snooter Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 what a dumbass decision by ford to close saint paul and can the ranger..i had a ranger..decent truck with far better mpg then my ram or former f150...i know i know the ranger is billion years old..but when is the ranger set to arrive from south africa?...2010 or 2011? (too late in my opinion)...and another thing..yea i have a problem with unions..but hell at least the ranger was built in saint paul and not some african ass country (aka imported)....with gas at 4bux here i vote to keep saint paul open (see i can be nice union guys) and birthing out rangers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 contrary to popular belief, the Ranger is not efficient. Sure, a stripped, 5speed regular cab 4cyl is efficient, but the 4.0 is NOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted May 22, 2008 Author Share Posted May 22, 2008 contrary to popular belief, the Ranger is not efficient. Sure, a stripped, 5speed regular cab 4cyl is efficient, but the 4.0 is NOT. i had the 4 banger (manual transmission) with 8 spark plugs...damn thing got decent mileage..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 The 3.0L Ranger was a decent performer, but that's long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 The 3.0L Ranger was a decent performer, but that's long gone. I borrowed one of my brother's Rangers when my wife's CX-7 was in the body shop last year (a guy backed out in front of her). It's a 2003 extended cab with the 3.0. I actually thought it was pretty weak, and it got slightly less gas mileage than my 05 Mustang GT. Rangers are very reliable, but J-150 was right. Only the 4 cyl 5 speed gets good mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted May 22, 2008 Author Share Posted May 22, 2008 I borrowed one of my brother's Rangers when my wife's CX-7 was in the body shop last year (a guy backed out in front of her). It's a 2003 extended cab with the 3.0. I actually thought it was pretty weak, and it got slightly less gas mileage than my 05 Mustang GT. Rangers are very reliable, but J-150 was right. Only the 4 cyl 5 speed gets good mileage. well..what has my panties in a bunch is if people start buying 4 cyclinder tacomas (high gas cost) due to ford having no product....may be saint paul can birth out 4 bangers and the occasional 6 banger until the new south african inbreed ranger arrives..i dunno...i just hate to see more people out of work in this country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 keep in mind the 4L V6 is going away and I dont see Ford spending money just to put the 3.5/3.7 V6 in the Ranger... Let it go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 what a dumbass decision by ford to close saint paul and can the ranger..i had a ranger..decent truck with far better mpg then my ram or former f150...i know i know the ranger is billion years old..but when is the ranger set to arrive from south africa?...2010 or 2011? (too late in my opinion)...and another thing..yea i have a problem with unions..but hell at least the ranger was built in saint paul and not some african ass country (aka imported)....with gas at 4bux here i vote to keep saint paul open (see i can be nice union guys) and birthing out rangers Ford is not going to keep Twin Cities plant open producing 75,000 Rangers a year. If you read the latest AN article on that plant, you will notice that Ford has not officially ended Ranger production, only Ranger production at Twin Cities. Put two and two together. News story about Louisville plant getting another product and Ranger production ending at Twin Cities. I still say good chance Ranger production will head to Louisville until global Ranger debuts. A 2010 Ranger with new 2.5L I4 and 6 speed trans makes good sense since Ford still needs Ranger now. Ranger to Louisville. Ford has and needs to consolidate plants and decrease overcapacity to keep Way Forward plan on track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 I borrowed one of my brother's Rangers when my wife's CX-7 was in the body shop last year (a guy backed out in front of her). It's a 2003 extended cab with the 3.0. I actually thought it was pretty weak, and it got slightly less gas mileage than my 05 Mustang GT. Rangers are very reliable, but J-150 was right. Only the 4 cyl 5 speed gets good mileage. Yeah...the 3.0 is the biggest joke of a motor if there ever was one. In the Ranger, it spends most of it's life ABOVE 2500 RPMs. The Ranger could be very efficient...if it had the right engine/tranny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 contrary to popular belief, the Ranger is not efficient. Sure, a stripped, 5speed regular cab 4cyl is efficient, but the 4.0 is NOT. I'll agree that the CURRENT 4.0 doesn't do very well, but my old OHV (1993) 4.0 has never got below 20. Still does to this day, with the original plugs/wires and 150K miles. Too bad that 160 horsepower isn't 'enough' anymore or they could go back to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 I'll agree that the CURRENT 4.0 doesn't do very well, but my old OHV (1993) 4.0 has never got below 20. Still does to this day, with the original plugs/wires and 150K miles. Too bad that 160 horsepower isn't 'enough' anymore or they could go back to it. 160 is enough...just horrid when it is being made by a 4.0 V6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Hm, what about a Ranger with the new 2.5L and an optional PIP 3.0L ? Would that be viable? Supposedly the Ranger slots anywhere from 3400-3700lbs. Hm, maybe what about a Focus based pick-up with the above mentioned engines? Something possibly Transit based, how much might that weigh in, and how efficient would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 160 is enough...just horrid when it is being made by a 4.0 V6. I always considered the 225 ft-lbs of torque the more important parameter, anyway. (may be 235, I don't remember) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 I wouldn't be too excited about the small Ranger gains lately, the Ranger has to go in order for Ford to bring on board much more competitive products which may very well define the segment. Ranger profitability is diminished with the more orphaned its parts become. This is also true of the Panther products. Once the Ranger is gone, the Panther will carry almost all unique parts while carrying very small volume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Unless gas prices double in the next 9 months, it really isn't going to make much sense for Ford to keep the ranger around. Even if gas prices double, its going to depend on demand for the ranger skyrocketing all of a sudden for Ford to even think of carrying it all the way until the Fed crash worthiness mandate kills the current design in two years. If demand all of a sudden starts to spike for it, which I doubt, then I believe that ford will just carry it on just like it is. Any gains made from modifying the product now would be offset by the costs of development. In all, there is really only one modification that may make any sense. Replacing the 2.3L with the new 2.5L. Keep everything else the same (in as much as the 2.5L change allows that to happen) and just go with that. I can see where that's not a cost-trivial move, but, it allows Ford to move forward with the 2.5L for everything else without holding up the line for the ranger and its need for the 2.3L. On paper, the 2.5L is right on top of the old 3.0L v6 in power, yet is expected to get as good or better milleage as the 2.3L. HEck, that should even allow an extended cab 4X4 to work. No matter what, the current ranger must die in the next two years. They can't legally sell it any longer without significant work. They can, however, build a crap load of them and sit them on lots until they all go, they'd just be living on that last year's worth of inventory. Also, there's no way they'd invest the money to relocate the ranger to Louisville in its present form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noub Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The demand for small pickups is already there, and the ranger replacements (F100 and new ranger) will only be there within 3 years. Ford need to continue with the current ranger (maybe with the new 2.5l you're right) until its replacement or as you said stop the production 6 months before the arrival of the new ranger in order to sell the inventory. Ford needs to keep selling their old but fuel efficient vehicules (ranger for trucks and focus for cars) until the new generation arrives. In 2010-2011, ford will have a tremendous line up. The problem is the gas price is climbing now and ford is 2 years away of its new product generation ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 (edited) Hm, what about a Ranger with the new 2.5L and an optional PIP 3.0L ? Would that be viable? Supposedly the Ranger slots anywhere from 3400-3700lbs. Hm, maybe what about a Focus based pick-up with the above mentioned engines? Something possibly Transit based, how much might that weigh in, and how efficient would that be? A revised Ecoboost 4cyl would be the answer. Maybe 2 options, a 2.0 and 2.5 ecoboost. Both would put out power comparable to the current 3.0 and 4.0s on the road (realising that the 3.0 is no more but they are still on the road) 6 speeds should be the only trannies (auto and manual) to ensure low turning highway gearing. I also think that if Ford brings in the global Ranger, the Crewcab should be part of that. If all other small/midsized trucks have Crews, screw the SportTrac and its' inefficiency and make the Ranger a family hauler. Really, if the original purpose of the SportTrac was to maintain an Explorer sales crown (versus crewcab sales being assigned to the Ranger) then that rationale no longer matters as SUV sales go into the toilet. It should be all about profitable unit sales now. Not maintaining sales crowns. Edited May 23, 2008 by J-150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 what a dumbass decision by ford to close saint paul and can the ranger.. It's a decision that relates to the fact that the American government put in new side airbag laws that the Ranger cannot effectively pass. Change the truck, save the plant. However, perhaps a replacement Ranger will be tooled up when it starts later this decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noub Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 It's a decision that relates to the fact that the American government put in new side airbag laws that the Ranger cannot effectively pass. Change the truck, save the plant. However, perhaps a replacement Ranger will be tooled up when it starts later this decade. When does this law apply ? Can ford build the current Ranger until the end of 2010 and thus, just has to wait some few months for its replacement instead of having a 2 year hole in its line up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 When does this law apply ? Can ford build the current Ranger until the end of 2010 and thus, just has to wait some few months for its replacement instead of having a 2 year hole in its line up Not sure. I'm just parrotting what I've heard on the forums that mandeatory side airbag regulations are what will kill the Ranger. The regulations appear to be starting in 2013, but automakers have voluntary agreed to making them standard by 2009. http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-regulation...de-airbags.html 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.