Ranger Rescue

[rmc523]

The long and the short is that I'd like to see Ford continue producing the Ranger until an all-new Ranger can be introduced to meet the current and anticipated future Market demands.

 

I highly agree. IMO, Ranger production should be continued at least until the F-100 is produced, and if the Ranger replacement is due out the same year as the F-100 as speculated, then current Ranger production should continue until it's "official" replacement.

 

Now, if it doesn't meet crash standards or something, that's one thing, but if it does, there should be no reason to discontinue it until a replacement is ready, especially with the general downsizing trend.

[rmc523]

I've never looked at the sales figures, but obviously that is why all you see around here are rangers. (4 in my shop alone)

#1 is ranger 7 out of 10

#2 is colorado 2 out of 10

#3 everything else 1 out of 10

 

Last night going home saw 4 new rangers with signs/cones etc in the back doing highway construction. Looked weird not seeing 1/2 tons.

 

Well, if all they're doing is hauling signs and cones around, I'd hope you wouldn't need a 1/2 ton to do that.

[armadamaster]

IMHO, the GM Colorado/Canyon are more to the compact pickup side of things than the rest of the mid sizers. They aren't as large as comparable Frontier, Tacoma and Dakota models, and tend to be a bit lighter as well.

 

 

That's true, I was taking notice of that the other day. :stats:

[P71_CrownVic]

Yeah, because putting in 2 new engines and new transmissions will cost them nothing. It's a freebie! :rolleyes:

 

I can't blame Ford one iota for not wanting to spend a dime upgrading the Ranger before its replacement is here. There's simply no way in hell it would raise sales enough to recoup R&D costs in time. Several years ago it may have been worthwhile, but this close to the end of the product cycle would be a complete waste of time and money.

 

My God you :cheerleader: talk in circles. I conclude that Ford spent A TON of money on the Flexible, and you guys come back and say that it really didn't cost them much as it is just a redesgined T-X. Ok...

 

Then, I propose that Ford just swap the engines in the Ranger...and you assume that Ford won't be making any money.

 

Then, you say that swapping engines and trans in the Ranger would be "a complete waste of time and money", but engineering and designing a seven seat station wagon, when Ford already has a well reviewed, extremely capable seven seat station wagon is not "a complete waste of time and money"

 

There is no understanding you people.

 

Ford would make their money back MUCH, MUCH sooner if they swapped engined and the trans on the Ranger than they will with the Scion.

[armadamaster]

My God you :cheerleader: talk in circles. I conclude that Ford spent A TON of money on the Flexible, and you guys come back and say that it really didn't cost them much as it is just a redesgined T-X. Ok...

 

Then, I propose that Ford just swap the engines in the Ranger...and you assume that Ford won't be making any money.

 

Then, you say that swapping engines and trans in the Ranger would be "a complete waste of time and money", but engineering and designing a seven seat station wagon, when Ford already has a well reviewed, extremely capable seven seat station wagon is not "a complete waste of time and money"

 

There is no understanding you people.

 

Ford would make their money back MUCH, MUCH sooner if they swapped engined and the trans on the Ranger than they will with the Scion.

 

Don't ya know? Ford is too busy dumping money into the D3 Taurus for the umpteenth time to try and get somebody...anybody to buy one than to spend money on the little ol' Ranger with $4+ buck-a-gallon gas.

[FordFanForEver]

Don't ya know? Ford is too busy dumping money into the D3 Taurus for the umpteenth time to try and get somebody...anybody to buy one than to spend money on the little ol' Ranger with $4+ buck-a-gallon gas.

 

Little ol' Ranger with a 4 banger gets better mpg than the thirsty 3.5 V6 in the Taurus. Heck, the 3.0 in the 500 gets better mpg than the 3.5 in the Taurus.

[351cid]

My 2005 Five Hundred does better than my 89 Ranger with a 2.3L. But I don't like throwing trash in the trunk of the FH.

[Mower Man]

As someone responsible for ordering my Dealership's inventory from Ford, I'll add a few thoughts to the Ranger discussion here.

 

Yes, Ranger sales have been dropping for some time now but I hate the thought of Ford dropping the only compact pickup left in the Market. Every time Ford discontinues a vehicle line we lose those customers to another brand and may never get them back into the Ford family. A good part of Toyota's success has been because the Big 3 domestic manufacturers literally handed them the market share. Every time Ford discontinues/abandons a market segment the imports and/or Toyota jump right in with a model to fill the gap left in Ford's or the Big 3's product line. FYI... I'm using the "Big 3" term here as a reference to the traditional "Big 3" being GM, Ford & Chrysler. For example... Ford replaced the Tempo with the Contour and then dropped the Contour with no new vehicle in that segment at the same time that Ford was in the early stages of letting the Taurus languish in the Market with no significant updates. Along the way, Toyota redesigned their Camry series but also quickly added the 2-door Camry (Solaris) & Solaris convertible models. Ford's management in Dearborn literally didn't care because they were making so much profit on trucks and SUV's. It doesn't take long for anyone in this business to realize that the entire industry runs in cycles as to Market demands, etc. Unfortunately, it's only in the past couple of years that the Big 3 have woken up to the long term and permanent changes happening in the Market.

 

The Ranger still fills a need in the Market. This is not to say that it has been long overlooked for an investment in a new, updated design and more fuel effiecient powertrain. As long as Ford can produce the Ranger and break even on lower volume until a new Ranger can be brought to Market, the Company has nothing to lose and can use the time to cover the subcompact pickup segment and keep the customers in the Ford family. An all-new 4-Door Ranger SuperCrew would be a big improvement.

 

The long and the short is that I'd like to see Ford continue producing the Ranger until an all-new Ranger can be introduced to meet the current and anticipated future Market demands.

 

EXACTLY !!!

[goinbroke2]

Well, if all they're doing is hauling signs and cones around, I'd hope you wouldn't need a 1/2 ton to do that.

 

Well, they're hauling signs and cones TODAY, maybe tomorrow they will be hauling dirt/gravel/compacters/etc. Most around here run 1/2 tons and yes the boxes are beat up inside.

I drove my 4 door one ton by myself yesterday...with your conclusions, I don't even need a truck!

 

The point is;

1) ranger outsells ALL small trucks around here

2) they are even replacing 1/2tons in some applications

3) due to 1 and 2, the ranger should be kept alive for a long time yet.

[TomServo92]

Heck, the 3.0 in the 500 gets better mpg than the 3.5 in the Taurus.

 

Is that so?

[silvrsvt]

Little ol' Ranger with a 4 banger gets better mpg than the thirsty 3.5 V6 in the Taurus. Heck, the 3.0 in the 500 gets better mpg than the 3.5 in the Taurus.

 

Not quite, the 500 AWD gets 17/23 under the new MPG rules and the Taurus AWD gets 17/24. The 08 Ranger with I4 and RWD only gets 19/24. The FWD Taurus gets 18/28 vs CVT/FWD 500 at 18/25 and a FWD 500 at 19/26.

[DSenstad]

A worth while note, the Ranger is making over $5,000 a unit in profit right now. I think it could withstand a little R&D concerning engines and drive trains.

 

Changes have already been made to address some of the crash standards and I think their is enough in the coffer to make the necessary changes to maintain market share. As has been mentioned, market share isn't a given... if you have it, keep it. If it costs money to hold it, it might still be cheaper than losing it.

[rmc523]

Well, they're hauling signs and cones TODAY, maybe tomorrow they will be hauling dirt/gravel/compacters/etc. Most around here run 1/2 tons and yes the boxes are beat up inside.

I drove my 4 door one ton by myself yesterday...with your conclusions, I don't even need a truck!

 

The point is;

1) ranger outsells ALL small trucks around here

2) they are even replacing 1/2tons in some applications

3) due to 1 and 2, the ranger should be kept alive for a long time yet.

 

I know, it was sort of a joke but not at the same time. I understand that a truck will not be used as a "truck" at all times, my dad has one and I know he's not always hauling stuff around, but it's great to have when you do need to.

 

I agree, it should be kept around until a replacement is ready.

[FordFanForEver]

Is that so?

 

Hey buddy, dont crap me with those ratings. We have a 500 that we had to take to a ford dealer to get a replacement part and our Average Enconomy is 25 mpg. We rented a Taurus for a week and drove the same distance as we do in our 500 and the taurus only averaged 22 Mpg.

 

Sure the 3.5 is a good engine. Has plenty of power but it sucks fuel...

[FordFanForEver]

My Ranger with a 3.0 does worse than what the sticker said

Edited June 10, 2008 by FordFanForEver

[FordFanForEver]

I know, it was sort of a joke but not at the same time. I understand that a truck will not be used as a "truck" at all times, my dad has one and I know he's not always hauling stuff around, but it's great to have when you do need to.

 

I agree, it should be kept around until a replacement is ready.

 

They can go ahead and drop the B-Series.

[FordFanForEver]

Double post

Edited June 10, 2008 by FordFanForEver

[P71_CrownVic]

A worth while note, the Ranger is making over $5,000 a unit in profit right now. I think it could withstand a little R&D concerning engines and drive trains.

 

Changes have already been made to address some of the crash standards and I think their is enough in the coffer to make the necessary changes to maintain market share. As has been mentioned, market share isn't a given... if you have it, keep it. If it costs money to hold it, it might still be cheaper than losing it.

 

QUIET!! Profitable platforms are the last thing Ford wants right now.

[TomServo92]

Hey buddy, dont crap me with those ratings. We have a 500 that we had to take to a ford dealer to get a replacement part and our Average Enconomy is 25 mpg. We rented a Taurus for a week and drove the same distance as we do in our 500 and the taurus only averaged 22 Mpg.

 

Sure the 3.5 is a good engine. Has plenty of power but it sucks fuel...

 

The fuel economy ratings aren't absolutes. Rather they are a way to gauge one vehicle against another since they were both tested using the same methods. Your one week of driving a Taurus in no way validates that the Taurus gets worse mileage than the 500 since there's no control over conditions like there is in the EPA testing.

[suv_guy_19]

The fuel economy ratings aren't absolutes. Rather they are a way to gauge one vehicle against another since they were both tested using the same methods. Your one week of driving a Taurus in no way validates that the Taurus gets worse mileage than the 500 since there's no control over conditions like there is in the EPA testing.

 

 

The mileage on the car has a big impact, as Fords do worse in terms of gas use for their first while.

[FordFanForEver]

The fuel economy ratings aren't absolutes. Rather they are a way to gauge one vehicle against another since they were both tested using the same methods. Your one week of driving a Taurus in no way validates that the Taurus gets worse mileage than the 500 since there's no control over conditions like there is in the EPA testing.

 

Sorry that i went off on you above but i stand by what i said. The Taurus had 20,000 miles on it which is more than enough to be broke in. The engine just sucks fuel, Even igor made a comment on how the 3.5 sucks fuel when he wrote a review on the TX.

[jpd80]

Sorry that i went off on you above but i stand by what i said. The Taurus had 20,000 miles on it which is more than enough to be broke in. The engine just sucks fuel, Even igor made a comment on how the 3.5 sucks fuel when he wrote a review on the TX.

If ever a car was crying out for a 3.0 V6 Hybrid or a 2.0 EB Hybrid, it's the Taurus/Fivehundred.

Edited June 11, 2008 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

Sorry that i went off on you above but i stand by what i said. The Taurus had 20,000 miles on it which is more than enough to be broke in. The engine just sucks fuel, Even igor made a comment on how the 3.5 sucks fuel when he wrote a review on the TX.

 

All depends on your driving habits also and if you have a lead food. I had a Sennia Minivan that was a rental that wouldn't budge over or under 21 MPG the whole time I had it for 2 weeks...

[NickF1011]

My God you :cheerleader: talk in circles. I conclude that Ford spent A TON of money on the Flexible, and you guys come back and say that it really didn't cost them much as it is just a redesgined T-X. Ok...

 

Then, I propose that Ford just swap the engines in the Ranger...and you assume that Ford won't be making any money.

 

Then, you say that swapping engines and trans in the Ranger would be "a complete waste of time and money", but engineering and designing a seven seat station wagon, when Ford already has a well reviewed, extremely capable seven seat station wagon is not "a complete waste of time and money"

 

There is no understanding you people.

 

Ford would make their money back MUCH, MUCH sooner if they swapped engined and the trans on the Ranger than they will with the Scion.

 

1. The Flex is a brand new vehicle.

 

2. The Flex isn't being discontinued in 2-3 years.

 

3. The Flex will likely sell in higher volumes than the Ranger.

 

4. The Flex will definitely have a much much much higher average transaction price than the Ranger.

 

5. The Flex shares architectures and powertrains with other vehicles already.

 

6. The Flex is being built in a flex plant that allows for far greater flexibility in production management.

 

How can you even REMOTELY compare the Ranger to the Flex when it comes to costs? The situations are NOTHING alike.

[NickF1011]

Hey buddy, dont crap me with those ratings. We have a 500 that we had to take to a ford dealer to get a replacement part and our Average Enconomy is 25 mpg. We rented a Taurus for a week and drove the same distance as we do in our 500 and the taurus only averaged 22 Mpg.

 

Sure the 3.5 is a good engine. Has plenty of power but it sucks fuel...

 

Well that seals it for me!

 

After FordFanForEver's thoroughly scientific study, the Five Hundred obviously gets better fuel economy than the Taurus.