The Ranger MAY NOT be Dead – Long Live the Ranger

[1926mercury]

See today's DetNews article:

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../806250358/1148

 

"Under the plan now being weighed by Ford, the Ranger would stay in production until 2011"

"at 21 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, the Ranger is the most fuel-efficient compact pickup on the market today"

"Ranger sales have posted a modest gain this year"

 

Against the plan is: old (V6) engines, lack of curtian bags.

 

We can only hope...

[FordFanForEver]

See today's DetNews article:

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../806250358/1148

 

"Under the plan now being weighed by Ford, the Ranger would stay in production until 2011"

"at 21 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, the Ranger is the most fuel-efficient compact pickup on the market today"

"Ranger sales have posted a modest gain this year"

 

Against the plan is: old (V6) engines, lack of curtian bags.

 

We can only hope...

 

Does Ford plan on removing the 3.0 and 4.0 V6 engines?

[jonas1022]

Does Ford plan on removing the 3.0 and 4.0 V6 engines?

IDK, but the question might really be:

 

Can they build enough of the 3.5L Ecoboost engine to supply the Ranger as well?

 

I kinda doubt it. More likely that they will continue on with a curtain airbag in place for the side impact law. Just have to figure out, test and certify the system. If they have enough money to do so...

[FordFanForEver]

IDK, but the question might really be:

 

Can they build enough of the 3.5L Ecoboost engine to supply the Ranger as well?

 

I kinda doubt it. More likely that they will continue on with a curtain airbag in place for the side impact law. Just have to figure out, test and certify the system. If they have enough money to do so...

 

I think they should put in the Ecoboost V6 in the Ranger, along with the new 2.5 I4. Maybe even stick the hybrid 2.5 I4 in it.

[pintoboy]

See today's DetNews article:

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../806250358/1148

 

"Under the plan now being weighed by Ford, the Ranger would stay in production until 2011"

"at 21 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, the Ranger is the most fuel-efficient compact pickup on the market today"

"Ranger sales have posted a modest gain this year"

 

Against the plan is: old (V6) engines, lack of curtian bags.

 

We can only hope...

I have an '02 XL. No problems. I'm glad Ford's considering leaving Twin Cities open. Had my body shop do a Victoria paint treatment, installed red line tires and aluminun 5-slot Ford wheels, dual exhaust (it's a 2.3) painted bumpers and grille to match the body then added Harley-Davidson stainless steel emblems. Awesome looking AND still get my 28 mpg average.

[nilkilla]

didn't read article. but I hope they put in new escape powertrains at least(6-spd, upgraded motors)

[chevys]

If Ford could use the 3.5 in the ranger what kind of fuel mileage could we expect? Is a manuel tranny stout enough to hold the torque? Im interested in a stripped down model but hate to buy yesterdays technology today. I have to say you can get one cheap right now. I saw a xl with air for 11995.

[WC-MAN]

Check out IIHS's recent small pickup tests. Being old doesn't hurt the Ranger much from a safety perspective, and if Ford could increase the safety, they would leapfrog everybody automatically.

[povertyknob]

If Ford could use the 3.5 in the ranger what kind of fuel mileage could we expect? Is a manuel tranny stout enough to hold the torque? Im interested in a stripped down model but hate to buy yesterdays technology today. I have to say you can get one cheap right now. I saw a xl with air for 11995.

Ford has been incredibly stubborn about spending money on updating the Ranger. The 3.5 gets decent fuel economy hauling around my AWD Edge , which is a pretty heavy vehicle , so I'd expect better fuel effeciency than the 4.0 gets in the Ranger. The 3.5 isn't set up for big torque numbers in the Edge since the six speed is designed to get it rolling pretty quickly and get decent fuel economy. The combined capacity between Lima and Cleveland seems like enough to provide enough engines. The problem I see is that with the F-100 being tabled and the announcement of importing a small truck from overseas Ford will be loathe to spend another dime on the current Ranger.

[povertyknob]

I think they should put in the Ecoboost V6 in the Ranger, along with the new 2.5 I4. Maybe even stick the hybrid 2.5 I4 in it.

The 3.5 is rated at 262 to 265 horsepower in "normally aspirated" form and would , I think , be a decent upgrade from the 4.0 at around 210 horsepower. I would imagine Ford will reserve the ecoboost versions for vehicles with higher profit margins. In any case it might be a while before they are available. I'm not sure how many 3.5 motors will be available during the changeover to ecoboost production so that might change the thinking. I'd sure like to stop at a dealership in a couple of years and see a Ranger GT with the ecoboost V-6.

[theoldwizard]

Does Ford plan on removing the 3.0 and 4.0 V6 engines?

The 3.0L will be out of production soon, possibly end of 2008CY. The only other vehicle that uses the 3.0L is the Fusion and it is going to the 3.5L in Jan-09.

 

 

EDIT : ERROR ! I forgot the 2009 Escape still uses the 3.0L !

 

The 4.0L will remain in production for several more years, at least until the end of the current model Explorer/SporTrac. This is too bad, because the 4.0L is no gas sipper and it is long past its prime.

 

I would be very surprised if the 3.5L showed up in the Ranger.

Edited August 8, 2008 by theoldwizard

[povertyknob]

The 3.0L will be out of production soon, possibly end of 2008CY. The only other vehicle that uses the 3.0L is the Fusion and it is going to the 3.5L in Jan-09.

 

 

EDIT : ERROR ! I forgot the 2009 Escape still uses the 3.0L !

 

The 4.0L will remain in production for several more years, at least until the end of the current model Explorer/SporTrac. This is too bad, because the 4.0L is no gas sipper and it is long past its prime.

 

I would be very surprised if the 3.5L showed up in the Ranger.

The 3.0 Vulcan used in the ranger is already gone. It was a low tech , but efficient little motor that paid for itself and then some. The 3.0L inthe Fusion/Escape is newer and might be around for a while. It was bumped to 240 HP for 09 and might be an option for the Ranger.....if Ford wanted to spend any money on the Ranger program. I don't see it happening.

[povertyknob]

The 3.0L will be out of production soon, possibly end of 2008CY. The only other vehicle that uses the 3.0L is the Fusion and it is going to the 3.5L in Jan-09.

 

 

EDIT : ERROR ! I forgot the 2009 Escape still uses the 3.0L !

 

The 4.0L will remain in production for several more years, at least until the end of the current model Explorer/SporTrac. This is too bad, because the 4.0L is no gas sipper and it is long past its prime.

 

I would be very surprised if the 3.5L showed up in the Ranger.

I would agree that the 4.0 will be in the ranger so long as that plant is open.While it has decent torque numbers the fuel economy is nothing to write home about. But that's what is going to be available because Ford gave up on the Ranger program nearly a decade ago. Hindsight is 20/20 , of course , but if ford had made just a minimal effort to upgrade the powertrains the last few years they would be in a position to salvage some truck sales in the era of $3.50 to $4.00 gas. I'm not sure why it makes more sense to develop a new F-100 when that market could have been captured with a continuously improved Ranger. Bottom line , they were looking for plants to close and the Ranger was not profitable with cheap gas and fuel economy no better than the F-150. Talk about a self -sustaining problem!

[stpatrick90]

The 3.0L will be out of production soon, possibly end of 2008CY. The only other vehicle that uses the 3.0L is the Fusion and it is going to the 3.5L in Jan-09.

 

 

EDIT : ERROR ! I forgot the 2009 Escape still uses the 3.0L !

 

The 4.0L will remain in production for several more years, at least until the end of the current model Explorer/SporTrac. This is too bad, because the 4.0L is no gas sipper and it is long past its prime.

 

I would be very surprised if the 3.5L showed up in the Ranger.

 

The 3.0L that was in the Ranger was/is a completely different 3.0L motor than the one used in the Fusion/Escape. The one in the Ranger is the old 2v per cylinder Vulcan that dates back to the 80's I believe. The one in the Fusion/Escape is a much newer 4v per cylinder Duratec that originated as a 2.5L V6 in the 90's. The Vulcan is old and rather inefficient by todays standards.

[stangster]

The 3.0L that was in the Ranger was/is a completely different 3.0L motor than the one used in the Fusion/Escape. The one in the Ranger is the old 2v per cylinder Vulcan that dates back to the 80's I believe. The one in the Fusion/Escape is a much newer 4v per cylinder Duratec that originated as a 2.5L V6 in the 90's. The Vulcan is old and rather inefficient by todays standards.

 

Yep - I have a 97 Ranger that has the 3.0. It is old school. But it has been an awesome truck. Hope they keep making the Ranger, just in case mine dies in the next 20 years or so.

[Mackintire]

Yep - I have a 97 Ranger that has the 3.0. It is old school. But it has been an awesome truck. Hope they keep making the Ranger, just in case mine dies in the next 20 years or so.

 

 

Sadly most people do not know that the 4.0 SOHC with mildly reworked heads makes over 260HP with no loss of low end torque. Most of us can't spend the $4000 for the heads let alone the installation costs.

 

So if Ford really wanted to fix the 4.0 they could have. +40 HP in the Ranger with no other change makes it a completely different beast. Think 1 second faster 0-60, the 30-60mph part being much more rapid,, 2 MPG better on the highway... the list goes on and on.

 

 

Sadly right now the closest vehicle to what I am looking for is the Nissan Frontier. I am hoping Ford releases something that fits my lifestyle before the end of 2013.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Mackintire

[96towncarcartier]

Latest report shows that the Twin Cities plant, that builds Ranger will NOT close next year as planned...but will stay open for two more years because demand for the Ranger is SOLID... and Ranger numbers are actually climbing...

 

Thanks to good gas mileage!

[NickF1011]

Latest report shows that the Twin Cities plant, that builds Ranger will NOT close next year as planned...but will stay open for two more years because demand for the Ranger is SOLID... and Ranger numbers are actually climbing...

 

Thanks to good gas mileage!

 

Ranger sales are pretty flat for the year, which is pretty awful all things considered. It's still not even outselling the Taurus that everyone is calling a miserable failure. The only reason the plant is staying open is because there is no replacement for the Ranger that is ready yet. Now, once that replacement is ready, I'd be more than glad if they decided to build it at Twin Cities, but that seems pretty unlikely.

[armadamaster]

Ranger sales are pretty flat for the year, which is pretty awful all things considered. It's still not even outselling the Taurus that everyone is calling a miserable failure.

 

 

Yes but Ranger is not the bottomless money pit the Taurus is.

[stpatrick90]

Yes but Ranger is not the bottomless money pit the Taurus is.

I may be going out on a limb here by saying this but I just don't see how the Taurus can be such a bottomless money pit. I mean the platform has been around awhile seeing as it originally debuted as a volvo several years ago so most of the R & D for the platform has to have been recouped by now. Additionally it isn't like the Taurus has any unique motors either seeing as they are shared with the Edge/MKX/MKZ/Flex/TX so the cost of development of the motor is spread over several vehicles. The transmission is the same unit found in several other vehicles as well including the Edge/MKX and was co-developed with GM so the cost of development was half of what it would have been normally. In addition the Taurus has no options/items that aren't in any other Ford so it isn't like there was an added cost there. A lot of the car's safety was already there seeing it was developed off a Volvo platform.

Now I will concede that the Taurus isn't selling all that well. But lets think about why it isn't selling that well. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Ford has done absolutely zero advertisement for it. Also it may be attributed to the fact that its styling is easily forgettable (but this is being addressed next year). I'm fairly certain if it were advertised that it would be selling very well. The Taurus has some very key advantages compared to its competition. The Taurus is rated at 28 mpg which is just as good as most midsize V6 sedans but guess what the Taurus is a full size car. The Taurus is ridiculously safe. The Taurus has been extremely reliable and has very good quality. The car has a huge trunk and a huge backseat. The Taurus has excellent outward visibility. The Taurus is fairly quick for a car of its size and in spite of this it can be had as a PZEV in states that have stricter standards. It also can be had with AWD which is somewhat hard to find in its class, save for the 300 (the only one I can think of off top of my mind). The Taurus's starting price is low compared to the competition (starts at $23000 ?) yet comes with a very long list of standard equipment.

The biggest issue with the Taurus is that it isn't advertised and not many people know about it, plain and simple. If anyone can name a car that can do everything the Taurus can; has the same available options; and still achieve great gas mileage, all for the same price, they should speak up now because I really want to hear what you can come up with. (although who knows I probably am forgetting some car out there).

 

Sorry about the rant, I just had to share my opinions on the subject.

 

 

P.S. I'm sorry about my post not relating to the Ranger even though this is a Ranger thread, my bad.

[armadamaster]

I may be going out on a limb here by saying this but I just don't see how the Taurus can be such a bottomless money pit. I mean the platform has been around awhile seeing as it originally debuted as a volvo several years ago so most of the R & D for the platform has to have been recouped by now. Additionally it isn't like the Taurus has any unique motors either seeing as they are shared with the Edge/MKX/MKZ/Flex/TX so the cost of development of the motor is spread over several vehicles. The transmission is the same unit found in several other vehicles as well including the Edge/MKX and was co-developed with GM so the cost of development was half of what it would have been normally. In addition the Taurus has no options/items that aren't in any other Ford so it isn't like there was an added cost there. A lot of the car's safety was already there seeing it was developed off a Volvo platform.

Now I will concede that the Taurus isn't selling all that well. But lets think about why it isn't selling that well. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Ford has done absolutely zero advertisement for it. Also it may be attributed to the fact that its styling is easily forgettable (but this is being addressed next year). I'm fairly certain if it were advertised that it would be selling very well. The Taurus has some very key advantages compared to its competition. The Taurus is rated at 28 mpg which is just as good as most midsize V6 sedans but guess what the Taurus is a full size car. The Taurus is ridiculously safe. The Taurus has been extremely reliable and has very good quality. The car has a huge trunk and a huge backseat. The Taurus has excellent outward visibility. The Taurus is fairly quick for a car of its size and in spite of this it can be had as a PZEV in states that have stricter standards. It also can be had with AWD which is somewhat hard to find in its class, save for the 300 (the only one I can think of off top of my mind). The Taurus's starting price is low compared to the competition (starts at $23000 ?) yet comes with a very long list of standard equipment.

The biggest issue with the Taurus is that it isn't advertised and not many people know about it, plain and simple. If anyone can name a car that can do everything the Taurus can; has the same available options; and still achieve great gas mileage, all for the same price, they should speak up now because I really want to hear what you can come up with. (although who knows I probably am forgetting some car out there).

 

Sorry about the rant, I just had to share my opinions on the subject.

 

 

P.S. I'm sorry about my post not relating to the Ranger even though this is a Ranger thread, my bad.

 

Some sounds thoughts, but I think their R&D went out the window with the massive overhauls/relaunches/advertising since 2005. Sure it's spread across mulitple models, but they are all different enough from each other to simply "dig the R&D hole" even further and NONE of them are selling worth a crap. And there's ANOTHER D3 sedan coming down the pike for 2010 because the last four have flopped. At what point to you just stop the bleeding and go with what's been proven to work?

[fabfordeb]

I think Ford is really missing the boat on the Ranger by not offering some improvements in the 2009 and 2010 current body style.

 

The mpg thing didn't just happen this year, it's been going on for a couple of years now. I want a small pickup with good mpg. I'm a Ford guy and know the Ranger is a much better truck than the competition. I drove all of the small trucks several times and have held off from buying one hoping that the 2009 Ranger would offer more, but it doesn't. So I have to resist going down and buying one from the competition for at least 2 years while I wait for Ford go produce what I want.

 

I want a 4 cyl, auto, supercab with 4 doors. I can't buy that in a Ranger today and it looks like I can't get it in a 2009. All of the competition offers this combination. I'd rather have a little more HP so I don't have the 2.3 winding up at 70 mph with the 4:10 gears on the several long trips I take each year. I don't want the Ranger supercab with 2 doors because I'll probably hurt my back again contorting to get a suitcase in the back, even if I can get one in over the front seat folded forward.

 

If Ford would put in the 2.5 I4 giving it 170+ HP they might offer a 4 door supercab with that engine and maybe taller gearing than the 4:10s. A 6 speed auto would be that much better. These are in the 2009 Escape, why not the Ranger.

 

I think if they offered this combo maybe they'd sell 8,000 units a month rather than 4,000. Maybe Ford can't justify the investment - but a few months ago when the Ranger sales were up rebates of up to $4k were offered, how does that help the bottom line?

 

Making these improvements could be considered a marketing investment. It would keep people excited about the Ranger while they're waiting for the new Global Ranger to come, then create even more excitement when it comes. Instead, the Ranger enthusiasm will dwindle even more the next two years and a lot of people are going to give up on Ford and go to the competition for their small trucks. There won't be as much loyalty momentum going into the introduction of the new Global Ranger if it comes.

 

The Ranger claim to best mpg doesn't mean much to a Buyer since the competition is within 1-2 mpg and they have the features people want.

 

I like the clean body style of the Ranger much better than the awkward wheel wells and body accents that the competition has.

 

I'm glad Ford is continuing the Ranger. But in a lot of ways Ford is telling Ranger fans to go eat sand, take it or leave it. They're being near sighted in risking losing that loyalty. With their new marketing strengths, that seems strange.

Edited September 6, 2008 by fabfordeb

[BillOHIO]

I think Ford is really missing the boat on the Ranger by not offering some improvements in the 2009 and 2010 current body style.

 

The mpg thing didn't just happen this year, it's been going on for a couple of years now. I want a small pickup with good mpg. I'm a Ford guy and know the Ranger is a much better truck than the competition. I drove all of the small trucks several times and have held off from buying one hoping that the 2009 Ranger would offer more, but it doesn't. So I have to resist going down and buying one from the competition for at least 2 years while I wait for Ford go produce what I want.

 

I want a 4 cyl, auto, supercab with 4 doors. I can't buy that in a Ranger today and it looks like I can't get it in a 2009. All of the competition offers this combination. I'd rather have a little more HP so I don't have the 2.3 winding up at 70 mph with the 4:10 gears on the several long trips I take each year. I don't want the Ranger supercab with 2 doors because I'll probably hurt my back again contorting to get a suitcase in the back, even if I can get one in over the front seat folded forward.

 

If Ford would put in the 2.5 I4 giving it 170+ HP they might offer a 4 door supercab with that engine and maybe taller gearing than the 4:10s. A 6 speed auto would be that much better. These are in the 2009 Escape, why not the Ranger.

 

I think if they offered this combo maybe they'd sell 8,000 units a month rather than 4,000. Maybe Ford can't justify the investment - but a few months ago when the Ranger sales were up rebates of up to $4k were offered, how does that help the bottom line?

 

Making these improvements could be considered a marketing investment. It would keep people excited about the Ranger while they're waiting for the new Global Ranger to come, then create even more excitement when it comes. Instead, the Ranger enthusiasm will dwindle even more the next two years and a lot of people are going to give up on Ford and go to the competition for their small trucks. There won't be as much loyalty momentum going into the introduction of the new Global Ranger if it comes.

 

The Ranger claim to best mpg doesn't mean much to a Buyer since the competition is within 1-2 mpg and they have the features people want.

 

I like the clean body style of the Ranger much better than the awkward wheel wells and body accents that the competition has.

 

I'm glad Ford is continuing the Ranger. But in a lot of ways Ford is telling Ranger fans to go eat sand, take it or leave it. They're being near sighted in risking losing that loyalty. With their new marketing strengths, that seems strange.

 

Well said, fabford.

Bill

[armadamaster]

Speaking of Rangers, anybody notice that the Rangers are actually BACK on a Ford commercial?? I saw a MPG Ford ad tonight with the Focus, Fusion, Escape AND the RANGER on it. Even made the comment about the Ranger having the best fuel economy blah blah blah....

 

Just thought it was neat since I haven't seen a Ranger included in a Ford ad in at least five years.

 

Now if only Ford will wise up and put the E-series and another certain fullsize RWD car that will remain nameless in some of their ads.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Armada Master

[lownrangr]

Speaking of Rangers, anybody notice that the Rangers are actually BACK on a Ford commercial?? I saw a MPG Ford ad tonight with the Focus, Fusion, Escape AND the RANGER on it. Even made the comment about the Ranger having the best fuel economy blah blah blah....

 

Just thought it was neat since I haven't seen a Ranger included in a Ford ad in at least five years.

 

Now if only Ford will wise up and put the E-series and another certain fullsize RWD car that will remain nameless in some of their ads.

 

wow, it's been forever since I've seen any advertisement for the ranger.