2024 Ford Ranger and Raptor Add Comfort, Capability and Performance to Midsize Pickups

[Rick73]

11 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Not the worst truck in the world, reliable, simple, capable enough.

You hit nail on the head — “reliable, simple, capable enough”.  Sometimes good enough is all a buyer wants or needs.  I had my regular cab for around 150,000 miles and never had a major repair to deal with.  Only thing I recall was the fuel fill hose started leaking when truck got old and I replaced it myself.

 

To me it was like a tiny version of a base F-150 from that time (30 years ago).  Front naturally aspirated engine, RWD, solid rear axle, leaf springs, 5-speed manual, body on frame, etc.  It was a truck that just happened to be small.  I never felt unsafe driving it, and I took it from Texas to Florida and California multiple times.  Given the time, my only real complain was excessive frame twist.  There’s easy cure for that today.

 

Maverick is undoubtedly a far superior vehicle, particularly to drive people around, but to me it’s more of a 2-row 4-door SUV with back open to make a small bed.  Ranger was and remains more of a real truck to me.  Obviously after 30 years new Ranger is a lot nicer too, but cost and size place it in a new category.  That’s the context in which I say there is no 90s Ranger equivalent today.  I also get that from a marketing perspective, there is no demand for such a small 90s Ranger truck today.

[rmc523]

We get it.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

You hit nail on the head — “reliable, simple, capable enough”.  Sometimes good enough is all a buyer wants or needs.  I had my regular cab for around 150,000 miles and never had a major repair to deal with.  Only thing I recall was the fuel fill hose started leaking when truck got old and I replaced it myself.

 

To me it was like a tiny version of a base F-150 from that time (30 years ago).  Front naturally aspirated engine, RWD, solid rear axle, leaf springs, 5-speed manual, body on frame, etc.  It was a truck that just happened to be small.  I never felt unsafe driving it, and I took it from Texas to Florida and California multiple times.  Given the time, my only real complain was excessive frame twist.  There’s easy cure for that today.

 

Maverick is undoubtedly a far superior vehicle, particularly to drive people around, but to me it’s more of a 2-row 4-door SUV with back open to make a small bed.  Ranger was and remains more of a real truck to me.  Obviously after 30 years new Ranger is a lot nicer too, but cost and size place it in a new category.  That’s the context in which I say there is no 90s Ranger equivalent today.  I also get that from a marketing perspective, there is no demand for such a small 90s Ranger truck today.

Your final paragraph goes to exactly why Ford North America in 2006, initially opted out of a replacement Ranger that became the global T6 vehicle. What North America wanted, a smaller, lighter, less, costly truck (sound familiar?). That vehicle simply could not fit under the projected product envelope, that kick off meeting happened during 2006 when Alan Mulally took the reigns and unfortunately, a low cost truck was way down on the priorities as was continuing the existing Ranger which was cancelled in 2011.

 

None of that POV changed at Ford until Mulally stepped down and Fields took over, work began on securing a Ranger and Bronco for the US market but it wasn’t until Hackett/Farley term that Maverick was identified as a needed vehicle and developed at warp speed.

 

I can only imagine what could have been if Mulally’s team developed a quick Maverick project done under C1 Transit Connect, how that would have changed the viability of Michigan AP is hard to say but I’d like tho think for the better…interesting discussion but all water under the bridge and like so many other things from that era, a missed opportunity.

Edited March 26 by jpd80