The Next Ranger

[Sevensecondsuv]

As we all know, the Ranger is coming to a crossroads with it's only assembly plant closing next year. Ford could let it die, move production elsewhere, or redesign the Ranger.

 

Moving production elsewhere and keeping the current model is just a waste of money. Current sales level wouldn't justify it. In my onpinion, killing your lone small fuel efficient truck when gas is staying above $3.00 a gallon is equally as stupid. That would amount to nothing more than losing more sales to Toyota. That leaves one option: Come out with the Next Ranger.

 

Here are what I'd like to see:

 

1. The size should be no bigger than it is now. The ranger is in a class of it's own and that's a good thing.

 

2. Get rid of the Sport Track and offer the ranger in regular cab, super cab, and crew cab (albeit a very short bed) models.

 

3. Keep the truck body on frame and rear wheel drive with a solid rear axle. It can't really be a truck if it doesn't have these three things. If we wanted a front-drive unibody with IRS we'd buy a Honda Ridgeline.

 

4. Keep the truck simple and user-friendly to work on. Also keep parts cheap. This is one of the best things about the current Ranger.

 

5. Make the interior nice but also make it so that it will hold up to 500,000 miles of use.

 

6. Share the platform with the Escape and maybe even a new 2 door SUV, the Bronco, in the interest of cutting down on platforms and saving money. Maybe even make a small van based off the Ranger. There is definately a market for a small tough fleet delivery vehicle. But by all means keep the rear drive body on frame construction for the Ranger and Bronco. It would be sad if my 92 explorer could out 4-wheel the new Bronco.

 

7. Offer lots of different engine choices. I'd like to see the 4-cylinder, the 3.5 duratech, a small turbo diesel, and maybe even the 4v 4.6L V8 on selected models. Just don't increase the size of the vehicle in the process! People have been putting 4.6L and 5.0L V8's in the current Ranger for years, we know a V8 will fit.

 

8. Offer a manual transmission with every engine in every model. Of course make an automatic availible, but have the option for a manual. The younger generation loves manual transmissions. It is important to have them availible if you're going to attract younger buyers. Besides that, the words Ranger and Manual Transmission are synonymous. This will be good for gas mileage as well.

 

8. Gas mileage needs to go up. I'd like to see the diesel and 4-cylinder average 30 MPG and the 3.5L average 22-25 MPG. My 1990 2.3L 4-cylinder Ranger averages 25 MPG. 18 years later 30 MPG should definately be possible.

 

9. Ford has an excellent brand name with the Ranger. Definately use that in marketing the new Ranger.

 

10. Keep pricing low enough to make a Ranger a really good value. The pricing needs to stay below the F-150 if your going to sell them on anything more than gas mileage. I'd like to see the base 4-cyl regular cab 2wd with a MSRP of 13-14k. Even the optioned-up crew cab 4x4 with the big engine should go for no more than 27k.

 

11. Above all else, the new Ranger has to follow in the current Ranger's ability to take hard abuse and just keep on running for many miles. I have 235,000 miles on my 1990 Ranger and it's showing no signs of quitting any time soon. I trust it as much as I would a brand new one. I know several people with more than 500,000 miles on Rangers and a few with over a million miles on a Ranger. The new Ranger must really be "Built Ford Tough".

 

 

I'd really like to see a revamped Ranger soon. I think it's a great idea and if done right, could really be a winner for Ford Motor when they need it most.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Sevensecondsuv

[whereswaldo]

Here are what I'd like to see:

1. The size should be no bigger than it is now. The ranger is in a class of it's own and that's a good thing.

2. Get rid of the Sport Track and offer the ranger in regular cab, super cab, and crew cab (albeit a very short bed) models.

3. Keep the truck body on frame and rear wheel drive with a solid rear axle. It can't really be a truck if it doesn't have these three things. If we wanted a front-drive unibody with IRS we'd buy a Honda Ridgeline.

4. Keep the truck simple and user-friendly to work on. Also keep parts cheap. This is one of the best things about the current Ranger.

5. Make the interior nice but also make it so that it will hold up to 500,000 miles of use.

6. Share the platform with the Escape and maybe even a new 2 door SUV, the Bronco, in the interest of cutting down on platforms and saving money. Maybe even make a small van based off the Ranger. There is definately a market for a small tough fleet delivery vehicle. But by all means keep the rear drive body on frame construction for the Ranger and Bronco. It would be sad if my 92 explorer could out 4-wheel the new Bronco.

7. Offer lots of different engine choices. I'd like to see the 4-cylinder, the 3.5 duratech, a small turbo diesel, and maybe even the 4v 4.6L V8 on selected models. Just don't increase the size of the vehicle in the process! People have been putting 4.6L and 5.0L V8's in the current Ranger for years, we know a V8 will fit

8. Offer a manual transmission with every engine in every model. Of course make an automatic availible, but have the option for a manual. The younger generation loves manual transmissions. It is important to have them availible if you're going to attract younger buyers. Besides that, the words Ranger and Manual Transmission are synonymous. This will be good for gas mileage as well.

8. Gas mileage needs to go up. I'd like to see the diesel and 4-cylinder average 30 MPG and the 3.5L average 22-25 MPG. My 1990 2.3L 4-cylinder Ranger averages 25 MPG. 18 years later 30 MPG should definately be possible.

9. Ford has an excellent brand name with the Ranger. Definately use that in marketing the new Ranger.

10. Keep pricing low enough to make a Ranger a really good value. The pricing needs to stay below the F-150 if your going to sell them on anything more than gas mileage. I'd like to see the base 4-cyl regular cab 2wd with a MSRP of 13-14k. Even the optioned-up crew cab 4x4 with the big engine should go for no more than 27k.

11. Above all else, the new Ranger has to follow in the current Ranger's ability to take hard abuse and just keep on running for many miles. I have 235,000 miles on my 1990 Ranger and it's showing no signs of quitting any time soon. I trust it as much as I would a brand new one. I know several people with more than 500,000 miles on Rangers and a few with over a million miles on a Ranger. The new Ranger must really be "Built Ford Tough".

I'd really like to see a revamped Ranger soon. I think it's a great idea and if done right, could really be a winner for Ford Motor when they need it most.

WOW...i dont think I will ask to see your Christmas list. Some really good points but I dont think the Easter Bunny, Santa, Tooth Fairy, and Fairy Godmother work on projects together.LOL. But in a sound comapny, you are very,right on.

[ford4v429]

I still think if Ford repopped a 56 F100-ish body and put it on the existing drivetrain of the ranger, they could have another Mustang on their hands...but I'm thinking someone at ford would be afraid of a successful small pickup- because it might cut into F150 sales...

 

I cant help but wonder why Ford dont privately incorporate each model as if it were a different company- then the low sellers(under designed or overpriced) would stick out like a sore thumb, and the big sellers would be profitable...

 

If some models are being produced at a loss, either redo it to make something folks WANT to buy, or kill it to stop the bleeding. I can only believe that as old as the tooling for the Ranger and Crown Vic is, that the plants/equipment are long ago paid for, and there should be no reason they cant be profitable...except if they would freshen them up with attractive bodies/features at a reasonable cost, they might sell a few too many of those models and the tons of money dumped into developing new cars like the 500-er taurus- might show a worse return on investment because folks bought the old model instead of the new one...but with tax stuff, maybe once the equipments depreciated, they get a better break by dumping a billion into a new model...then again though, if they cant show a profit, who needs deductions?

 

if theyre gonna survive, they need to make affordable/desirable models, and each plant/model should be able to earn its keep. theyve probably got some plants making a billion dollars a year, and plants loosing a billion dollars a year and in the end all they see is a wash...I'd say fix the looser or kill it, and invest cautiously at improving the volume/reducing the costs on the good sellers to maximize that marketshare...I really think that if the right accounting firm could play with the numbers to say Mustang is cutting into fusion sales or some such BS, there would be folks wanting to kill Mustang off too.

 

put a few dollars into the ranger, make it look like a 'next generation classic' and sell all you can- dont worry about F150, be happy about that many less tundra's or whatever sold

[armadamaster]

I still think if Ford repopped a 56 F100-ish body and put it on the existing drivetrain of the ranger, they could have another Mustang on their hands...but I'm thinking someone at ford would be afraid of a successful small pickup- because it might cut into F150 sales...

 

That is an interesting concept, I think you are on to something there, just call it the F-100 or the F-100 Ranger to save face with F-series sales numbers,

 

I cant help but wonder why Ford dont privately incorporate each model as if it were a different company- then the low sellers(under designed or overpriced) would stick out like a sore thumb, and the big sellers would be profitable...

 

If some models are being produced at a loss, either redo it to make something folks WANT to buy, or kill it to stop the bleeding. I can only believe that as old as the tooling for the Ranger and Crown Vic is, that the plants/equipment are long ago paid for, and there should be no reason they cant be profitable...except if they would freshen them up with attractive bodies/features at a reasonable cost, they might sell a few too many of those models and the tons of money dumped into developing new cars like the 500-er taurus- might show a worse return on investment because folks bought the old model instead of the new one...but with tax stuff, maybe once the equipments depreciated, they get a better break by dumping a billion into a new model...then again though, if they cant show a profit, who needs deductions?

 

I don't get why Ford seems content to keep dumping $$$ into the Five Hundreads er Taurus er whatever they're called this week while proven vehicles like Ranger and Panthers die a slow agonizing death. They should be spending money on the models that have worked first and foremost instead of rolling the dice on models no one has ever heard of.

[JW]

I'm with you on everything except the size. If they based it on the current Explorer (which isn't that much bigger - my '94 Ranger and my girlfriend's '04 Explorer live next to each other and I see them together all the time), they could leverage the existing parts inventory - everything forward of the A-pillar, seats, dash, console, mirrors, taillights, engines, transmissions/transfer cases, front axle and suspension, on and on and on, and keep the solid 8.8 for the rear - to engineer and produce the vehicle at a relatively low cost. And it would be able to compete size-wise with the Frontier/Tacoma/Colorado (which all got bigger because that's what the market wanted, by the way). Using the Escape platform is a lousy idea (unibody, primarily FWD).

[controller]

As we all know, the Ranger is coming to a crossroads with it's only assembly plant closing next year. Ford could let it die, move production elsewhere, or redesign the Ranger.

 

Moving production elsewhere and keeping the current model is just a waste of money. Current sales level wouldn't justify it. In my onpinion, killing your lone small fuel efficient truck when gas is staying above $3.00 a gallon is equally as stupid. That would amount to nothing more than losing more sales to Toyota. That leaves one option: Come out with the Next Ranger.

 

Here are what I'd like to see:

 

1. The size should be no bigger than it is now. The ranger is in a class of it's own and that's a good thing.

 

2. Get rid of the Sport Track and offer the ranger in regular cab, super cab, and crew cab (albeit a very short bed) models.

 

3. Keep the truck body on frame and rear wheel drive with a solid rear axle. It can't really be a truck if it doesn't have these three things. If we wanted a front-drive unibody with IRS we'd buy a Honda Ridgeline.

 

4. Keep the truck simple and user-friendly to work on. Also keep parts cheap. This is one of the best things about the current Ranger.

 

5. Make the interior nice but also make it so that it will hold up to 500,000 miles of use.

 

6. Share the platform with the Escape and maybe even a new 2 door SUV, the Bronco, in the interest of cutting down on platforms and saving money. Maybe even make a small van based off the Ranger. There is definately a market for a small tough fleet delivery vehicle. But by all means keep the rear drive body on frame construction for the Ranger and Bronco. It would be sad if my 92 explorer could out 4-wheel the new Bronco.

 

7. Offer lots of different engine choices. I'd like to see the 4-cylinder, the 3.5 duratech, a small turbo diesel, and maybe even the 4v 4.6L V8 on selected models. Just don't increase the size of the vehicle in the process! People have been putting 4.6L and 5.0L V8's in the current Ranger for years, we know a V8 will fit.

 

8. Offer a manual transmission with every engine in every model. Of course make an automatic availible, but have the option for a manual. The younger generation loves manual transmissions. It is important to have them availible if you're going to attract younger buyers. Besides that, the words Ranger and Manual Transmission are synonymous. This will be good for gas mileage as well.

 

8. Gas mileage needs to go up. I'd like to see the diesel and 4-cylinder average 30 MPG and the 3.5L average 22-25 MPG. My 1990 2.3L 4-cylinder Ranger averages 25 MPG. 18 years later 30 MPG should definately be possible.

 

9. Ford has an excellent brand name with the Ranger. Definately use that in marketing the new Ranger.

 

10. Keep pricing low enough to make a Ranger a really good value. The pricing needs to stay below the F-150 if your going to sell them on anything more than gas mileage. I'd like to see the base 4-cyl regular cab 2wd with a MSRP of 13-14k. Even the optioned-up crew cab 4x4 with the big engine should go for no more than 27k.

 

11. Above all else, the new Ranger has to follow in the current Ranger's ability to take hard abuse and just keep on running for many miles. I have 235,000 miles on my 1990 Ranger and it's showing no signs of quitting any time soon. I trust it as much as I would a brand new one. I know several people with more than 500,000 miles on Rangers and a few with over a million miles on a Ranger. The new Ranger must really be "Built Ford Tough".

I'd really like to see a revamped Ranger soon. I think it's a great idea and if done right, could really be a winner for Ford Motor when they need it most.

 

 

A new ranger wouldn't need the 4.6 V8; it needs a strong 4 cyl, a diesel, a standard 6-cyl good for 220HP, and a good optional 6-cyl - 250 to 260. Maybe Ford can dosomething with the 4.0 in the Explorer or 4.2 in the F-150. If not, there's always the new 3.5; a V8 would be overkill and wouldn't do much for gas milage. If there were to be a V8 in the new Ranger, I'd like to see it as an SVT version. I haven't tried comparing sizes yet, but the new Ranger has to be the same size as the Escape; that'll keep it in the compact class. There's no reason the new Ranger can't look like the F-150 with some minor differences on the front and back of the truck. There should be some continuity in looks between the Ranger, F-150, and F-250 and up. While were at it, kill the damn Sport Track; it should have been the new Ranger. What has more name recognition? F-100 or Ranger? I think Ford should keep the Ranger name and have XL, XLT, and Lariat models.

[ford4v429]

A new ranger wouldn't need the 4.6 V8; it needs a strong 4 cyl, a diesel, a standard 6-cyl good for 220HP, and a good optional 6-cyl - 250 to 260. Maybe Ford can dosomething with the 4.0 in the Explorer or 4.2 in the F-150. If not, there's always the new 3.5; a V8 would be overkill and wouldn't do much for gas milage. If there were to be a V8 in the new Ranger, I'd like to see it as an SVT version. I haven't tried comparing sizes yet, but the new Ranger has to be the same size as the Escape; that'll keep it in the compact class. There's no reason the new Ranger can't look like the F-150 with some minor differences on the front and back of the truck. There should be some continuity in looks between the Ranger, F-150, and F-250 and up. While were at it, kill the damn Sport Track; it should have been the new Ranger. What has more name recognition? F-100 or Ranger? I think Ford should keep the Ranger name and have XL, XLT, and Lariat models.

 

 

I agree 100%...I really wish folks would realize high hp ratings are not all thyre cracked up to be...off idle TORQUE is what you need especially for an everyday pickup. I doubt most vehicles spend more than .0001% of their lifetimes in the 'full horsepower' range up around redline rpm, yet somewhat struggle everyday kicking down to accelerate to pass at half throttle, or on an onramp. Mercedes has a 4 cyl turbodiesel thet puts out 400 ft/lb at 2k rpm- that would be better everyday in MOST pickups than a 300 ft/lb at 4750 4.6 V8...and a hell of a lot more fuel efficient. Anyone thats ever driven a bigblock with 4~500 ft/lb down low, can tell you in everyday driveing, thats the most fun type of powerplant...I think a oversquare torque monster variant of the 4.6 (even with a 3.5~4k revlimiter) would be a far better everyday motor, and just about everyone except dragracers would agree it 'feels more powerful' that the 320@ 5750 in the Mustang GT even...an effective add campaign might be to show horsepower/torque maps in everyday driving/onrams, showing how off idle torque gives smoother, stump pulling power without all the noise or straining the engine. Face it, any motor out there that putting out 300 hp on the street is probably breaking the law AND making a lot of very loud noise...yet a stump pulling bigblock could accelerate nearly as fast without effort/noise...sadly Diesels make a lot of sense, but here in the good ol USA we like to hear the sound of a V8...a oversquare V8 with cylinder cutout would be a awesome everyday engine, just need to sell the public on "torque means more than HP"

[ford4v429]

What has more name recognition? F-100 or Ranger?

 

 

I think most car guys out there when they hear F100 picture a fat fendered 56...that truck was and always will be one of the best looking ever made, sad that Ford dont cash in on successful stling more often...they made the mustang kinda look like a 67, and look what happened. Guarantee if they put a 56 F100 body(lower/chop a inch or two and flatten the roof- like 90% of the custom F100's out there) they would have a line longer than the 05 mustang gt ever was.

and put out a panel truck version to steal ALL of the pt cruiser sales at the same time.

[matthewq4b]

I think the thing every one is missing with the V8 in the Ranger is the towing aspect of it.

With a V8 Ranger it would give people an option for towing things like a medium sized holiday trailers or 5th wheels. Not every one wants an F 150 capable of 10,000LBS capacity to tow a 2 ton 5 wheel. When a smaller more fuel efficient lighter weight truck could do the job just as well.

 

No 4 banger diesel that is going to fit in the Ranger will do that job at high way speeds.

the 4.4L Lion might but there will be those that do not want to or can not out lay the premium for it.

The V8 just opens up a larger market for the truck. Think of it as Ranger and Ranger SD.

 

You can have a fuel efficient light duty pick up. Or a unit that fills the area that the older 1/2 tons filled. Todays Half tons are what 3/4 tons used to be.

 

The V8 is not there for HP bragging rights or to make it a base engine. But to open up more buyer options.

 

If the name is changed to F 100 then there is no reason that it's sales could not be included in other F series sales. And an available V8 would only make it more easy to pull off.

 

 

Matthew

[Mackintire]

I think the thing every one is missing with the V8 in the Ranger is the towing aspect of it.

With a V8 Ranger it would give people an option for towing things like a medium sized holiday trailers or 5th wheels. Not every one wants an F 150 capable of 10,000LBS capacity to tow a 2 ton 5 wheel. When a smaller more fuel efficient lighter weight truck could do the job just as well.

 

No 4 banger diesel that is going to fit in the Ranger will do that job at high way speeds.

the 4.4L Lion might but there will be those that do not want to or can not out lay the premium for it.

The V8 just opens up a larger market for the truck. Think of it as Ranger and Ranger SD.

 

You can have a fuel efficient light duty pick up. Or a unit that fills the area that the older 1/2 tons filled. Todays Half tons are what 3/4 tons used to be.

 

The V8 is not there for HP bragging rights or to make it a base engine. But to open up more buyer options.

 

If the name is changed to F 100 then there is no reason that it's sales could not be included in other F series sales. And an available V8 would only make it more easy to pull off.

Matthew

 

 

 

What about a 3800lb truck called the F100 that features a 6 speed auto and a 3.7ltr V6 260HP 270lb torque on 87 octane. Coming to a dealer ship near you ...circa 2009 as a 2010 model.

 

It should tow as well as the current ranger, possibly a bit better from the extra control that the vehicle weight gives it.

 

If you have ever driven a new fusion you know what a difference that new 6 speed makes in the overall feel of the vehicle.

 

I'm just hoping ford doesn t bore us to death with the interior...Oh wait was that an oximoron?

 

Wait till the tuners get ahold of this one.

[Deanh]

I thinkas far as powertrains go Ford will be fine...add to to something retroish along the lines of the mid 50's F100 and one has a winner...in fact sign me up now...even if it has a column shift....

[ebritt]

I think most car guys out there when they hear F100 picture a fat fendered 56...that truck was and always will be one of the best looking ever made, sad that Ford dont cash in on successful stling more often...they made the mustang kinda look like a 67, and look what happened. Guarantee if they put a 56 F100 body(lower/chop a inch or two and flatten the roof- like 90% of the custom F100's out there) they would have a line longer than the 05 mustang gt ever was.

and put out a panel truck version to steal ALL of the pt cruiser sales at the same time.

 

What the hell is this????

[Deanh]

 

What the hell is this????

the Grand Marshalls lead vehicle at Palm Springs gay rights event.......

[texer rangas]

FORD - DON'T KILL THIS TRUCK! - MAKE IT MUCH BETTER.

 

Let's see...Who else is making small trucks?

 

Just make one to compete with and beat any out there.

If you are not willing to give ground in the larger truck market then why oh why would you give up so much on the smaller truck market.

 

A little bigger - but keep it a real truck

A Reg Cab, Super Cab and even a Crew Cab

2 Interior choices to match function on each Cab size

More engine choices - small V8 and Diesel

Keep the two body styles - styleside AND flareside (maybe some 56 F100 in it)

And give it MORE COOL FACTOR----

Stance, Wheel and Tire size, Fender Flares, Grilles, Exhaust - ATTITUDE

Not COOL imagined up by the 55 year old dorks of the company

Ask stylists from the outside - ask customers - ask people that know what makes someone stand up and notice.

KICK SOME TAIL.

DON'T WORRY - IF YOU DO THIS OVER AND THE NEW F-150 YOU WILL OWN THE BIGGEST SHARE OF THE TRUCK BUSINESS - PERIOD

[Red Star]

This is Ranger I would like to see in the USA.

 

[joihan777]

What about a 3800lb truck called the F100 that features a 6 speed auto and a 3.7ltr V6 260HP 270lb torque on 87 octane. Coming to a dealer ship near you ...circa 2009 as a 2010 model.

 

It should tow as well as the current ranger, possibly a bit better from the extra control that the vehicle weight gives it.

 

If you have ever driven a new fusion you know what a difference that new 6 speed makes in the overall feel of the vehicle.

 

I'm just hoping ford doesn t bore us to death with the interior...Oh wait was that an oximoron?

 

Wait till the tuners get ahold of this one.

 

I agree with Mackintire's ideas here. The engine & trans sound good. As long as there's room for a NA and/or Twinforce 4-banger too for those that don't need to tow much. (I understand turbo's aren't ideal for towing?) I also think the interior needs to be top notch. The current Ranger's seats are too low and the center seat area isn't well thought out. The Dakota's had better interiors. Also, there needs to be decent ergonomics and all the modern bells & whistles. Power rear window too. 5-star safety rating is also a must. Small business owners have been waiting for this!

 

I also like the idea of naming it the Ranger F-100, so everyday folks would call it a Ranger but the F-Series association would remain. Ex: RANGER F-100 XLT or RANGER F-100 Eddie Bauer etc. People would mentally skip over the F-100 part but it would help sustain Ford's leadership in Truck sales overall.

[630land]

The TC plant closes in a year, the real question is what is going to happen? Can dream, but there has to be some plans by now for a new compact truck. If Ford doesnt, then the Greenies will have more ammo.

 

Now, there are ads saying "the Ranger has the best MPG of any truck", I say keep it till there is a good replacement coming.

[Fomhoire]

I think the 4 cylinder is decent for what it is. Ford should ditch the 3.0L and 4.0L V6 engines and replace both with the 3.5L V6 The 3.0L V6 is pointless when the 2.3L 4-cylinder has almost as much power. The 3.5L V6 will have more power than the 4.0L V6 with a very reasonable improvement on fuel economy. I think having an optional diesel wouldn't hurt, but I really don't think it will bring a whole lot of sales. A V8 is a bit much for a truck that size. I know people put them in the Rangers, but do realize that this option would appeal to a very small niche of people. The niche market theory applies to diesels as well, but really, I could see a company buying a fleet of diesel Rangers.

 

Keep the current size. People that want compact trucks want compact trucks, not a midsize truck built over a powertrain intended for a light weight truck.