T6 Ranger Revealed

[NLPRacing]

If they do, great. But I wouldn't hold my breath on it suddenly becoming the next hot segment.

 

I'm not either, but it could, with the right product. Who would thought a Ranger based tall station wagon (91 Explorer) would have been so popular. I think Ford has a few ideas, who knows which (if any) will make it to production.

[NickF1011]

Who would thought a Ranger based tall station wagon (91 Explorer) would have been so popular.

 

People who were already buying Cherokees and Broncos in droves. As popular as it was? Probably not. But it's not like the '91 Explorer was some huge gamble of a vehicle when it was launched.

[V8-X]

All the CUV's share a platform with another Ford or Lincoln vehicle. They have North American plants up and running. NA capacity is down. F150 and SD sell enough volume to where they don't need to share a platform.

 

How much does it cost to set up a factory and committ to pay UAW workers to build the Ranger? What sales volume would be required to support that Ranger production? Would those sales all be incremental or would they bleed from F150?

 

The math doesn't work.

Doesn't Ford already have a factory and UAW workers making the existing Ranger? So that kills the "How much does it cost to set up a factory and committ to pay UAW workers to build the Ranger?" portion of your statement. Sure they have to re-tool the facility for the new Ranger specs, but the workers and facility are already there.

 

And being the T6 is already built, in the long run Ford wouldn't need to invest much to make it LH drive, meet safety requirements and to pass EPA regulations. If motors are of concern, they can drop in one of the existing V6's, like the 3.5L or 3.7L for example. And the overall development cost is spread across all markets this truck will be available in, with only NA needing to cover the costs of these NA conversions.

 

And I'm sure the F150 would lose sales to the Ranger. It has in the past, most likely does so today as well. Ford basically has forced customers to upgrade or to purchase a 15+yr old truck. At the same time, you may also boost F150 sales slightly from people looking at the Ranger but end up opting for the F150.

 

Easy: There's a huge market for both light duty and heavy duty fullsize pickups. Overlap isn't much of an issue. On the other hand, the market for compact/midsize pickups is (and has been for some time) fickle and relatively small.

The market for compact trucks has died, because the only worthwhile option available is the Tacoma. Otherwise, why has the Tacoma sales stayed steady at 140K-160K units per year since 1999? The Ranger is 15+yrs old. The Colorado is cheap and of poor design. The Frontier is aging and overdue for a complete rebuild.

 

The Ranger sold just under 350K units in 1999. And dropped to 121K units in 2005 when the latest Tacoma was released. It has since dropped to 55K in 2009. Where as the Tacoma, in 1999 sold 147K units, then 168K units in 2005 and last year sold 144K units. The Tacoma from 1999 through 2009 never sold under 144K units in any year. Then again, Toyota didn't let the Tacoma die on a vine like Ford did the Ranger. The Colorado/Canyon were released in 2004 and showed promise with 144K units that year, and sold at least 70K units every year except last year when they were down to 42.5K units. Part of it could deal with the GM BK, others could be finding that the Colorado/Canyon is a poor excuse for a truck and not up to even the S-10 level. Which personally, the S-10 was a much better truck for its day than the Colorado/Canyon trucks are for today.

 

Again, it's not always the market is dead, it's just no one offers a competitive truck other than the Tacoma. And maybe it is dead. But it is dead more because of the manufactures not producing good trucks than people not wanting them.

[NickF1011]

The market for compact trucks has died, because the only worthwhile option available is the Tacoma. Otherwise, why has the Tacoma sales stayed steady at 140K-160K units per year since 1999? The Ranger is 15+yrs old. The Colorado is cheap and of poor design. The Frontier is aging and overdue for a complete rebuild.

 

The Ranger sold just under 350K units in 1999. And dropped to 121K units in 2005 when the latest Tacoma was released. It has since dropped to 55K in 2009. Where as the Tacoma, in 1999 sold 147K units, then 168K units in 2005 and last year sold 144K units. The Tacoma from 1999 through 2009 never sold under 144K units in any year. Then again, Toyota didn't let the Tacoma die on a vine like Ford did the Ranger. The Colorado/Canyon were released in 2004 and showed promise with 144K units that year, and sold at least 70K units every year except last year when they were down to 42.5K units. Part of it could deal with the GM BK, others could be finding that the Colorado/Canyon is a poor excuse for a truck and not up to even the S-10 level. Which personally, the S-10 was a much better truck for its day than the Colorado/Canyon trucks are for today.

 

Again, it's not always the market is dead, it's just no one offers a competitive truck other than the Tacoma. And maybe it is dead. But it is dead more because of the manufactures not producing good trucks than people not wanting them.

 

Do you really think the Tacoma would be selling 140-160K units a year if its competitors were any good? The best thing going for the Tacoma is its lack of worthwhile competitors. The more likely outcome for a new Ranger would be that it would have to fight to lay claim to a stake of the market that Toyota already owns and steal sales from it. It's unlikely the overall size of the compact truck market would grow much.

[V8-X]

A base 1993 F150 Rcab XL shortbed to a 2006 F150 Rcab XL shortbed. Not a huge difference, but still very noticeable, especially when parked side by side.

 

1993

Length: 197.1"

Width: 79"

Height: 70.8"

Wheelbase: 116.8"

Curbweight: 3995lbs

 

2006

Length: 211.2"

Width: 78.9"

Height: 73.5"

Wheelbase: 126"

Curbweight: 4525lbs

 

The 2006 is 14 inches longer, so over a foot longer. and weighs roughly 530lbs more. The 2006 is almost 3 inches taller and has a 9 inch longer wheelbase. The only item where the 1993 is larger dimension wise is the width, being 1/4 of an inch wider.

Edited October 18, 2010 by V8-X

[V8-X]

Do you really think the Tacoma would be selling 140-160K units a year if its competitors were any good? The best thing going for the Tacoma is its lack of worthwhile competitors. The more likely outcome for a new Ranger would be that it would have to fight to lay claim to a stake of the market that Toyota already owns and steal sales from it. It's unlikely the overall size of the compact truck market would grow much.

The competition is bad TODAY, wasn't always that way. And I'm sure if the competition was good, they wouldn't be pushing those figures, but I'm sure somewhere close. Like I stated in 1999 the Ranger was selling 350K units, while the Tacoma was pushing out less than 1/2 that. In a decade, the Ranger dropped to 300K less units and the Tacoma keeps moving along with it's average 150K+ units per year. The former Ranger owners either A) opted for an F150, B) converted to a Tacoma or other compact/mid-size make or C) are still driving their old Ranger waiting for an updated model to be released.

 

Like in the field of dreams, "if you build it, they will come". they aren't gonna come for some 15+yr old design when everyone else offers a more updated product. And they'll never come if you never offer it.

Edited October 18, 2010 by V8-X

[F250]

Small pickup trucks only existed to provide better fuel economy...at the expense of everything else like interior room, payload capacity, towing ability power etc...

 

Now that all except Ranger have grown to mid-size they offer little or no fuel economy advantage and you still sacrafice all of the capability.

 

F150 2wd v8 = 15-21

Tacoma 2wd v6 = 17-21

 

These are 2010 model year stats the new F150 powertrains will blow the Tacoma away in power and mileage.

[twintornados]

But, you are missing the point...while I am glad that F150 gets class leading mileage....I don't need nor do I want a truck that big. if F150 can get that kind of mileage...imagine what Ranger would do with a 1.6L Ecoboost engine and six speed automatic.

[F250]

The main brunt of discussion is can Ford bring in a sub-F150 sized vehicle without cannibalizing sales of F150? I say yes, they can. prior to the introduction of Ranger as a separate line of trucks from F-series in the early eighties, Ford built a lighter duty version of F150 with smaller components and lighter GVWR and called it F100...I owned one (a 1980 model) and since it was built from the same basic structure as F150, it was counted in overall F-series sales....I believe Ford can re-visit this strategy and build a light duty truck off the F150 chassis, call it F100, nose from the Expedition, lower belt line for the box....etc, etc, etc...I would buy one in a minute if it got 25-30 MPG overall.....

 

The first F150s were heavy duty F100s, by slightly increasing the GVWR Ford was able to keep catalytic converters off of the F150 and allow it to run regular leaded fuel. F100 and F150 shared identical cab&boxes through their production run, there was no size difference.

Today a smaller mid-size F100 would not share the existing F150 chassis and so development cost would be expensive with questionable returns.

 

I understand you want one and would buy one, but Ford has to be very careful with money right now and they don't see the market for it. Hell, I'd like to see new Ford rear wheel drive sedans but that aint going to happen right now either.

[BrewfanGRB]

The market for compact trucks has died, because the only worthwhile option available is the Tacoma. Otherwise, why has the Tacoma sales stayed steady at 140K-160K units per year since 1999? The Ranger is 15+yrs old. The Colorado is cheap and of poor design. The Frontier is aging and overdue for a complete rebuild.

 

The Ranger sold just under 350K units in 1999. And dropped to 121K units in 2005 when the latest Tacoma was released. It has since dropped to 55K in 2009. Where as the Tacoma, in 1999 sold 147K units, then 168K units in 2005 and last year sold 144K units. The Tacoma from 1999 through 2009 never sold under 144K units in any year. Then again, Toyota didn't let the Tacoma die on a vine like Ford did the Ranger. The Colorado/Canyon were released in 2004 and showed promise with 144K units that year, and sold at least 70K units every year except last year when they were down to 42.5K units.

 

You really argue against yourself here. In my mind, if the market HASN'T died, then Tacoma sales should be exploding---because it does all those things people are crying about:: Real crewcab w/ space for passengers, 4x4, reasonable towing/payload. The Ranger/T6 "demanders" are saying there is a market for "A truck" like this...well if so, then why HASN'T the Tacoma sold better? Exactly BECAUSE the market isn't there.

 

You might argue that it's because truck buyers (even small truck buyers) are super brand-loyal and most will cave and just buy the F150 instead of doing something stupid like buy a Tacoma....thus proving the point that if Ford offered a great Ranger, Ford could get more sales. But actually the way this is working EXACTLY proves Ford's view: Not offering an updated Ranger hasn't hurt them because Toyota is selling effectively as many Tacomas as they were win Ford sold 350k Rangers.

 

So what does that mean? Ford lost nothing! The market for full size trucks has softened anyway, so we can't say "Well, why aren't there 200k MORE F150s?" Because the market for THOSE trucks is smaller too.

 

Again: Ford pays lots of people that know WAAAY more than any of us to make these decisions. It's absurdity to take these decisions so personally.

Edited October 19, 2010 by BrewfanGRB

[BrewfanGRB]

TThe former Ranger owners either A) opted for an F150, B) converted to a Tacoma or other compact/mid-size make or C) are still driving their old Ranger waiting for an updated model to be released.

 

Like in the field of dreams, "if you build it, they will come". they aren't gonna come for some 15+yr old design when everyone else offers a more updated product. And they'll never come if you never offer it.

 

It can't be "B" to any significant extent---again, they are selling the same number of Tacomas now as they were THEN...if all these Ranger buyers (from 250k to 50k) converted, where are the sales for Tacomas? Ford doesn't need to "built it" for them to "come", because they haven't gone anywhere!

[silvrsvt]

.imagine what Ranger would do with a 1.6L Ecoboost engine and six speed automatic.

 

Basically what you want is a Focus with a pickup bed in other words.

 

Thats what I don't get...what the I4 Ranger can do (or what fleets buy it for) can be done with the Transit Connect

 

Say you pop in a V6 into the Ranger, then you start pushing the price up, then you start making a case for a F-150XL with a 3.7L V6 in it that is powerful as a V8 and gets better MPG's

 

The Ranger is great for cheap ride, but that isn't what Ford is going for these days. I'd like to see the cost break down of the Tacoma of what it sells vs what the Ranger sells at. I'm beting the vast majority of the Ranger sales are cheap fleet sales where as the Tacoma is more retail sales, but at a higher price point....which is the same as what you can get a decent F-150 at.

 

I know the Ranger is much smaller, but improving the Ranger to make it be able to fit 6ft + tall people confertibly in a standard cab Ranger would make it 90% the size of a F-150

Edited October 19, 2010 by silvrsvt

[BrewfanGRB]

Tacoma Double Cab 4WD:

 

Height/Width/Length: 70.1/74.6/208.1

Payload/Towing: 1295/3500 (standard) 6400 (with tow package)

 

Price: 30k (with SR5 package---which includes the tow package and stuff you'd really expect like cruise control, keyless entry, auto dim mirrors, blah blah)

 

 

F150 XLT SuperCrew 4WD:

 

H/W/L: 74.3/78.9/231.7

Payload/Towing: 1390/9500 (with tow package--which is required w/ tow capacity of this level and 4.6 V8)

 

Price: $37k

 

So here's my question: If buyers, generally, have a huge demand for a doublecab truck w/ 4x4 and decent capacity, but is small enough to "park" and get good fuel economy and be "affordable"...then why does the Tacoma still sell the same # it did 11 years ago??

[Sevensecondsuv]

TThe former Ranger owners either A) opted for an F150, converted to a Tacoma or other compact/mid-size make or C) are still driving their old Ranger waiting for an updated model to be released.

 

Like in the field of dreams, "if you build it, they will come". they aren't gonna come for some 15+yr old design when everyone else offers a more updated product. And they'll never come if you never offer it.

 

It can't be "B" to any significant extent---again, they are selling the same number of Tacomas now as they were THEN...if all these Ranger buyers (from 250k to 50k) converted, where are the sales for Tacomas? Ford doesn't need to "built it" for them to "come", because they haven't gone anywhere!

 

I'm part of C myself. Mine are going on 21 and 19 years old. I may just have to settle for a 2wd supercab before they quit making them next summer. But then again, it's awful hard to justify $20K for a new one when I could get the exact same thing (powertrains, gas mileage, capability, etc) in a 5-year-old Ranger for half the price. These trucks just don't quit either. I still see plenty of the 1995 vintage with 170,000 miles on them that run like new, drive like new, heck, the paint still looks new - even here in the rust belt.

 

My guess is that alot of would-be Ranger customers are applying the same logic I am - and that is why the new ones don't sell so great. If they offered something new - like a crew cab and significantly better (gas mileage) powertrains, they'd see a lot more people willing to replace their old Ranger with a new one.

[Chester]

Here is my reason for a new midsize Ranger. I used to drive an F150 crew 4x4 as my daily driver. I thought it was a great vehicle and didn't mind the size. That is until gas went up to 4 dollars a gallon. Now, never again will I own a full size truck as my daily driver (never ever). I just cannot stomach to see that much fuel being spent to transport myself around.

 

Now I do tow quite regularly ( horse trailer and large landscape trailer). I do have an diesel 3/4 that I bought primarily as the towing vehicle. It's a high mileage Dodge, and it;s perfect for towing around my trailers. The F15t0 was great as well, but not as nice as the 3/4 ton dodge (that makes way better gas mileage than the Ford.

 

When gas prices skyrocketed, I dumped the F150 and mistakenly bought a Hyundai Elantra to be my daily driver (hated the car and got rid of it after a year). Now I'm driving the Dodge around all the time, but really want it to be my spare/tow vehicle.

 

I'm not going to buy an F150. It's too darn big and inefficient for a daily driver (yes I like F150's and the size didn't bother me, but the amount of money flushed down the toilet for the privilege did bother me). I can get by with a car (yes a Fiesta), but I'd prefer a truck. I wish Ford had a more efficient offering (needs to have four doors and a backseat) . I think there is a huge amount of people similar to me. They would prefer to drive a truck as a daily driver, but just will not do something as big as an F150 anymore. It was fine when gas was a buck, but since we all experienced $4 gas (and it most likely will creep back up to that), that has killed a large percentage of full size buyers (probably forever).

 

Would a midsized Ranger be a huge seller. Probably not, but I bet it would do better than the naysayers expect and allow Ford to offer some more SUV style vehicles (New Bronco) to boot. Since Ford killed Mercury, they could use a few more models in their portfolio.

[silvrsvt]

Here is my reason for a new midsize Ranger. I used to drive an F150 crew 4x4 as my daily driver. I thought it was a great vehicle and didn't mind the size. That is until gas went up to 4 dollars a gallon. Now, never again will I own a full size truck as my daily driver (never ever). I just cannot stomach to see that much fuel being spent to transport myself around.

 

 

Thats a great point, but if you went down to a (current) Ranger with 4x4, you'd actually get worse MPG then a 2010 F-150 with 4x4 and a six speed transmission!

 

Trucks aren't good transportation devices when gas is $4 bucks a gallon...

 

 

 

 

[Bob Rosadini]

You really argue against yourself here. In my mind, if the market HASN'T died, then Tacoma sales should be exploding---because it does all those things people are crying about:: Real crewcab w/ space for passengers, 4x4, reasonable towing/payload. The Ranger/T6 "demanders" are saying there is a market for "A truck" like this...well if so, then why HASN'T the Tacoma sold better? Exactly BECAUSE the market isn't there.

 

You might argue that it's because truck buyers (even small truck buyers) are super brand-loyal and most will cave and just buy the F150 instead of doing something stupid like buy a Tacoma....thus proving the point that if Ford offered a great Ranger, Ford could get more sales. But actually the way this is working EXACTLY proves Ford's view: Not offering an updated Ranger hasn't hurt them because Toyota is selling effectively as many Tacomas as they were win Ford sold 350k Rangers.

 

So what does that mean? Ford lost nothing! The market for full size trucks has softened anyway, so we can't say "Well, why aren't there 200k MORE F150s?" Because the market for THOSE trucks is smaller too.

 

Again: Ford pays lots of people that know WAAAY more than any of us to make these decisions. It's absurdity to take these decisions so personally.

 

As a "Ranger-T-6 cheerleader" I have to admit you make an excellent case here. I would walk before I owned anything but a Ford. When its time to replace my 04 Ranger -if I ever have to-and there is no smaller alternative, I guess I would end up in a 150. I think your point is a good one- Tacoma sales define the market potential-at least in this economy. Incremental small truck volume beyond that number would to a large measure come out of existing Ford 150 numbers.

 

The one thing that could change that is energy costs. If it goes to 4 bgucks a gallon all of a sudden the "good" 150 mpg numbers would look a lot better in a package that weighed a lot less. You can't argue with the point that an excellent powertrain that gives good MPG numbers would do better with less weight.

 

I still stand by my point however that there is too much overlap between 150 and 250 and future product decisions should address that-with a bias toward a smaller truck.

[Marginal Economist]

 

The one thing that could change that is energy costs. If it goes to 4 bgucks a gallon all of a sudden the "good" 150 mpg numbers would look a lot better in a package that weighed a lot less. You can't argue with the point that an excellent powertrain that gives good MPG numbers would do better with less weight.

 

My best guess is that you will see significant weight reduction in the next F150, which should be out in about 3 years. If they are able to cut the weight, the T6 is redundant in NA.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Thats a great point, but if you went down to a (current) Ranger with 4x4, you'd actually get worse MPG then a 2010 F-150 with 4x4 and a six speed transmission!

 

Why do you (and others) insist on comparing the fuel efficiency of Ford's current state-of-the-art F-150 powertrains with the 1997 vintage V6 powertrain offered in the current Ranger? No one here is arguing that Ford should make a new Ranger with the same old 4.0L SOHC Cologne V6! We know current Ranger sales aren't good, and the lack of a current, V6 powertrain; along with lack of a crew cab option, are at the top of the list of reasons why!

 

Why is it so inconceivable to you that the same Ford that got 23 mpg out of the latest F150 could get 26 or 27 out of a 3.5 or 2.0EB Ranger? Heck, even the older 2.3 Duratech I4 mated to a 5-speed manual from 1989 manages 27 mpg in a 2wd Ranger! To think that given the latest technology, Ford could not improve power substantially, while keeping the same 27 mpg, is absurd!

Edited October 19, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[Chester]

Why do you (and others) insist on comparing the fuel efficiency of Ford's current state-of-the-art F-150 powertrains with the 1997 vintage V6 powertrain offered in the current Ranger? No one here is arguing that Ford should make a new Ranger with the same old 4.0L SOHC Cologne V6! We know current Ranger sales aren't good, and the lack of a current, V6 powertrain; along with lack of a crew cab option, are at the top of the list of reasons why!

 

Why is it so inconceivable to you that the same Ford that got 23 mpg out of the latest F150 could not get 26 or 27 out of a 3.5 or 2.0EB Ranger? Heck, even the older 2.3 Duratech I4 mated to a 5-speed manual from 1989 manages 27 mpg in a 2wd Ranger! To think that given the latest technology, Ford could not improve power substantially, while keeping the same 27 mpg, is absurd!

 

That's exactly right, and exactly why a Ranger is not out in the driveway at my house. But one would think that a newly designed Ranger with a new power train, that weighed 1000 lb's less than an F150 would get decent mileage.

[goinbroke2]

A buddy had a 85 diesel ranger on his farm. 45+mpg (canadian) minimum. I last saw it in 2002 or so and it was still rattling away, new box, new fenders, cab floor fixed......just kept going still getting 45+mpg.

 

 

C'mon ford build a diesel f-150 and be done of it!

[Sevensecondsuv]

A buddy had a 85 diesel ranger on his farm. 45+mpg (canadian) minimum. I last saw it in 2002 or so and it was still rattling away, new box, new fenders, cab floor fixed......just kept going still getting 45+mpg.

 

C'mon ford build a diesel f-150 and be done of it!

 

I had an oportunity to pick up an '86 Ranger with the 2.3L turbodiesel (approx. 90 HP, 150 ft-lbs) recently for less than a grand, but I decided that the last thing I need is another old Ranger. I hear that the mileage out of those things is pretty unbelievable though.

[blksn8k2]

Thats a great point, but if you went down to a (current) Ranger with 4x4, you'd actually get worse MPG then a 2010 F-150 with 4x4 and a six speed transmission!

 

That is exactly why the current Ranger sales have tanked and why we are arguing for an all new design. It is not because it is a smaller truck. It is because the technology has been outpaced by just about every other vehicle on the planet. Who in their right mind would buy any vehicle that looks the same, gets the same fuel mileage and has the same power levels as it did 17 years ago when there are other choices? This is not rocket science folks. Hell, my V8 Sport Trac gets better highway mileage than my previous Ranger FX4.

[BrewfanGRB]

Why do you (and others) insist on comparing the fuel efficiency of Ford's current state-of-the-art F-150 powertrains with the 1997 vintage V6 powertrain offered in the current Ranger? No one here is arguing that Ford should make a new Ranger with the same old 4.0L SOHC Cologne V6! We know current Ranger sales aren't good, and the lack of a current, V6 powertrain; along with lack of a crew cab option, are at the top of the list of reasons why!

 

Why is it so inconceivable to you that the same Ford that got 23 mpg out of the latest F150 could get 26 or 27 out of a 3.5 or 2.0EB Ranger? Heck, even the older 2.3 Duratech I4 mated to a 5-speed manual from 1989 manages 27 mpg in a 2wd Ranger! To think that given the latest technology, Ford could not improve power substantially, while keeping the same 27 mpg, is absurd!

 

That's a pretty fair view on things. It's not right to say "Why buy a Ranger with 20 mpg when I can get an F150 w/ 23 mpg"...because the only reason the Ranger gets 20 mpg is because it hasn't been given the technology the F150 has.

 

But this still brings us back to: How many people have bought something that hurts Ford (you can't count people who just bought the F150 instead--that's what Ford WANTS--more profit!...you can only count people that): 1) bought a different small truck, 2) people that bought something totally different somewhere else or 3) people that bought a low-profit Ford or 4) people that just didn't buy anything.

 

I agree with Bob that ARE probably people out there that highly prefer to commute in a truck but have sworn off a full-size as a commuter forever. But the stats just don't prove that there are a lot of them (maybe I'm just too analytical...) because Tacoma sales are stagnant and every other small truck is just as dead as the Ranger. You might argue this is because those trucks aren't being improved either. Well then, that just proves these people that desperately want to commute in a truck AREN'T that desperate after all and thus, it makes no sense to invest vast sums of money to chase a diminishing market. It's JMO.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I agree with Bob that ARE probably people out there that highly prefer to commute in a truck but have sworn off a full-size as a commuter forever. But the stats just don't prove that there are a lot of them (maybe I'm just too analytical...) because Tacoma sales are stagnant and every other small truck is just as dead as the Ranger. You might argue this is because those trucks aren't being improved either. Well then, that just proves these people that desperately want to commute in a truck AREN'T that desperate after all and thus, it makes no sense to invest vast sums of money to chase a diminishing market. It's JMO.

 

That is also a pretty fair analysis. I, for one, am part of the group that insists on driving a truck, but has sworn off a full size. FWIW, I didn't even like DD'ing a full size when gas was cheap. $4.00/gal gas was just the nail in the coffin. That's not to say that a full size doesn't have it's uses - I keep a full-size around for jobs that require full-size capability.

 

I think the one part of your argument that is missing is that there are [litterally] millions of customers out there with 5-20 year old Rangers that still look and perform well enough to be an acceptable substitute for a new truck. I know I'm one of them! The problem is that the Ranger is/was so well built that there is no need to replace a 10 year-old model unless the new one offers something substantially better than the old one. In the case of the Ranger, the new ones offer nothing but a slightly shinier paint job over the old ones.

 

If the latest F-150 had a 27 mpg rating, I'd be a lot more tempted. But the current 17/23 on a V6 2wd isn't going to be much, if at all, better than the 20 mpg combined my current 1992 Explorer gets. And the Explorer has 4wd, no payments, never breaks down, and I could replace the entire drivetrain for the cost of 3 oil changes on a new F-150.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv