Ranger with 5L Coyote engine

[silvrsvt]

http://jalopnik.com/5926353/a-new-ford-ranger-with-a-50+liter-v8-is-a-beautiful-thing?popular=true

[Ron W.]

No test drive.... ?

[7Mary3]

Looks like it is yet to be finished.

[T-bird]

I often wondered why Ford never put an ecoboost engine in the Ranger. I used to have a Ranger however it didn't make sense as the fuel econonomy was pathetic in particlar for the size of vehicle. Now have the F150 Ecoboost however for the most is overkill relative to required capacity and size for my purposes. If the Ranger had had more power and 20 or 30 percent better fuel economy I would still own one instead of the F150. Still bugs me that they were so pissy on gas for the size of vehicle.

[akirby]

I often wondered why Ford never put an ecoboost engine in the Ranger. I used to have a Ranger however it didn't make sense as the fuel econonomy was pathetic in particlar for the size of vehicle. Now have the F150 Ecoboost however for the most is overkill relative to required capacity and size for my purposes. If the Ranger had had more power and 20 or 30 percent better fuel economy I would still own one instead of the F150. Still bugs me that they were so pissy on gas for the size of vehicle.

 

What's to wonder? Sales were too low and the market was shrinking too fast to warrant the large investment required to keep it in production. Had it stayed in production it would certainly be getting ecoboost engines.

[T-bird]

True but would the market be so small if the vehicle would have been more efficient. As I said I would still have one if it were. I suspect there would be a significant customer base for a vehicle of this size and capacity were it to get something like 20 percent better fuel economy than the F150. I don't think much effort was put towards this. Fords choice I guess.

[akirby]

True but would the market be so small if the vehicle would have been more efficient.

 

The market might increase slightly but part of that would come at the expense of the F150 which is more profitable per unit, so that's a net loss for Ford.

 

There are enough decent choices in the market like the Tacoma - if people wanted smaller trucks they'd still be buying them. Most smaller truck buyers moved to crossovers, small cars and hybrids. Ford will have a new small truck of some kind - we just haven't seen it yet.

[goinbroke2]

People went from big cars to smaller cars because of the price of fuel, I can't see that much of a difference with trucks. What I see is people making do with a small suv that gets better milage, that wouldn't of changed if the smaller trucks got better milage. I've said it before, around here rangers outsell everything else 5-6 to 1. The SINGLE complaint of a ranger? MILAGE. Period. Manuverable, fits in single car garages, can carry what little I need. Now they've found that by laying the back seats down they can carry the same stuff in the back of a suv. It's not like ranger buyers were hauling 5 yards of gravel every weekend, they would haul a couple bags of fertilizer/cement/grass seed/etc, maybe some 2x4's or a sheet of plywood. Now, they haul it all inside a suv and get great milage, if it's something bigger they get a $1000 trailer. Now they can carry everything the ranger could but get twice the fuel milage. How often do they use the trailer? Not too often, in the meantime they're getting 30mpg instead of 17mpg.

 

I think it was a combination of things that killed off the small truck market, same as the minivan market. Carry lots of people, pull the seats and they carry lots of crap..so why did they decline? People got bored with them/ stereotyped the soccermom. Not the minivans fault, the market dried up.

 

Something else I see is people wanting minimalist vehicles. "oh my gosh, all this crap, I don't understand it". Some people are tired of rolling computers and want a bare, jump in it and go type truck. More and more people around here are buying older 60's-70's vehicles and putting modern drivetrains under them. That could be cause we're all aging i don't know but being bubblewrapped in a car and saying "store" and have the car "wisk" you there is not too appealing to anybody I know. (at least that's how they say it feels like)

[silvrsvt]

Something else I see is people wanting minimalist vehicles. "oh my gosh, all this crap, I don't understand it". Some people are tired of rolling computers and want a bare, jump in it and go type truck. More and more people around here are buying older 60's-70's vehicles and putting modern drivetrains under them. That could be cause we're all aging i don't know but being bubblewrapped in a car and saying "store" and have the car "wisk" you there is not too appealing to anybody I know. (at least that's how they say it feels like)

 

The problem is that if you don't offer Sync/MFT/etc, your going to turn off buyers who want that stuff, who will be increasing in numbers and replacing the older buyers who don't want it. I don't see what the issue is...once things are setup, its more or less automatic and doesn't take any effort to use it.

[NickF1011]

Something else I see is people wanting minimalist vehicles. "oh my gosh, all this crap, I don't understand it". Some people are tired of rolling computers and want a bare, jump in it and go type truck. More and more people around here are buying older 60's-70's vehicles and putting modern drivetrains under them. That could be cause we're all aging i don't know but being bubblewrapped in a car and saying "store" and have the car "wisk" you there is not too appealing to anybody I know. (at least that's how they say it feels like)

 

Last I checked, Ford still offers a version of every one of its vehicles without Sync and MFT. Now, if you want a vehicle with crank windows and manual locks, you might just be out of luck. So sad.