Jump to content

Motortrend on the Ranger....


suv_guy_19

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To steal a line from Paul Harvey, "And now, the rest of the story ... "

 

Or to say it another way, "where there is smoke ..."

 

Before I left the company in Feb, the Ranger was a "write off". When St. Paul closed that was to be the end of it. Another Ford vehicle bites the dust. Discussion about bringing in the Bangkok Thailand Ranger died in early/mid 2006 (no details, but my guess is, it was too difficult to build it in Bangkok along side the existing product and meet US Safety and Emission standards)

 

I had lunch with someone who is still working in engineering. As part of a Q&A session during an recent internal video broadcast Kuzak of Fields (can't remember which) said, "We haven't decided what to do with the Ranger !"

 

In other words, it's not dead yet !

 

As a matter of fact, the Motor Trend discussion (and this blog) may have been carefully started by the marketing folks to find out what the American buying public is willing to pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What better place for them to find out what we want, than use BON :) , Since they check it on a daily basis... Of course we must be realistic, unlike MT C&D which if it's not 0-60MPH in 5Sec, and RWD and cost $15K, then it's not good enough :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, if Ford is listening, I want $15k, 0-60 in 12 seconds, and RWD in my Ranger. Bench seat, manual transmission, 3/4 ton payload, crank windows, extended cab and crew cab options (make mine standard cab though), 4WD option, choice of engines: 4 cyl. gas, 4 cyl. diesel, 6 cyl. gas, and small V8 gas, blank-out plate for the radio, and no bigger outside dimension than the first year model was for the standard cab. All of the above available in any combination. Did I miss anything? Oh, a panel truck option would be great too.

Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next Ranger would need to have regular, crew, super, and panel-truck versions (think Bronco II).

 

4-cylinder gas and diesel, as well as a V6 option.

 

It needs to be inexpensive, be able to take a beating in stride, yet still be functional as an everyday driver (power options, specifically).

 

Other than that, I have no other requirements. If I bought one, it would be a V6 automatic with crew cab (jump-seats), cloth seats, and basic amenities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, throw a new grill and interior in it, add a four cylinder turbodiesel that gets 35+ mpg minimum and you've got a winner - cheap to develop - the only real work is designing a new interior and federalizing the diesel drivetrain to work. Heck, go all out and put a new cab on the existing frame (which hasn't really changed since 1982) and it's still cheaper than developing an all new product.

 

Tweak the suspension a bit, maybe add a v8 powered SVT model for fun and I'd say that you've got something special. I'm still miffed that the SVT Lightning got the green light instead of the v8 powered Ranger in the late '90s.

 

I learned how to drive on my mother's 00 Taurus and my father's 01 Ranger. I really really like the Ranger - and if the focus hatchbacks didn't exist - I'd probably be driving one now. Perhaps the 08 focus refresh will take care of people like me ... and get them to buy the ranger instead.

 

For my money, the Ranger is the only pickup out there that I'm not afraid of driving - It's not overly huge, and it's fairly predictable. Maybe I can talk my wife into letting me buy one used as a third car as a hauling vehicle. (there are some things that you just can't fit in a focus hatchback)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recipe for the Ranger. Is more of a rehash for all the small trucks.

 

Widen the width of the ranger just a tad to a overall to about 71.5" (That will allow just enought room to accept the current 3V V8) Currently the Ranger is 69.3" wide

 

This bridges the gap bewteen the Sport track 73.7" and the Escape 70.1" Combine all 3 vehicals on to one basic platform sharing as many dimentions and componants as possible. With multiple wheel bases. Preferably on a BOF perimeter frame.

 

Yes it will leave the Explorer orpaned but there is a good posibilty that those sales could be moved to the Escape in time.

 

The front suspension should be a sub assy like on the Panthers. That will allow you to use fwd or rwd configurations on the same basic frame. With an Intregal front clip ala F150.

 

Make it capable of SRA IRS FWD AWD & 4WD. The FWD-AWD would just requier a new front susp sub assy.

 

Doing this will cut costs on all 3.

 

On the Escape it can be a semi-unit vehical with lighter (thinner) Frame material and welding the body directly to the frame using it as structural member in addttion to the frame. This has been done in the past on other manufacturers small SUV's.

 

This would bridge the gap between the Small Ranger and the Mid sized Sport Trac. And move the Escape slightly up in size but not enough to impact sales.

 

This would also allow for a Bronco to be done on the cheap. Build a 2 door Bronco with unique sheet metal. With a separate front susp sub assy. You could build a fwd grocery getter unit Bronco (off the Escape basic's) or a rock crawling full frame (off the Ranger basic's) Solid axel unit with minimal addtional cost.

 

IF the Escapes warrents it later on you could build a full frame V8 unit for the possibilty of replacing the orphaned Explorer.

 

Remame the Ranger to F-100 drop the Sport Track name and just call it a F 100 Crew Cab Short Box.

 

That is my idea. Wheather is it valid or not is anouther question.

 

Matthew

Edited by matthewq4b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is all this talk of just having it for hauling building supplies? I use mine for towing my boat over the local oregon passes. going to the high lakes and going to work. I would never use it to beat the crap out of. I hate it when i see rangers beaten to shit.

 

Anyway.. There is nothing wrong with the current model. well except the front end. Why is everyone here so high on diesels? they are loud, stinky, you can't work on them, they sound stupid on a non-hd truck and are an absolute bore to drive.

Edited by RangerXLTFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that and thought, "Someone doesn't know slap from lap." A pretty substantial blunder, IMO.

 

SLAP has been idled for what? going on two years? Any beat reporter (and Richard Truett is an AN reporter on the Ford beat) should be conversant with facts such as these. Granted he may have been pressed for a deadline working late, and confused about which Explorer plant Ford idled, but that's still no excuse for bungling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is all this talk of just having it for hauling building supplies? I use mine for towing my boat over the local oregon passes. going to the high lakes and going to work. I would never use it to beat the crap out of. I hate it when i see rangers beaten to shit.

 

Anyway.. There is nothing wrong with the current model. well except the front end. Why is everyone here so high on diesels? they are loud, stinky, you can't work on them, they sound stupid on a non-hd truck and are an absolute bore to drive.

 

You havent driven a modern diesel have you? They are hardly the same as the old diesels, they have tons more torgue than gas engines so the fun to drive thing is taken care of, they get substantially better mileage than a gas engine and they no longer stink.

 

So IF they were to build a good 2 liter diesel for the ranger, it would out perform the current 4 cly, and probably the 3.0. and most likely would get north of 32 MPG .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Ranger should be updated in the following ways:

-Make it slightly larger and offer a 4 door so it can compete better with the GM Colorado/Canyon

-Offer at least two bed lengths

-Keep offering the 4 cyl and Explorer 4.0L V6

-Make the top model a V6 Diesel (like the Ford AJD-V6/PSA DT17) or a Diesel-electric (maybe using the European Duratorq engine)... with the intent of more power and more towing ability(most hybrids have less or no towing ability), with better fuel economy. Use an off-the-shelf engine used in Europe

-Update the styling to make it resemble the F150. But it might also might be interesting if they made the front reminiscent of the current Mustang.

-Build a small 2/4 door SUV version and call it the Bronco (which should be different enough from the Explorer if the Explorer goes Unibody). Kind of like the FJ cruiser, only more practicle and more affordable.

-Maybe build a van off it... call it a Sport Utility Van... a van that has RWD or 4wd, serious towing ability and its masculine in style. Now that the Astro is gone, it's not like it would have any direct competition. Also, there are no masculine smaller vans on the market right now. As for the name... I'm not sure if Aerostar would necessarily be the best. Maybe give it a straightforward name like "Delivery" or "Transit". It would have cargo and passenger versions and sliding door to get into the back and maybe the "dutch door" idea from the Astro for the back doors

 

All models should come with a manual transmission and share the same front end styling. Not so much because there is a huge market for it, but for masuline image reasons. The principle being women go for masculine and feminine vehicles, but men usually won't gravitate to a feminine vehicle unless driven by need (like guys who buy minivans because they are cost effective and meet the needs for space)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related to my last post and also how making changes may cause the Explorer to become orphaned...

 

I was thinking that if did was I suggested then what do you do about the:

-Explorer

-Explorer sport trac

-Escape

-Edge

 

The Explorer:

I believe the way to go would be to keep it around as a stretched and softened Bronco. I don't believe it makes sense to makes sense for it to have its own separate chassis in the long run. By doing that, Ford could also consolidate production and therefore sell this vehicle in lower quantities and still make money even if the larger SUV market shrinks. Two or three engine options... base gas V6, Diesel V6 or Diesel-electric, maybe a V8 if there is demand.

 

Explorer Sport Trac:

Same advice as for the Explorer.

 

Escape:

Keep it as a "soft offroader". I think this vehicle is on a modified previous-generation Taurus chassis. For the future, maybe move it to the Focus chassis? Or the Fusion chassis?

 

Edge:

Keep it as the "Big Crossover/Big Soft Offroader"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Ranger should be updated in the following ways:

-Make it slightly larger and offer a 4 door so it can compete better with the GM Colorado/Canyon

 

:redcard: Terrible idea. I like a lot of the other ideas you had, but this is a very bad idea. Do not make the Ranger bigger in some fruitless effort to compete with the Tacoma and GM offerings and the Dakota. Don't do it!! No! No! No! No! Let me just add, hell no!!!

 

 

Right now Ford has one true advantage with the Ranger and that is, it's the only true compact pickup on the Market. Making it bigger would make it indistinguishable from the rest of the field and it's quite frankly a terrible idea at a time when gas is hovering around $3.00 a gallon. Bigger is not always better. Keeping up with the Joneses is never better. Keep the Ranger a true small pickup. I've already stated the other things I think should be done to it so I won't bother with that again except to repeat one thing. Don't make a ranger that competes with the Tacoma, make one that competes with Subaru.

Edited by BlackHorse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would really suck if american automakers completely ignored the compact pickup and small utilitarian no frills 4x4.

Now you are talking !

 

Forget V8. Not going to happen. Bigger is not better ! The rest of you guys must own oil wells (or more oil company stock than I do :shades: )

 

One big problem with the current Ranger 4x4 is the "ship anchor" (too big to be a boat anchor) front drive axle.

 

Need a 4 cyl gas with some low end grunt.

 

Also forget the SOHC. It's a pig on fuel. The new 3.5L (or 3.7) needs to be tweaked for better low end torque. And maybe Management will pull their head out of their butt and put in a 4 cyl turbo-diesel !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:redcard: Terrible idea. I like a lot of the other ideas you had, but this is a very bad idea. Do not make the Ranger bigger in some fruitless effort to compete with the Tacoma and GM offerings and the Dakota. Don't do it!! No! No! No! No! Let me just add, hell no!!!

Right now Ford has one true advantage with the Ranger and that is, it's the only true compact pickup on the Market. Making it bigger would make it indistinguishable from the rest of the field and it's quite frankly a terrible idea at a time when gas is hovering around $3.00 a gallon. Bigger is not always better. Keeping up with the Joneses is never better. Keep the Ranger a true small pickup. I've already stated the other things I think should be done to it so I won't bother with that again except to repeat one thing. Don't make a ranger that competes with the Tacoma, make one that competes with Subaru.

Amen Brother !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are talking !

 

Forget V8. Not going to happen. Bigger is not better ! The rest of you guys must own oil wells (or more oil company stock than I do :shades: )

 

One big problem with the current Ranger 4x4 is the "ship anchor" (too big to be a boat anchor) front drive axle.

 

Need a 4 cyl gas with some low end grunt.

 

Also forget the SOHC. It's a pig on fuel. The new 3.5L (or 3.7) needs to be tweaked for better low end torque. And maybe Management will pull their head out of their butt and put in a 4 cyl turbo-diesel !

 

I'm happy with my 4.0 V6 for offroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...