The Ranger is dead by 2009

[RichardJensen]

I don't know rich, a pseudo retro mid-size f-100 ala 1956 would have us beating the customers back.....AND the younger market.....

Yeah. Beating customers back for about 10 months and then

 

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwww--KABOOM!!!!!

 

These retromobiles need a lot of props to keep interest going.

 

-- that said --

 

I think any compact pickup would have to be marketed to youths as a lifestyle accessory. I consider them to be, for the most part, quite impractical.

[BlackHorse]

I think any compact pickup would have to be marketed to youths as a lifestyle accessory. I consider them to be, for the most part, quite impractical.

 

A shopping cart is impractical. A compact pickup is only impractical if you buy it for the wrong reasons.

 

Look we all know the Ranger needs a complete rework from horn button to frame, there's no doubt of that. The body design is still circa 1990 something, you can't get a crew cab version and the 4.0 liter engine is outdated compared to the rest of the compact truck segment. The larger Tacoma that weighs more and really can carry 4 passengers gets better mileage for christs sake. The 4 cylinder Ranger is a reaonable and pretty good little truck, again provided you don't buy it for the wrong reasons. But there's much to be done here in order to get the Ranger back in the frey. It might even be best to go ahead and drop the ranger and bring out an entirely new truck under a different name, perhaps the F100 tag that someone mentioned.

[RichardJensen]

Blackhorse, the only Ranger that offers a meaningful fuel economy improvement IS the 4 cylinder. You add weight, you can kiss mileage goodbye. All the rest of the Rangers, like the rest of the small truck market, offer you none of the conveniences of a fullsize truck, with maybe a 5-10% savings on EPA rated mileage.

[BlackHorse]

Blackhorse, the only Ranger that offers a meaningful fuel economy improvement IS the 4 cylinder. You add weight, you can kiss mileage goodbye. All the rest of the Rangers, like the rest of the small truck market, offer you none of the conveniences of a fullsize truck, with maybe a 5-10% savings on EPA rated mileage.

 

Richard, why are you taking what I say out of context again buddy. Don't do that. I am well aware of the fuel advantage of the 4 cylinder Ranger and equally aware of the reality that added weight equals reduced fuel mileage. The point I was making was here you have a 4.0 liter V6 Ranger that gets 16 / 20 when equpped for offroad as compard to the larger heavier Tacoma Crew Cab that gets 19 / 24. I happen to think that is a strike against the ranger. Perhaps if they incoporated the direct injection system and a well tuned ECM it might make the two more comparable on a fuel mileage basis.

 

Next, don't buy a compact pickup expecting to get the so called conveniences of a fullsize pickup. If you go into the purchase of a compact pickup with that mindset you are wrong to begin with. These are two different kinds of vehicles. A fullsize pickup can obviously carry more in the bed, and typically tows more. The larger cabin in the fullsize also tends to offer larger more comfortable seats. If you need a pickup to carry large loads and tow a lot of weight then a fullsize is what you need. A compact or so called midszie pickup, however, offers some unique advantages of it's own. I shouldn't have to tell you this stuff Richard, and you should know better then to be so bias. Take the ranger for instance. It can't carry as much as an F150 but it still carrys a heck of a lot more then any car ever could. If you need to pickup twenty bags of concrete for some driveway work you sure as hell aren't going to get that in a Fusion. Furthermore, as you already pointed out, these are lifestyle vehicles. I can fit a heck of a lot of camping gear in the bed of ranger and coupled with an offroad suspension it makes a damn good vehicle for those 3 day outtings right? Then when I get back into town I have the advantage of not having a large bulky and somewhat unwieldy fullsize truck. The ranger is better for running around town in traffic, easier to park and just easier to live with on a day to day basis. It's also cheaper from a maintenance perspective. So there is a viable market and reason for compact pickups. I would have thought you would understand that. Once upon a time a truck the size of a Ranger was considered big, fullsize even. Maybe we call that progress but heck our grandfathers built a whole industrialized nation on trucks the size of Rangers.

[RangerM]

I am bewildered.

 

I own a paid-for '93 Ranger STX. It is my primary transportation, usually unladen around town.

 

I get around 22-23 average, in mixed driving, with a 4.0L (cologne) and 5-spd Supercab. It's fast (for its time), easy to park, very comfortable (for me), and still looks modern when parked next to others' new trucks. Since I picked it up with 7 miles on it, I've spent about $2,600 total fixing it (this includes a $650 clutch replacement; not sure if I should really include that). The truck has never failed to start, and with over 140,000 miles, it still runs smoothly on the original plugs/wires.

 

I moved my entire house contents with it. (ie I didn't have to rent anything). I've hauled 1000+ pounds of concrete, dry-wall from my new house that was above the cab (total in two trips ~1 ton), a bed-full of green firewood, and so many other things (for myself and countless friends) I can't remember. The little truck never flinched.

 

If anything I have mentioned above belies the word PRACTICALITY, please let me know.

 

No, it has not been used commercially. It has been my personal vehicle for over 14 years.

 

IMO, there is still a market for an inexpensive, reliable, "personal" and PRACTICAL vehicle (truck included). Those are attributes that never go out of style.

 

I admit I couldn't buy the same truck again today, because my needs (as a married, family man) have changed. But I was not the last single-guy homeowner that has a desire for a small truck. Hell I may end up keeping the thing, and just buy another sedan. (Sable would be first on my list) A small truck is perfect for a suburban homeowner.

[wescoent]

Blackhorse, the only Ranger that offers a meaningful fuel economy improvement IS the 4 cylinder. You add weight, you can kiss mileage goodbye. All the rest of the Rangers, like the rest of the small truck market, offer you none of the conveniences of a fullsize truck, with maybe a 5-10% savings on EPA rated mileage.

 

I think special circumstances in all small trucks today lead to poor fuel economy, not anything inherently wrong with small trucks. The Ranger's 4.0 is a boat anchor gas guzzler, the Colorado's I5 isn't much better, and the rest of the "small trucks" are really midsized trucks. I'm absolutely convinced that if Ford put a slightly detuned 3.7L V6 in the Ranger, fuel economy would skyrocket.

 

Here's the way I'm looking at this whole Ranger situation. Ford is designing a new global Ranger ANYWAY (T6), because the global markets demand it. If Ford is going to pay for development cost of a small truck, why not tool up an American plant, and build them for the US market? Everyone I've ever met who has owned a Ranger has loved it, and Ford has spent nearly 25 years building quality small trucks, and in turn building a loyal following both to buy Rangers, and to upgrade to F-150s. I realize the profit per unit is much smaller than an F-150, but Ford can EASILY build a viable business case. Stamp all the sheetmetal and source all the components from overseas, and simply assemble the trucks here.

 

If I were the Ranger's product manager, my plan would look something like this. Both the Ranger and Bronco (Everest) would be built here in the US from foreign-sourced sheetmetal and parts. They would be shipped to dealers stripped, much like Scions. In turn, dealers would be able to customize them however owners wanted them, from strippo fleet specials, to heavily customized trucks for kids. Have Roush and Saleen (as well as offroad shops) develop parts, and have them available at dealers as warrantied options. My message to the market would be simple. This is a Ford truck, so you can beat the crap out of it, and it will last until the Second Coming. However, it is also easily customizable to YOUR tastes, whether you're a 20-something outdoors person, a 40 year old contractor, a soccer mom looking for something tougher than the On-Road Explorer, or a trail-blazing offroader. You can make it fast, climb rocks like a Hummer, comfortable to haul the kids, or decked out with shelves to haul your work supplies.

[RichardJensen]

The point I was making was here you have a 4.0 liter V6 Ranger that gets 16 / 20 when equpped for offroad as compard to the larger heavier Tacoma Crew Cab that gets 19 / 24. I happen to think that is a strike against the ranger. Perhaps if they incoporated the direct injection system and a well tuned ECM it might make the two more comparable on a fuel mileage basis.

 

Next, don't buy a compact pickup expecting to get the so called conveniences of a fullsize pickup.

1) Taco Crew Cab is nominally only 10% better than the Silverado, with considerably less capacity, and not much of a price discount either. Again, why would you buy it? We all know the 4.0 is a gas guzzler. No surprise there. Point is -NONE- of these small trucks are all that efficient.

 

2) Why would you buy a compact pickup in the first place?

 

Point is, Blackhorse, this segment is shrinking, and it's not because people don't know these trucks are out there.

[Deanh]

Yeah. Beating customers back for about 10 months and then

 

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwww--KABOOM!!!!!

 

These retromobiles need a lot of props to keep interest going.

 

-- that said --

 

I think any compact pickup would have to be marketed to youths as a lifestyle accessory. I consider them to be, for the most part, quite impractical.

its a market Ford should adress...damn Scion boxes EVERYWHERE! Trendy and cheap seems to sell irrespective of performance and crash tests!

[BlackHorse]

1) Taco Crew Cab is nominally only 10% better than the Silverado, with considerably less capacity, and not much of a price discount either. Again, why would you buy it? We all know the 4.0 is a gas guzzler. No surprise there. Point is -NONE- of these small trucks are all that efficient.

 

2) Why would you buy a compact pickup in the first place?

 

Point is, Blackhorse, this segment is shrinking, and it's not because people don't know these trucks are out there.

 

I won't even begin to argue about the price aspect of it when it comes to the Tacoma. They are damned pricey and the only reason is because they have the little "T" symbol in the grill. For instance, I saw an 8 year old Tacoma the other night on a used lot. It was extended cab but not crew cab, and had 71 thosuand miles. They wanted 13 grand!!!!! The new ones arent much better at 25 to 27 K for a crew cab that is 2WD PreRunner.

 

In answer to your question #2, I would buy a compact pickup, have even considered one in recent months. I'd buy one because they come in pretty handy for all kinds of reasons. Look at all the use Ranger M got out of his. Not only that but I have a lot of camping gear and it's much easier to go camping in a small pickup then it is in a fullsize pickup. I mean I could get a Jeep but hell you can't carry anything in a Jeep except people. But when I'm not camping or hauling around some load of whatever, I'm driving the thing to and from work and in that regard the compact pickup is much easier to live with on a day to day basis. As for the segment shrinking, that doesn't bother me really. People are pretty much monkey see monkey do. They go with the flow and want what the guy next door wants. Once upon a time many people wanted compact pickups so all the monkey went out and bought one.

[RangerM]

Why would you buy a compact pickup in the first place?

 

1. It costs less to purchase.

 

2. It's cheaper to insure.

 

3. It's cheaper to operate. (I get over 22 mpg in mixed driving, unloaded. No fullsize can match it.)

 

4. It's easier to drive/park.

 

5. It's easier to load from the side or from behind.

 

6. I don't need to tow 9900 pounds

 

7. There are few places in the cab that I can't reach while in the driver's seat, a convenience that I appreciate.

 

8. It's every bit a reliable as the full size.

 

9. It holds its value as well as a full size.

 

10. It's every bit as comfortable as a full size. (subjective opinion, I admit)

 

11. I can carry anything that a full size can (admittedly not as much of it), but what the hell would you buy at Home Depot that would fit in a full size, but not in a Ranger? It may take me more trips, but I can still get it there.

 

The biggest reason I like my pickup is that when I need a pickup, I have one. When I need cheap transportation, I have that too.....in the same vehicle.

[BlackHorse]

1. It costs less to purchase.

 

2. It's cheaper to insure.

 

3. It's cheaper to operate. (I get over 22 mpg in mixed driving, unloaded. No fullsize can match it.)

 

4. It's easier to drive/park.

 

5. It's easier to load from the side or from behind.

 

6. I don't need to tow 9900 pounds

 

7. There are few places in the cab that I can't reach while in the driver's seat, a convenience that I appreciate.

 

8. It's every bit a reliable as the full size.

 

9. It holds its value as well as a full size.

 

10. It's every bit as comfortable as a full size. (subjective opinion, I admit)

 

11. I can carry anything that a full size can (admittedly not as much of it), but what the hell would you buy at Home Depot that would fit in a full size, but not in a Ranger? It may take me more trips, but I can still get it there.

 

The biggest reason I like my pickup is that when I need a pickup, I have one. When I need cheap transportation, I have that too.....in the same vehicle.

 

Well I thought that was a damn good list Richard, it all made perfect sense to me. Again the only thing I would add are the "lifestyles" aspect as you mentioned earlier. I can get a bunch of camping gear in a ranger, or a dirt bike, bicycles, heck you can even line the bed with plastic sheeting, tape it to the side, fill the bed with ice and beer (God that was a great party), ahem, never mind that last one.

[RichardJensen]

Hey, there are people who will buy anything.

 

The Ranger is a truck whose virtues are entirely practical; in the same way that there were people that were probably happy with the Model T, so today there are people that see value in the practical aspects of the 4-cylinder Ranger.

 

However, there are considerable drawbacks to having the Ranger as a first vehicle if you even have a spouse, let alone kids; and people with money to buy a brand new second vehicle are not likely to appreciate the practical virtues of the Ranger, as it is just not practical to buy a second vehicle new.

 

I mean the Ranger is basically painted into a corner--bump up its capacities and you run into "why not an F150?", and leave it as a thoroughly practical little runabout (but a lousy people carrier), and you basically have no audience whatsoever.

[BlackHorse]

Hey, there are people who will buy anything.

 

The Ranger is a truck whose virtues are entirely practical; in the same way that there were people that were probably happy with the Model T, so today there are people that see value in the practical aspects of the 4-cylinder Ranger.

 

However, there are considerable drawbacks to having the Ranger as a first vehicle if you even have a spouse, let alone kids; and people with money to buy a brand new second vehicle are not likely to appreciate the practical virtues of the Ranger, as it is just not practical to buy a second vehicle new.

 

I mean the Ranger is basically painted into a corner--bump up its capacities and you run into "why not an F150?", and leave it as a thoroughly practical little runabout (but a lousy people carrier), and you basically have no audience whatsoever.

 

Oh now Richard, you could make the same people hauler argument about a roadster or the Mustang or even the Regular cab F150. I would submit that if you have a family of 3 you already know better then to look at a ranger or a fullsize regular cab F150 or even a Miata or Mustang. That doesn't make it any less of a vehicle. It has certain attributes and they either work for your lifestyle and use or they don't. You can't make a round peg fit a square hole no matter what.

[RichardJensen]

Oh now Richard, you could make the same people hauler argument about a roadster or the Mustang or even the Regular cab F150. I would submit that if you have a family of 3 you already know better then to look at a ranger or a fullsize regular cab F150 or even a Miata or Mustang. That doesn't make it any less of a vehicle. It has certain attributes and they either work for your lifestyle and use or they don't. You can't make a round peg fit a square hole no matter what.

So, what's practical about a roadster or a Mustang? As I said, the problem with the Ranger is that it is hardly attractive to most of the people with means to buy one.

 

And I highly doubt that there are significant sales of regular cab F150s to individuals.

[BlackHorse]

So, what's practical about a roadster or a Mustang? As I said, the problem with the Ranger is that it is hardly attractive to most of the people with means to buy one.

 

And I highly doubt that there are significant sales of regular cab F150s to individuals.

 

Ok wait, stick to one school of complaint at a time man. Are you complaining about the people hauler aspect or the practicality aspect? There's plenty of practical uses for a compact pickup Richard, some of which have been listed here. They aren't the greatest for hauling around 3 or more people unless you opt for a crew cab (which Ford doesn't offer). I don't know where this logic comes from that everything has to be practical or it's not worth buying. If that were the case the iconic Mustang would never sell. As I said, every vehicle has its certain attributes. If those attributes are what you want or need in the vehicle then go ahead and buy it. If not then don't. We could "what if" the damn things all day long but in the end there's nothing wrong with buying a compact pickup over a full size one.

[RichardJensen]

Ok wait, stick to one school of complaint at a time man. Are you complaining about the people hauler aspect or the practicality aspect? There's plenty of practical uses for a compact pickup Richard, some of which have been listed here. They aren't the greatest for hauling around 3 or more people unless you opt for a crew cab (which Ford doesn't offer). I don't know where this logic comes from that everything has to be practical or it's not worth buying. If that were the case the iconic Mustang would never sell. As I said, every vehicle has its certain attributes. If those attributes are what you want or need in the vehicle then go ahead and buy it. If not then don't. We could "what if" the damn things all day long but in the end there's nothing wrong with buying a compact pickup over a full size one.

Okay, it's like this:

 

The Ranger is not attractive to most people that are only going to own only one car. Why? For image conscious people it hasn't enough image. For status conscious people, there's not enough status. For families there is not enough room.

 

So few people will own -just- a new Ranger.

 

Now, how many people will be buying a -new- Ranger as a second vehicle?

 

Let's take a look at the percentage of the population that buys brand new second vehicles.

 

These tend to be higher income individuals that don't mind leveraging their income into debt. Look around at your friends, etc. How many of them bought their second vehicle brand new?

 

Of those that did, how many bought a vehicle as utilitarian and single purpose as a 4-cylinder Ranger. I should stress, the Ranger is practical for most 'truck' uses that a single individual would think of; but it is eminently impractical as a conveyance of people.

 

The Ranger is not, at present, an attractive 'first vehicle' to the majority of new car buyers, and it is not attractive to the people that buy 'second cars' new.

 

The only hope, IMO, is to make the Ranger attractive to some of the people that buy new cars (and that would be youth that can afford the Ranger along with its insurance, but in order to do that, they'd need to make the Ranger more appealing to youths).

Edited August 30, 2007 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

If that were the case the iconic Mustang would never sell.

Exactly. What does the Mustang do that the Ranger doesn't?

 

The Mustang gives you a certain amount of status among a certain group of people. You can impress people with the Mustang. Nobody is impressed by a Ranger.

 

See, the Mustang is just as useless as the Ranger when it comes to moving people around, but it does something else that people want their cars to do far better than the Ranger.

 

It impresses other people.

[BlackHorse]

Ok, well maybe there in lies the reason I'm just not getting what you're saying because frankly I couldn't give a rats ass about impressing anybody. 2005GTP on the other hand? Well that's another story. At any rate, there's got to be plenty of people out there like me who aren't out to buy a vehicle because it impresses other people. I mean personally I find that kind of behavior to be just flat out obnoxious and I can't stand people who do it, but I know they are out there. But here's my contention with this line of thought.

 

The Ranger is not attractive to most people that are only going to own only one car. Why? For image conscious people it hasn't enough image. For status conscious people, there's not enough status. For families there is not enough room.

 

I don't think it's fair to break everyone down into either image conscious, status conscious or family oriented. I think there's probably a whole lot of us out here that don't fall into any of those categories and just buy vehicles based on what kind of attributes does it have and what do I want or need. I mean obviously some other factors play in there like cost, and so on, but I think theres a lot of us that don't need to drive around wrapped up in our own expressive rolling ego. Anyway, that's just the way I look at it. Two schools of thought I guess. From where I sit I could absolutely see a single guy opting for a compact pickup as his primary vehicle.

[630land]

The question is how many new Rangers are sold at profitable retail? Most I see at Ford dealer are fleet white, ready for stickers. How many are fleet and do they make $$$? The loyalists like to see fleet vehicles sold to cream over the #'s, but then look at the unsold used ones.

 

People driving old trucks who only buy used are complaining, but where are you when sales are needed? Just like the Panther loyalists, they buys old ratty used, but expect "other people" to pay to keep "their car" in production.

 

I don't think Ford could get away with no new compact truck. More likely a 'global' compact truck will be a replacement.

[RichardJensen]

Can't make out in a Ranger either so there goes your single guys.

 

People buy new cars for either 'practical' (no new car purchase is practical from a dollars and cents standpoint), or 'impractical' reasons.

 

Reliable and safe haulage of family and friends: practical.

 

Getting over midlife crisis: impractical.

 

Now the Ranger is, from a certain standpoint, quite practical. But the people that find it practical are not likely to buy it new.

 

And thus, more or less, we see the -entire segment- slipping away.

[BlackHorse]

Can't make out in a Ranger either wink.gif so there goes your single guys.

 

People buy new cars for either 'practical' (no new car purchase is practical from a dollars and cents standpoint), or 'impractical' reasons.

 

Reliable and safe haulage of family and friends: practical.

 

Getting over midlife crisis: impractical.

 

Now the Ranger is, from a certain standpoint, quite practical. But the people that find it practical are not likely to buy it new.

 

And thus, more or less, we see the -entire segment- slipping away.

 

I agree with most of that except for one glaring error.

 

Can't make out in a Ranger either wink.gif so there goes your single guys.

 

As far as I know other vehicles don't have ready made beds for that sort of thing. Break out the air mattress, open up the sliding glass and throw some Berry White on the CD player. LOL

[goingincirclez]

I'll chime in here, as we thought for quite a bit about buying a NEW ranger back in 2003-2004.

 

For the record, I'm kind of with Blackhorse: I don't give a crap who or what is impressed by what I drive. Heck, I even find that a well-worn, six-color true soldier of a car (most people just call them beaters) to be among the most fun and interesting to drive. It takes a real man to step to one of those IMHO.

 

That said, I appreciate a car that is practical but also fun. And I loathe new car payments. The reason we still cling to our '97 T-birds is that they handle well and have just enough torque and power (from their day and still now) to get into some spirited mayhem. It was somewhat stylish, and very comfortable. And it is big enough to haul my office buddies to lunch, or tons of crap on trips and such.

 

 

Anyhow... we looked at a Ranger for a second vehicle. My practical side said that a Full-size was too much wasted size, gas, and money. But we would have liked something with a bit more cargo ability. And I wanted something to tow my old '88 back and forth to start work on that project. Buying it new? That was simply a case of irrational indulgence... "why not, just this once? We deserve it." Ha ha. It probably would have been my primary car, with one of the T-birds kept behind.

 

Anyway... obviously I do not have a Ranger in my sig. Basically, we couldn't decide on which T-bird to trade. :shades: Then the Little One came first and so a truck simply became IMPRACTICAL for our new situation. No time for me to haul the '88 and other projects around, the "new vehicle" money was obviously needed elsewhere, and any truck (let alone a compact) is pretty unsafe for a small child as far as my wife is concerned. And the T-Birds have proven commendably capable and reliable even since then, so we still have them. They meet our other needs stated above better than anything else.

 

Now, Number Two may change the T-birds' servicability... but our reality still precludes the purchae of a new vehicle.

 

But yeah, if we had the disposable income, I would get a Ranger in a heartbeat. It was/is truly the ideal "play" vehicle for me myself and I.

[RichardJensen]

Break out the air mattress

Planning ahead, eh?

 

You're one in a million.

[J-150]

So, what's practical about a roadster or a Mustang? As I said, the problem with the Ranger is that it is hardly attractive to most of the people with means to buy one.

 

 

The Ranger used to be attractive and to those without means.

 

A few years back there was the low cost Ranger Splash. Cost competitive with an entry level car. Ford sold a ton of them. And it got people that hated the thought of having to buy an econobox hatchback.

 

Maybe the answer is to have the Ranger go mid-size and bring back the Courier micro-truck. Make it a 1.6 TDI that gets 50mpg. They woud sell 100k a year easily.

[RangerM]

Now the Ranger is, from a certain standpoint, quite practical. But the people that find it practical are not likely to buy it new.

 

And thus, more or less, we see the -entire segment- slipping away.

 

I moved out of Cary, NC a little over a year ago. Cary is a real-life "Stepford", and having the only pickup (a Ranger) in the neighborhood, made me quite popular.

 

Since I moved away, two people in the old neighborhood have got one. One was used, one was a new purchase I think. These are people with means so a cheap truck (a 3rd vehicle) is not beyond their (credit?) reach.

 

I can only think that people have got away from these trucks because they don't do anything themselves anymore, or they don't mind getting out the tarp and lining their SUV/minivans with it when they go to the nursery or Lowes.

 

Based on my experience, I don't see why Rangers aren't considered the Accord/Camry truck equivalent; every bit as practical (for their intended purpose) and just as ubiquitous.