TeamFord Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 This is what the next Ranger should be. http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...12070&st=0# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 This is what the next Ranger should be.http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...12070&st=0# Ummm No. That thing is awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Ummm No. That thing is awful. Be nice.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 (edited) Be nice.... Ok. Umm, I'd really rather not see that as a Ranger. Really. lol No seriously, the body design has some potential. Drop the creases in the doors, the fake hood scoop and dont have it low riding, it's a pickup truck not a low rider. The bed seems a little too short or maybe the cab is too long. I like the headlamps and grill though, the greenhouse is decent. Edited June 8, 2007 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Ok. Umm, I'd really rather not see that as a Ranger. Really. lol No seriously, the body design has some potential. Drop the creases in the doors, the fake hood scoop and dont have it low riding, it's a pickup truck not a low rider. The bed seems a little too short or maybe the cab is too long. I like the headlamps and grill though, the greenhouse is decent. It's a photochop of a Flex, give the guy a bit of a break... Actually, I too think the Flex could provide cues to a decent Ranger. The old Ranger looked a lot like the old Club Wagons, ergo, why not turn to the new Club Wagon for ideas.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 It's a photochop of a Flex, give the guy a bit of a break... Actually, I too think the Flex could provide cues to a decent Ranger. The old Ranger looked a lot like the old Club Wagons, ergo, why not turn to the new Club Wagon for ideas.... Yeah I could see that it was a Flex chop job, and I'm taking into account that TeamFord doesn't post often, but he apparently has some skill with photoshop so maybe he could work with it. Also, I think Ford has delved enough into the retro theme with the Mustang don't you? No need to extend it to the Ranger. I fear it is a fad that will soon pass. Personally I don't much care for the Flex. At the very least, give the thing some ground clearance. Low rider pickups may appeal to a very small niche somewhere in California, but the vast majority of the nation would rather have a pickup with some ground clearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 One thing the Ranger doesn't need to be is overweight for the next generation, and limited to NA variants. The Edge doesn't really help either, while also giving up any truck-based strengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 8, 2007 Author Share Posted June 8, 2007 I think it should be kept around, though do believe it should be bigger than what it is now though smaller than a F-150,also would like to see it with 4-doors with a back seat to compete with Dodge Dakota Quad and with GM Colorado. I would also like to see it a bit roomer inside for taller people like myself[6'3"] had a 96 Ranger for a 11 years till i had a engine fire, would also like see a diesel in it too why bigger....I say keep it the same size....that way, its in a class of its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 How about a hybrid drivetrain similar to that used in the Honda Accord. V6 type performance, with decent gas mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 8, 2007 Author Share Posted June 8, 2007 How about a hybrid drivetrain similar to that used in the Honda Accord. V6 type performance, with decent gas mileage. I don't know if you heard, but the accord hybrid was such a success that they canceled it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 My initial response would be to rework the Explorer Sport Trac engineering a bit, and offer a regular-cab and super-cab, but otherwise use Explorer mechanicals. That WAS exactly the plan ! However, with the Explorer going unibody very soon, wouldn't make much sense. Soccer moms don't know the difference between BOF and unibody. Funny, by accident, Ford now has the compact truck market segment entirely to themselves ! With gas still above $3 in MI (any possibly going to stay there the rest of the summer) management is going to flush it down the toilet ! Keep it small, keep it simple, keep it cheap and please God, please, give it a diesel ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Some interesting shots of a concept Ranger on Fomoco news. I think I much prefer this one to the low rider Flex version above. http://www.fomoconews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=367 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 This is what the next Ranger should be.http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...12070&st=0# Too Scion/"baller" for a averge-Joe American work truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoss96racing Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Some interesting shots of a concept Ranger on Fomoco news. I think I much prefer this one to the low rider Flex version above. http://www.fomoconews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=367 wow that looks good... and it looks to be based on the explorer/sport trac ... I think thats the direction for ford should go in... with a diesel option I would be extremely interested.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Build it. The no-frills small-cab is great! Offer a turbo-4 diesel with the 6-speed DSG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tico Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 You have to believe there is market for a small high mileage truck out there if it is done right. Kind of a "truck for city folks". It has to be sporty, get at in the high 20 MPG and actaully be able to haul / pull more than a car or cross over. come on Ford you can do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconman13 Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 The Ranger already does that. I want a small truck that gets over 30 MPG, It doesnt have to tow anything more than a Jet Ski and it doesnt have to haul anything more than a couple of sheets of plywood and a few 2x4's. Because, IMO if you are going to haul or tow more than that, get a full size or rent one for the once or twice a year where you need it. I dont want to suffer through 25Mpg in a small truck because 1 in every 1000 people might, someday, load it down with concrete block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bri719 Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 with the exception of the Ranger 2.3L, especially with regular cab, the truck doesn't really get in the "high 20s" and even the version that does with proper driving, this is mostly on the highway. read the revised EPA mileage estimates for 2008 to see what I mean. so from that standpoint 25MPG isn't exactly suffering. true they should be able to push it to 30 in a newer form with the smallest engine and body, true. but have to be realistic about where it is now. the most I've gotten driving conservatively w/ 1999 model, 2.5L engine is 22-23MPG with 20-21 more typical for mixed driving. this is definitely well within the norm and EPA.gov statistics from other like minded drivers seems to back up my real world results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconman13 Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 That was kind of my point, I guess I was being a bit optimistic in my mileage. But I had an 89 with the 2.3 5 Sp and I regularly got over 25 with it, But that was mostly highway. I would have thought that by now, it being almost 20 years later, they could have improved on the mileage some. I really wanted a new small truck, I need a truck occasionally. But I drive about 25 or 30K /year and I cant see doing that in a Ranger or any other small truck. at the mileage they are getting. I Had a ZX5 and it hauled quite a bit (believe it or not) but it couldn't handle an 8 foot board. So, I got a Fusion. I know what you are thinking, "A Fusion" But hey, the rear seat folds and the passenger seat folds, so I can easily haul 10 or 15 2X4's in a pinch, and I have. People look at me like I am crazy when I am feeding those boards through the trunk , but hey, it swallows them like Linda Lovelace, and I get about 30 Mpg with they 2.3 and 5 Speed Build me a Ranchero based on the Fusion or a deisel Ranger that gets over 30 and I'll switch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot T. Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Take the Sport Trac, shorten the cab & lengthen the box, and we have a new Ranger. And PLEASE make it available with a diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Keep the Ranger name. No F100 please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 (edited) Why can't there be both? Keep the Ranger in it's current dimensions, but updated. Bring in a true midsized truck, and call it the F-100. would make sense but isnt the truck/suv/cuv market awefully overcrowded on the Ford side already? the pricing overlap would be terrible as well. it would probably be something like this - Ranger -14k - 23k F100 - 18k - 26k F150 - 20k - 45k? (or so) isnt that a touch close? and with rebates, there are plenty of F150s thatll dip below the 20K mark. i mean, i see that it CAN work, but is it wise? EDIT - the more i look at it, the more it makes sense. is that bad? lol Edited June 10, 2007 by Sixt9coug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Why can't there be both? Keep the Ranger in it's current dimensions, but updated. Bring in a true midsized truck, and call it the F-100. How bout something like this?? Unibody?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Take the Sport Trac, shorten the cab & lengthen the box, and we have a new Ranger. And PLEASE make it available with a diesel. I would think if they want to have a prayer of the vehicle being a success on the sport trac chassis it's going to have to have a diesel. Currently with a V6 the sport trac is so heavy that it's getting 15 / 21 mpg and that's not going to cut it for a Ranger replacement in an age of 3 + dollars a gallon for gas. Not even close, that's practically full size truck mpg. So they'll need to figure out how to make the sport trac more fuel efficient if they are indeed going to go with this approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 How bout something like this?? Unibody?? That would suck. It's not a C1 Focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.