Ranger future.............

[ericgrau]

In the past they made a 4cyl 4wd model. That engine had FAR less power than todays 4 cyl and they don't make it with 4wd anymore. I would love to see Ford start making this option again. But seriously how much different is the new 2.5 vs the 2.3? Wouldn't it just fit if its pretty much the same engine?

[Sixt9coug]

I suppose one of my biggest beefs comes from the fact that my head touches the roof. Like I said, I don't mean any offense, but I simply have trouble seeing the point in the truck, especially since the loaner we have gets far worse mileage than our Explorer....though I'm not sure why.

 

 

i'm 6'0 tall and fit fine. Then again, i always recline the seat a bit. I cant stand being in just about any car with the seatback close to straight up. If its all the way up my head gets too close to the headliner for comfort too.

 

no offense taken. The Ranger isnt for everybody. Its also my understanding from talking to people that with Explorers, the V8s seem to get better real world economy than the V6 models. I feel i would get better milage in my Ranger if i didnt have the 3.55 gears in the back. I bet 3.73s would get me better milage overall. i hate having to tip into it more around town. That and the transmission programming is annoying at times. It just insists on getting into 4th or 5th gear as soon as it can and hates to downshift unless you really try to make it.

[Blueblood]

A 3.7 F-150 has an edge in FE over the current 4.0 Ranger.

 

Anyone want a next gen Explorer with a pick up box?

 

Wow, no way in hell, If I wanted a Ridgeline I'd have bought the piece of crap already..

[RangerM]

Im an unmarried male, no kids, and i prmarily use my truck as a commuter to go to and from work. I also use it for hauling cool car stuff when i need to. Several engines have been in the back of my Rangers, and when i wash the truck up, its spiffy enough to take a girl out without offending her. It rides smooth enough for me as well. It still is a truck at heart though and does not like bumps all that much but it comes with the territory.

 

Basically, thats why i own one.

 

You're where I was in 1993 when I bought my Ranger. Now that I'm 40, with a wife and two kids, I still want the capabilities of a Ranger in a similar-size package; albeit with a back seat.

[jpvbs]

With the Mustang and Explorer no longer using the 4.0 in the near future, is it possible Ford may stop offering it in the Ranger as well? 4 cyl only once they run out of 4.0s? It isn't long for this world anyway.

[NLPRacing]

It's too bad. I really wish they had a proper 4-door Ranger with a 6-ft bed. The SportTrac bed is just too small for my needs. I guess there's just no market (or no profit in what market there is)

 

The average Joe Homeowner (like me) will just have to go Nissan or Toyota if he wants a new and smaller, family-friendly truck.

 

 

It's quite a car that can carry a washer/dryer, refrigerator, or any number of a host of items from the garden section.

 

What about the Sport Trac makes it too small? The bed is 50" long & with the tailgate down, it's 72" long. Not picking on you, just wondering. My sister had a Sport Trac and when we used it for moving, it could haul just about as much stuff as my 01 Super Crew. In fact, the tailgates were interchangeable between the two. I bet that most people that think the Sport Trac's bed is too small has not used it in real world applications. Another thing to take into consideration is the back seat. With the seat folded down, it can haul alot of stuff. I've hauled more in the back seat of my truck than I have in the bed.

 

Anyone want a next gen Explorer with a pick up box?

 

What would they call it? If it can tow my boat and be flat towed behind my motorhome, I would be interested.

Edited December 28, 2009 by NLPRacing

[Mr. Gumby]

What about a pickup based on the Transit Connect? Sure, it wouldn't be a towing vehicle, but with a payload similar to the current Ranger it would be great for hauling bulky items like furniture and appliances and still get reasonable gas mileage.

 

Actually, I may seriously consider the current TC if it can fit 4x8 sheets of plywood in the back while being able to close the doors. Eventually the time will come to put my old dependable Ranger out to pasture and I'd love to replace it with another great utilitarian vehicle.

[jpd80]

Newsflash for people wanting a sub $20,000 pick up, after Ranger finishes there won't be any.

You'll have to pay full price as Ford is done subsidizing cheap trucks that have little profit.

 

Those buyers wanting a replacement for the V6 Ranger are already moving onto F150 and no doubt,

Ford will price the V6 Ranger and F150 vehicles a similar prices to induce buyers to switch.

 

Those wanting an I-4 pick up are probably going to have to settle for Unitary Explorer Variant.

Toyota isn't making much money off Tacoma that start at $15,000, it's purely bragging rights.

Ford is not silly enough to try and emulate that feat.

Edited December 28, 2009 by jpd80

[jpd80]

What about a pickup based on the Transit Connect? Sure, it wouldn't be a towing vehicle, but with a payload similar to the current Ranger it would be great for hauling bulky items like furniture and appliances and still get reasonable gas mileage.

 

The vehicle you're referring to exists as a Ford Bantam and is on the old Fiesta platform.

 

Edited December 28, 2009 by jpd80

[Noah Harbinger]

Unitary Explorer Variant.

 

That sounds like the name of a disease...

[jpd80]

That sounds like the name of a disease...

Or the instrument used to find it.... :unsure:

 

I shoulda said variation of the D4 Explorer.....

Edited December 28, 2009 by jpd80

[suv_guy_19]

i'm 6'0 tall and fit fine. Then again, i always recline the seat a bit. I cant stand being in just about any car with the seatback close to straight up. If its all the way up my head gets too close to the headliner for comfort too.

 

I'm the same height as you for the most part (6'1"), it just seems uncomfortable to me, that's all. The Explorer isn't that great either in this regard though.....to narrow in the front because of the thick doors.

[RangerM]

What about the Sport Trac makes it too small? The bed is 50" long & with the tailgate down, it's 72" long. Not picking on you, just wondering. My sister had a Sport Trac and when we used it for moving, it could haul just about as much stuff as my 01 Super Crew. In fact, the tailgates were interchangeable between the two. I bet that most people that think the Sport Trac's bed is too small has not used it in real world applications. Another thing to take into consideration is the back seat. With the seat folded down, it can haul alot of stuff. I've hauled more in the back seat of my truck than I have in the bed.

Honestly, it just looks small. I admit I've never actually used a ST, so you've got me there. When I've been to the dealer to look at them, they just seem dinky. Perhaps I've not given it adequate consideration, however I'm not so sure that having one-third of my load resting on the tailgate give me feelings of security (especially when my Ranger doesn't have to depend on this).

 

I moved nearly my entire house with my Ranger (couches, beds, etc) and although I may have made more trips that I would have with an 8' bed F-150, I never really missed it. Another consideration is the fact that the (my) Ranger can be loaded from the side. According to the Ford website, the SportTrac loading height is ~31" and the box is ~21" tall, making the cargo box side about 51-52". That is slightly above my father-in-law's '98 F150 at 50" and way above my Ranger at 44" (yes, I actually measured them). I admit for those with camper shells that's not really a consideration, but I wouldn't want a camper shell, so for me it is.

 

I don't discount the interior cargo capabilities of the ST, which is why I would like a crew cab Ranger. I do wish the 4-door Ranger (non-crew cab) had been available when I bought mine. This would make loading things behind the seats much more convenient.

Edited December 28, 2009 by RangerM

[Ralph Greene]

When some of you describe what you want.....I hear "mini van". A plain one.....without all the electric motors opening doors and tail gates.

[NLPRacing]

Honestly, it just looks small. I admit I've never actually used a ST, so you've got me there. When I've been to the dealer to look at them, they just seem dinky. Perhaps I've not given it adequate consideration, however I'm not so sure that having one-third of my load resting on the tailgate give me feelings of security (especially when my Ranger doesn't have to depend on this).

 

I moved nearly my entire house with my Ranger (couches, beds, etc) and although I may have made more trips that I would have with an 8' bed F-150, I never really missed it. Another consideration is the fact that the (my) Ranger can be loaded from the side. According to the Ford website, the SportTrac loading height is ~31" and the box is ~21" tall, making the cargo box side about 51-52". That is slightly above my father-in-law's '98 F150 at 50" and way above my Ranger at 44" (yes, I actually measured them). I admit for those with camper shells that's not really a consideration, but I wouldn't want a camper shell, so for me it is.

 

I don't discount the interior cargo capabilities of the ST, which is why I would like a crew cab Ranger. I do wish the 4-door Ranger (non-crew cab) had been available when I bought mine. This would make loading things behind the seats much more convenient.

 

I really think you'd be surprised in real world applications how much you would like a Sport Trac. I think it does look smaller than it really is because the bed sides are so tall. If you get a chance to borrow or rent one, I would highly recommend it. Ask anybody that has one if they think the bed is too small. I bet they tell you no.

 

When some of you describe what you want.....I hear "mini van". A plain one.....without all the electric motors opening doors and tail gates.

 

That sounds a lot like a Transit Connect...

[Sixt9coug]

a 'Ute? anyone? anyone?

 

yeah i know itll never happen. Im the jerk that drooled over the G8 ST when it was at the LA show last year too. Now thats dead as well.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Sixt9coug

[jpd80]

a 'Ute? anyone? anyone?

 

yeah i know itll never happen. Im the jerk that drooled over the G8 ST when it was at the LA show last year too. Now thats dead as well.

This is my ride, half chassis and one ton carrying capacity, also tows 5,000 lbs.

4.0 I-6 with 5R55, same weight as a Crown Vicky and puts down a 15.5 quarter mile.

 

Edited December 29, 2009 by jpd80

[mackinaw]

Good lookin' vehicle! Love the I-6 too.

[Sixt9coug]

This is my ride, half chassis and one ton carrying capacity, also tows 5,000 lbs.

4.0 I-6 with 5R55, same weight as a Crown Vicky and puts down a 15.5 quarter mile.

 

 

 

The only thing my Ranger has over that vehicle is probably a larger area behind the rear seats, 600 lbs higher tow capacity and more ground clearance. Your Ute is faster, cooler (IMO) can hold more in the bed (Ranger is 1500lbs), handles better and i bet you get better milage too.

 

Yeah no way that id ever want one of those here

 

Oh well, its been beaten to death though. back on topic

 

 

So when will the Ranger get IRS?

Edited December 29, 2009 by Sixt9coug

[Hugh]

A 3.7 F-150 has an edge in FE over the current 4.0 Ranger.

 

Anyone want a next gen Explorer with a pick up box?

A 3.7 NA will make a great base engine in a F-150.

 

D4 Explorer Sport-Trac? I don't know...Just because Honda takes their Pilot and make a Ridgeline doesn't mean Ford should because that's what is sounds like. I feel Farley will have his work cut out for him selling it.

[rmc523]

I would think that if there is to be an F-100, it would be introduced sometime during this auto show season or no later than 2010-11 auto show season. What does anyone else think? Maybe Ford feels an Ecoboost F-150 will get the mileage of a smaller pickup and so it is not needed. I don't know. But there does seem to be a market for a smaller pickup with a smaller footprint, especially with new CAFE rules coming shortly. Seems to me Ford is going to have to make up their minds shortly, or suffer the consequences if they read the market wrong. I hate to see Ford abandon the smaller pickup market just when new CAFE rules are coming and many people want fuel efficient vehicles.

 

Well, that was the reasoning I'd heard for cancelling the F-100 a while back, or something like that. I'd heard that when they'd gear it to get the towing (truck) characteristics they wanted, they wouldn't hit the FE targets they wanted, and vice versa. That, I suppose, would then lead to the EB F-150 getting better mileage than a smaller F-100.....I dunno.

 

With the Mustang and Explorer no longer using the 4.0 in the near future, is it possible Ford may stop offering it in the Ranger as well? 4 cyl only once they run out of 4.0s? It isn't long for this world anyway.

 

That's a good question, seeing as the Ranger dies in 2011......perhaps they'll produce so many and stockpile them and if they run out before 2011, oh well?

[F250]

What an exciting all-new idea for a vehicle! Half car-half truck (station wagon with the ass-end cut open) We can call it the...Ranchero!

 

 

Luxury version...

 

Performance version...

Edited December 29, 2009 by F250

[jpd80]

That's a good question, seeing as the Ranger dies in 2011......perhaps they'll produce so many and stockpile them and if they run out before 2011, oh well?

Ford will most likely offer the 3.7 V6 F150 and V6 Ranger at similar prices to migrate

as many buyers as possible onto the F Truck, fuel economy will probably be better too.

 

Evidence is there that V6 buyers are already going over to entry level F150,

the price difference is less than $2,000.

 

The only thing my Ranger has over that vehicle is probably a larger area behind the rear seats, 600 lbs higher tow capacity and more ground clearance. Your Ute is faster, cooler (IMO) can hold more in the bed (Ranger is 1500lbs), handles better and i bet you get better milage too.

 

Yeah no way that id ever want one of those here

 

Oh well, its been beaten to death though. back on topic

A V6 AWD Explorer pick up using a strong unitary frame like big Transit, now that would be a cracker.

Edited December 29, 2009 by jpd80

[V8-X]

No offense to those who have Rangers, but we have one while our Explorer is in the shop for a front differential problem...I don't really see why anyone would ever own one. It has no room for anything. I think my car can probably carry more.

No room on the interior? Comparing a 2 seat truck to a 5-7 seat Explorer, yeah, it'll have more interior space. But in regards to room for hauling cargo, sorry the Ranger wins out with it's exterior bed. Owned a '99 Ranger & '99 Explorer, both were built on the same platform. Of course they had similar interior room up front, but the back seat of the Explorer was larger, since the Ranger was a Scab with the two little jump seats. Of course the '02+ Explorers are on a different platform from the Ranger, so those Explorers have more elbow room.

 

It's too bad. I really wish they had a proper 4-door Ranger with a 6-ft bed. The SportTrac bed is just too small for my needs. I guess there's just no market (or no profit in what market there is)

Agree, the ST bed is simply too small for most real world applications where people use the bed. Heck, my F150 with the 5.5' bed is too small at times, as it won't even fit a 6' ladder without hanging over the tailgate or putting the tailgate down.

 

A lowered F-150 (not a "slammed" F-150) would be nice. As it is, the bedside comes up to my chin.

Dang bro, how short are you? I'm 6'0", and the bed rails of my F150 don't come close to my chin.

 

I suppose one of my biggest beefs comes from the fact that my head touches the roof. Like I said, I don't mean any offense, but I simply have trouble seeing the point in the truck, especially since the loaner we have gets far worse mileage than our Explorer....though I'm not sure why.

As stated above, I've owned a '99 Ranger & am 6'0" tall. I never had issues with headroom in the Ranger, which was identical to the '99 Explorer that I owned. My Ranger & Explorer brought home similar mpgs (15city/19highway), but the Ranger had the pathetic 3.0L in it while the Explorer had the 5.0L.

 

no offense taken. The Ranger isnt for everybody. Its also my understanding from talking to people that with Explorers, the V8s seem to get better real world economy than the V6 models. I feel i would get better milage in my Ranger if i didnt have the 3.55 gears in the back. I bet 3.73s would get me better milage overall. i hate having to tip into it more around town. That and the transmission programming is annoying at times. It just insists on getting into 4th or 5th gear as soon as it can and hates to downshift unless you really try to make it.

This is why I always had the manual in the Rangers I owned. Wish they offered a manual in the F150.

 

What about the Sport Trac makes it too small? The bed is 50" long & with the tailgate down, it's 72" long. Not picking on you, just wondering. My sister had a Sport Trac and when we used it for moving, it could haul just about as much stuff as my 01 Super Crew. In fact, the tailgates were interchangeable between the two. I bet that most people that think the Sport Trac's bed is too small has not used it in real world applications. Another thing to take into consideration is the back seat. With the seat folded down, it can haul alot of stuff. I've hauled more in the back seat of my truck than I have in the bed.

With a friend owning an ST, and looking at them prior to purchasing my F150, the bed was simply too small. Heck, the F150 5.5' bed is barely big enough for most my needs. Kind of wish I opted for the 6.5' bed on my Screw. For your average joe that doesn't haul much of anything, the ST bed will work fine. For anyone with intentions on hauling items in their bed on a regular basis, the ST is simply too small.

 

Ask anybody that has one if they think the bed is too small. I bet they tell you no.

Most people that purchase an ST most likely will say no, the bed isn't too small. But how many people buying ST's really put much of anything in the bed on a regular basis? To me they are like the Ridgeline owners, it's all for the "I want a truck look", but have no need for a truck in most real world applications.

[RangerM]

Dang bro, how short are you? I'm 6'0", and the bed rails of my F150 don't come close to my chin.

I'm just a hair under 5'10". Last time I went to the dealer (about 2 months ago), the bedside of some of the F-150s were pretty high (or so it seemed).

 

Obviously several of these could have been 4x4s, but according to the Ford website (click on the "download specifications" link at the upper right-hand corner), the loading height for a regular cab is 33.0" and the bed is 22.4" tall, making the bedside over 55" above the ground. Not quite my chin, but not far off. The 4x4's are 35 to 36" (Load height), so that makes them about 57 or 58" (getting really close to my chin) Hard to believe it's that tall.

 

It seems to me that anything at (or above) my armpit would make the truck really annoying to load from the side.