How I think Ford should replace the Ranger

[Sevensecondsuv]

...obviously better than the original pushrod design since the hp jumped from 160 to 207. So you are both right, sort of...

Depends on what you mean by better:

 

4.0L OHV---------------------------4.0L SOHC

160 HP @ 4300----------------------207 HP @ 5800

230 lb-ft @ 2200---------------------235 lb-ft @ 2800

Max Towing: 5000 lbs--------------Max Towing: 5000 lbs

Avg. Gas Mileage: 19---------------Avg. Gas Mileage: 16 Combined (Both figures based on personal emperical data over dozens of trucks)

 

The OHV's only real problem is cracked heads (and even then, I doubt it's any higher than the industry average). Those are so cheap nowadays that you can get new fully assembled heads (new, not rebuilt) to your door for $300 and put them on in a saturday without even pulling the motor or transmission. The SOHC suffers from nylon timing chain tensioner failure, which requires engine removal and rebuild, along with the cracking head issues that the OHV had.

 

Basically all the SOHC did was extend the RPM range of the motor by about 2000 RPM. Unless you make a habbit of operating in the post-4000 RPM range, the only difference you'll notice is the gas mileage. That's coming from a guy who's driven plenty of both. The SOHC was created because of horsepower wars and a trend of weight gain in the trucks these engines were installed in - If you really needed it, you could floor it to 6000 RPMs and accelerate that heavier 2002+ explorer as good as the 'ole OHV did in the 91-94 trucks.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

Depends on what you mean by better:

 

4.0L OHV---------------------------4.0L SOHC

160 HP @ 4300----------------------207 HP @ 5800

230 lb-ft @ 2200---------------------235 lb-ft @ 2800

Max Towing: 5000 lbs--------------Max Towing: 5000 lbs

Avg. Gas Mileage: 19---------------Avg. Gas Mileage: 16 Combined (Both figures based on personal emperical data over dozens of trucks)

 

The OHV's only real problem is cracked heads (and even then, I doubt it's any higher than the industry average). Those are so cheap nowadays that you can get new fully assembled heads (new, not rebuilt) to your door for $300 and put them on in a saturday without even pulling the motor or transmission. The SOHC suffers from nylon timing chain tensioner failure, which requires engine removal and rebuild, along with the cracking head issues that the OHV had.

 

Basically all the SOHC did was extend the RPM range of the motor by about 2000 RPM. Unless you make a habbit of operating in the post-4000 RPM range, the only difference you'll notice is the gas mileage. That's coming from a guy who's driven plenty of both. The SOHC was created because of horsepower wars and a trend of weight gain in the trucks these engines were installed in - If you really needed it, you could floor it to 6000 RPMs and accelerate that heavier 2002+ explorer as good as the 'ole OHV did in the 91-94 trucks.

 

Now compare those V6 engines with the Falcon Inline 6 in its latest version

complete with power sapping cast iron log manifold and single exhaust:

 

260 hp @ 6000

290 lb ft @ 3250

[OAC_Sparky]

Ouch! Actually, the 4.0L did start out as a pushrod motor but was modified around 2001 by installing a jackshaft in the block in place of the camshaft.

I've had 3 Rangers:

 

1992 Standard Cab 2WD (Open Diff) 3.0L Manual Trans

1994 Supercab 2WD (Open Diff) 4.0L Manual Trans

2008 Supercab 4WD FX4 (4.10 Torsen) 4.0L Manual Trans

 

I knew the 3,0L had pushrods because the one I had in '92 shit a head gasket and I had a look at replacing it. I also knew the '94 4.0L had pushrods as I had it and was changing the oil myself for the 100,000 miles I put on it until I sold it. The '08 only has 30,000 miles on it since new, has had the oil changed on it at the dealership since new; the sad thing I admit is apart from filling the windshield washing fluid I've barely had the need to have the hood up; but on the other hand seeing that the mileage is vitually unchanged between my '94 and my '08 it seems like the exact same motor. The '08 is a lot heavier I think, that is where any gains in efficiency disappered to...

[Sevensecondsuv]

Now compare those V6 engines with the Falcon Inline 6 in its latest version

complete with power sapping cast iron log manifold and single exhaust:

 

260 hp @ 6000

290 lb ft @ 3250

 

 

Stop teasing us!!!!

 

At least I still have the 4.9L in the F-150. Nothing quite like a gasser with full small-block V8 torque available under 2000 RPM.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

Stop teasing us!!!!

 

At least I still have the 4.9L in the F-150. Nothing quite like a gasser with full small-block V8 torque available under 2000 RPM.

Lol,

I always thought an Inline 6 in a Ranger would be cool, you could call the I-4 a Ranger and the I-6/V8 F-100.

[akirby]

I've had 3 Rangers:

 

1992 Standard Cab 2WD (Open Diff) 3.0L Manual Trans

1994 Supercab 2WD (Open Diff) 4.0L Manual Trans

2008 Supercab 4WD FX4 (4.10 Torsen) 4.0L Manual Trans

 

I've had 2 Rangers:

 

1990 Standard Cab 2WD (Open Diff) 2.3L Manual Trans

1995 Supercab 2WD (LSD) 4.0L Manual Trans

 

Scary, eh?

[RangerM]

I've had 2 Rangers:

 

1990 Standard Cab 2WD (Open Diff) 2.3L Manual Trans

1995 Supercab 2WD (LSD) 4.0L Manual Trans

 

Scary, eh?

One is all you ever need--that is until your needs change.

 

1993 Supercab STX (2WD) 4.0L, 5-spd. ~173,000 miles. It's been my daily driver since new.

[gnirevol]

I've had 3 Rangers:

 

1992 Standard Cab 2WD (Open Diff) 3.0L Manual Trans

1994 Supercab 2WD (Open Diff) 4.0L Manual Trans

2008 Supercab 4WD FX4 (4.10 Torsen) 4.0L Manual Trans

 

I knew the 3,0L had pushrods because the one I had in '92 shit a head gasket and I had a look at replacing it. I also knew the '94 4.0L had pushrods as I had it and was changing the oil myself for the 100,000 miles I put on it until I sold it. The '08 only has 30,000 miles on it since new, has had the oil changed on it at the dealership since new; the sad thing I admit is apart from filling the windshield washing fluid I've barely had the need to have the hood up; but on the other hand seeing that the mileage is vitually unchanged between my '94 and my '08 it seems like the exact same motor. The '08 is a lot heavier I think, that is where any gains in efficiency disappered to...

 

 

fuel mileage may be affected by the 4.10 ratio in the diffs i was not aware that the ohc 4 liter engine started life as a pushrod they must have got that idea from the mid 60s 427 sohc engine

[Sixt9coug]

I've had 2 Rangers:

 

1990 Standard Cab 2WD (Open Diff) 2.3L Manual Trans

1995 Supercab 2WD (LSD) 4.0L Manual Trans

 

Scary, eh?

 

 

I've had 2 Rangers as well.

 

my 2004 with a 3.0L OHV and a 5 speed manual trans and my 2009 with a 4.0L SOHC and an auto trans.

 

They both get the same mileage!!!!!!!!! I average around 18-19.5mpg out of them and I've tracked them religiously as long as I've owned them.

 

FWIW, my 94 Mustang GT with a 5 speed gets marginally better fuel economy than the Ranger if I drive it nice. (around 21mpg.... 17 if I'm meaner to it)

[blksn8k2]

I had a 2002 Ranger FX4 prior to my current Sport Trac LTD 4x4 V8. The FX4 also had the 4.10 gears and my V8 Sport Trac gets better highway mileage than it did. Of course a more efficient 3V head design, 3.55 gear ratio and 6-speed trans will do that. Which brings up the point of how outdated the drivetrains are in the current Ranger. IMO this is just a case of Ford intentionally neglecting these trucks so they can say "See, they are not selling in high enough numbers to justify keeping a plant open just for this model" all the while pushing loaded F150s on buyers who really have no use for them.

[jpd80]

In the early 2000s, the small trucks sold around 1million/year with Ford & GM each selling around 300K a piece

Fast forward to 2009/2010 and the whole market is barely over 200,000 vehicles.

 

No wonder Ford is bailing out and focusing on the F Truck's market +500K versus 40,000.

 

If Ford develops a smaller (lighter and narrower) F100 on the next F150 platform, then maybe

those frustrated Ranger buyers may finally get a smaller lighter F Truck that meets their needs...

 

Could it be that T6 ranger was actually going to badly overlap a future strategy with F Truck?

Watch this space......

Edited December 30, 2010 by jpd80

[ford4v429]

I STILL think they should stamp a 56 F100 looking pickup and panel truck (4 seat) body on the tried and true existing ranger chassis...bringing back the F100 name I think makes sense, and the 56 F100 is unquestionably a Ford from a mile away...it wouldnt be accused as a ptcruiser copycat either- the pt piece of crap was a retro shell on a neon chassis- and while it wasnt pretty, it still had a following- the F100 would have a true enthusiast following, plus 'those pt fans' - but it would be a truly useable /cool pickup, on a sturdy chassis...

But then I think they shoulda offered the EB3.5 in the grand marquis too. Ive had a 2011 Marquis rental, not a bad car at all, but boring...if I wasnt already car poor I'd buy a new one like it, but cant right now, and by the time I'll be able to, they wont be built...so just going to pick up a used one tomorrow

Hope our 09 Mustang wont end up being my last new ford- maybe if a cool F100 or a cool(but reasonably priced) Mustang comes out, but right now, the only new car that really calls out to me is the Challenger(but its a Mopar- hmm...) and the Grand Marquis(but it wont be around much longer)...

[gnirevol]

I had a 2002 Ranger FX4 prior to my current Sport Trac LTD 4x4 V8. The FX4 also had the 4.10 gears and my V8 Sport Trac gets better highway mileage than it did. Of course a more efficient 3V head design, 3.55 gear ratio and 6-speed trans will do that. Which brings up the point of how outdated the drivetrains are in the current Ranger. IMO this is just a case of Ford intentionally neglecting these trucks so they can say "See, they are not selling in high enough numbers to justify keeping a plant open just for this model" all the while pushing loaded F150s on buyers who really have no use for them.

 

 

That is why i mentioned gear ratio my 97 f150 4.6 with 3.55 gears turns lower rpm than my brother inlaws ranger .The hp on these 2 engines isalmost the same ibeleive the 4.6 has a few more hp and a bit more torque the ranger has 4.10 gears

[blksn8k2]

In the early 2000s, the small trucks sold around 1million/year with Ford & GM each selling around 300K a piece

Fast forward to 2009/2010 and the whole market is barely over 200,000 vehicles.

 

No wonder Ford is bailing out and focusing on the F Truck's market +500K versus 40,000.

 

If Ford develops a smaller (lighter and narrower) F100 on the next F150 platform, then maybe

those frustrated Ranger buyers may finally get a smaller lighter F Truck that meets their needs...

 

Could it be that T6 ranger was actually going to badly overlap a future strategy with F Truck?

Watch this space......

 

I hope you are right jpd but in the meantime Ford is getting an awful lot of negative PR over this issue.

 

Have you ever considered the fact that one of the reasons the small truck market has tanked is because the manufacturers stopped updating these vehicles? In the case of the Ranger, why would anyone in their right mind buy a new truck that looks, drives and gets about the same mileage as a 1993 model? It was the same story three years ago and that is why I bought a Sport Trac. I didn't need or want a huge F150 but I was perfectly happy spending the same amount of money on truck that was closer to the size I needed but had a more updated chassis, interior and drivetrain than the Ranger. Now, even that option is disappearing. In the meantime we have 500 different SUV/CUVs to choose from but only one size truck...huge.

 

Oh, and BTW, I can look out my front window and see two Rangers parked in my neighbors' driveways.

Edited January 1, 2011 by blksn8k2

[Hoser768]

One is all you ever need

Until it dies, which it shows no sign of doing.

94 2.3 5spd 162k 27-28mpg highway driving normal, It can do 30 if I baby it.

Ford needs something in the lineup smaller than the F150. I could use something slightly larger than the current Ranger, but the 150 is overkill for my needs.

[Mackintire]

Until it dies, which it shows no sign of doing.

94 2.3 5spd 162k 27-28mpg highway driving normal, It can do 30 if I baby it.

Ford needs something in the lineup smaller than the F150. I could use something slightly larger than the current Ranger, but the 150 is overkill for my needs.

 

The currrent F150 needs to drop almost 1000lbs to make the 2016 EPA fuel recomendations. And since the F150 is the largest selling truck for ford....they 'll need something smaller and lighter to keep their CAFE up. I just don 't think Ford wants to the first one to downsize.

[jpd80]

seeing as this is a Ranger thread, I felt it fitting to post the 2010 sales figures for small trucks here:

 

Less than full-size pickup trucks

Toyota Tacoma - 106,198

Ford Ranger - 55,364

Nissan Frontier - 40,427

Chevy Colorado - 24,642

Honda Ridgeline - 16,142

Dodge Dakota - 13,047

GMC Canyon - 7,992

Suzuki Equator - 1,447 (A Frontier by any other name is clearly not as sweet.)

Edited January 6, 2011 by jpd80

[jpd80]

My how times have changed, barely 270,000 trucks in total for 2010.

Ten years ago, Ford and GM would have sold 300K a piece but not today....

Edited January 6, 2011 by jpd80

[GTwannabe]

seeing as this is a Ranger thread, I felt it fitting to post the 2010 sales figures for small trucks here:

 

Less than full-size pickup trucks

Toyota Tacoma - 106,198

Ford Ranger - 55,364

Nissan Frontier - 40,427

Chevy Colorado - 24,642

Honda Ridgeline - 16,142

Dodge Dakota - 13,047

GMC Canyon - 7,992

Suzuki Equator - 1,447 (A Frontier by any other name is clearly not as sweet.)

 

It's amazing that the Ranger sells as well as it does, despite being horribly obsolete 1998 technology. If only Ford had done something to the platform over the past 13 years and equipped a more efficient motor... they'd be eating Toyota's lunch and dominating the sub-$30k truck market.

 

Classic Ford... let one of your best selling products rot on the vine until it's totally uncompetitive and sales dry up, then kill that model because there's "no market". It's the Taurus -> Nothing -> Five Hundred -> Taurus debacle all over again. Ford is going to be caught with their pants down when gas hits $5 and consumers stop buying anything that gets less than 25mpg (F-150). Whereas if they had a 50k/year break-even F-100/Ranger in the lineup, they could shift production and not lose sales.

[Kris Kolman]

To continue with the statistics

 

2010 US Pickup Truck Sales

2010 Canada Pickup Truck Sales

 

1) Small truck market just might be stabilizing, with essentially the same number of sales in 2009 & 2010

2) 2010 small truck sales were ~280,000 in the US, and an additional ~45,000 in Canada

3) Ford sold ~91,000 Rangers and SportTracs in both, which is easily 2nd with over 27% of the market

4) This was ~3x the number of Transit Connects sold, and yet that makes money

5) This was all done with little marketing for either the Ranger or the SportTrac

6) And the Ranger is horridly outdated with little difference to my 1996 version

7) New T6 Ranger is nearly identical in size to the high selling Tacoma (207in x 72in vs. 207in x 74in)

8) With a V6 fuel economy that should easily exceed the Tacoma (25mpg vs. 21 mpg)

9) While retaining its 4-cylinder fuel economy advantage (28 mpg vs. 25 mpg)

[First-On-Race-Day]

bu...bu...bu....but it wont be rear drive

...or wont have a 300+ HP engine

...or it wont have body on frame construction

...or it wont tow 11,000 pounds

...or it wont take a snow plow

...or it wont leap tall buildings in a single bound....

And why should the Ranger have all of this and cut into precious F-150 sales?!? Its all about making a car the fits into its own segment and will not cannibalize other segments; especially your bread and butter segments!!!

 

Ranger should always be between 250-290BHP with 280ft-lb and same size. Just update the damn thing so it does not look like a 1990's reject!

[crackedblock]

Let's see, Ford cannot justify being in this small truck segment but Toyota and Nissan can and they have no intentions of dropping out and they have updated their trucks already how many times since 1993. You could go as far back to the 80's. for what it is worth lets think about some different senerios:

 

Baseline 2010 sales:

Toyota Tacoma - 106,198

Ford Ranger - 55,364

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 41,874

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon - 32,634

Honda Ridgeline - 16,142

Dodge Dakota - 13,047

 

 

What I believe the numbers will look like w/o Ford Ranger:

(With aprox. 12,000 dropping out of the segment)

Toyota Tacoma - 117,270

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 54,804

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon- 40,716

Honda Ridgeline - 16,142

Dodge Dakota - 24,888

 

 

What I believe the segment sales would look like if Ford built a new ranger that bested Tacoma in price, tourque, and mpg (2.0 Ecoboost w/22-23 city & 28-29hwy mpg): (Numbers include about 40,000 new buyers brought to segment.)

Toyota Tacoma - 81,198

Ford Ranger - 153,364

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 31,874

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon - 20,642

Honda Ridgeline - 10,142

Dodge Dakota - 8,047

 

 

What I believe the segment sales would look like with new Ranger and Colorado:

(Numbers include about 65,000 (25,000 additional) new buyers brought to segment.)

Toyota Tacoma - 68,198

Ford Ranger - 143,364

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 26,874

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon - 84,642

Honda Ridgeline - 8,142

Dodge Dakota - 6,047

 

 

Now Imagine what would the numbers look like after sustained high gas prices averaging about $3.50-$4.00 in winter & $4.50-$5.00 in summer? Maybe we are already there! Im guessing an easy additional 100,000 sales brought to segment.

 

I like Statistics. Don't get me started with the charts.

[blksn8k2]

More fuel for the fire:

 

Edited March 10, 2011 by blksn8k2

[jasonsadler10]

Let's see, Ford cannot justify being in this small truck segment but Toyota and Nissan can and they have no intentions of dropping out and they have updated their trucks already how many times since 1993. You could go as far back to the 80's. for what it is worth lets think about some different senerios:

 

Baseline 2010 sales:

Toyota Tacoma - 106,198

Ford Ranger - 55,364

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 41,874

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon - 32,634

Honda Ridgeline - 16,142

Dodge Dakota - 13,047

 

 

What I believe the numbers will look like w/o Ford Ranger:

(With aprox. 12,000 dropping out of the segment)

Toyota Tacoma - 117,270

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 54,804

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon- 40,716

Honda Ridgeline - 16,142

Dodge Dakota - 24,888

 

 

What I believe the segment sales would look like if Ford built a new ranger that bested Tacoma in price, tourque, and mpg (2.0 Ecoboost w/22-23 city & 28-29hwy mpg): (Numbers include about 40,000 new buyers brought to segment.)

Toyota Tacoma - 81,198

Ford Ranger - 153,364

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 31,874

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon - 20,642

Honda Ridgeline - 10,142

Dodge Dakota - 8,047

 

 

What I believe the segment sales would look like with new Ranger and Colorado:

(Numbers include about 65,000 (25,000 additional) new buyers brought to segment.)

Toyota Tacoma - 68,198

Ford Ranger - 143,364

Nissan Frontier/Suzuki Equator - 26,874

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon - 84,642

Honda Ridgeline - 8,142

Dodge Dakota - 6,047

 

 

Now Imagine what would the numbers look like after sustained high gas prices averaging about $3.50-$4.00 in winter & $4.50-$5.00 in summer? Maybe we are already there! Im guessing an easy additional 100,000 sales brought to segment.

 

I like Statistics. Don't get me started with the charts.

 

very good analysis.... now would you mind forwarding it to the ford execs? :P

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Global F-100 world pick-up truck, diesel only for Europe "Made in the USA" for Europe, then you have got me hooked as a regular buyer.

 

If Ford feel the urge need to round it off bit, please make it like the awesome FR100 concept automotive heaven put something fun back into motoring rather than just a another generic dull boring eyesore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds