people without the mechanical background to understand the differences.

While the manufacturers throw the terms around pretty loosely to suit their marketing preference of the day, my personal definitions are as follows: SUV = RWD/4x4 drivetrain wagon type vehicle with the ride heigth / ground clearance of a pickup. Typically built off of a pickup BOF platform, although there have been some notable unibody exceptions (Cherokees and Grand Cherokee, etc). CUV = FWD/AWD (there are a few luxury RWD exceptions) drivetrain wagon type vehicle with a ride height generally greater than a sedan but slightly less than a comparably sized pickup truck. Unibody construction is used exclusively (I can't think of a BOF CUV as I'm typing this). Station Wagon = Wagon type vehicle with the ride heigth of a sedan. Can be built off of a RWD BOF platform (fullsize - such as the Crown Vic wagon when they existed), or a FWD Unibody platform (compact or midsize - such as the Focus wagon when it existed) Since someone is bound to ask (the manufacturers throw these terms around loosely as well): 4x4 = Drivetrain capable of driving all 4 wheels. Always has a low-range gear. Based exclusively off of RWD architectures. AWD = Drivetrain capable of driving all 4 wheels. Never has a low-range gear. Based primarily off of FWD architectures but there are some AWD systems built of RWD architectures (namely in AWD luxury sedans / crossovers)

I, for one Ranger loyalist, despite being intrigued by the EB 3.5L, won't be moving into an F-150 until: 1. It's available with a manual transmission 2. It gets at least 8" narrower 3. Has a bed side height that I can confortably reach into with minimal effort (I'm 6'-1") 4. It loses 500 - 1000 lbs 5. Has an available powertrain that does 25 mpg on the highway. Now I realize that while #3, #5, and possibly even #4 probably have a reasonable chance of actually happening sometime in the future, it's wishful thinking that #1 and #2 will ever happen. If Ford is the 1st to offer such a vehicle, I'll buy it. If Toyota, GM or Nissan does it and Ford refuses, I'll swallow hard and buy the competition.