Ranger Conspiracy

[jpd80]

I think the primary argument against the V4 is its odd shape for transverse engine mounting. High parts count is a problem, but not as much as packaging for FWD use.

 

Since it can be assumed that the 4-cylinder engine is, for all intents and purposes, an economy car engine, and since most economy cars will be FWD from now on, it would seem that the V4 is ill-suited to the task that it would be most often called upon to perform: propelling an econobox.

 

OK, how about a narrow angle V4 or a SI 4? This would be a snap off VW V6 0r Ford SI6.

[630land]

Point is, there are no "V4's" coming from anyone. Even holy Toyota.

 

Back on topic: Ranger is dying from protecting F Series, yes, but not 100% reason why. It is also that compact truck buyers will not spend a dime more than a 1993 price point, so what do they expect? And, GM and Mopar's newer, bigger Colorado and Dakota are $$ losing flops. The Asian trucks are cushioned by $$ coming from Tokyo.

Edited November 21, 2006 by 630land

[RangerM]

Neither the 5 cylinder Colorado engine or the 4.0l V6 are competitive with the competition. Both have a well earned rep as being hard on gas.

 

I own a '93 Ranger with a 4.0 and 5-spd, and I've never got below 20 mpg (usually 22-24 in mixed driving) in over 130k miles.

 

Back when gas hit $3.50, I drove it like I had a glass of water on the hood, and got 26.5 mpg; the best I've ever got.

 

My dad owns a '94 with a 3.0 and he says he usually gets around 28 mpg (highway).

 

Neither of us are complaining.

[Bluecon]

I think the primary argument against the V4 is its odd shape for transverse engine mounting. High parts count is a problem, but not as much as packaging for FWD use.

 

Since it can be assumed that the 4-cylinder engine is, for all intents and purposes, an economy car engine, and since most economy cars will be FWD from now on, it would seem that the V4 is ill-suited to the task that it would be most often called upon to perform: propelling an econobox.

Subaru seems to manage nicely with their flat fours.

 

I own a '93 Ranger with a 4.0 and 5-spd, and I've never got below 20 mpg (usually 22-24 in mixed driving) in over 130k miles.

 

Back when gas hit $3.50, I drove it like I had a glass of water on the hood, and got 26.5 mpg; the best I've ever got.

 

My dad owns a '94 with a 3.0 and he says he usually gets around 28 mpg (highway).

 

Neither of us are complaining.

Or telling the truth.

 

Is that the Cologne 4.0l in a 94?

Edited November 21, 2006 by Bluecon

[RangerM]

After the car show today I can see why the Ranger is doomed.

 

I examined a new Toyota Tacoma today in base trim. The quality of that truck is outstanding and the dash is very nicely styled and a very sturdy precise quality too. Textures and materials were wonderful. I was so impressed. If I had to choose, I'd take that Toyota at $15,000.

 

 

If you could find one. I was at the Toyota dealership about a month or two ago, and a 4-cyl with auto/ac model stickered around $20K. Are they puffing the stickers that much?

[RangerM]

Or telling the truth.

 

Is that the Cologne 4.0l in a 94?

 

No. My father's '94 is a 3.0L Vulcan. It's relatively weak compared to my truck. Mine is a '93 with a 4.0 and 5-speed tranny. It is a 2wd Extended cab, and YES....I regularly get 22-24 mpg in mixed driving, unless my speedometer/odometer measure miles faster than actual (but I don't think so). I zero my odometer everytime I gas up. I usually stop for gas when I reach 400 miles on the trip odo, and almost always put between 17 and 18 gallons in the tank. You do the math.

 

The only time this wasn't true is when they had mandatory "oxygenated" fuel in Raleigh, and my mileage immediately dropped to about 20. Glad they got rid of it.

 

Why is 22-24 so hard to believe. I have the original sticker on the truck and the mpg ratings on the sticker were 17/24. Truth in advertising?

Edited November 21, 2006 by RangerM

[Bluecon]

Midsize truck test. The 4.0l ford is worse than the larger more powerful entries from Dodge, Toyota and Nissan. I am not sure but you may have the previous generation OHV 4.0l. And my 2,000 3.0l Ranger is only about 21 MPG on the highway at 70mph.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...74/pageId=62752

[J-150]

Midsize truck test. The 4.0l ford is worse than the larger more powerful entries from Dodge, Toyota and Nissan. I am not sure but you may have the previous generation OHV 4.0l. And my 2,000 3.0l Ranger is only about 21 MPG on the highway at 70mph.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...74/pageId=62752

 

 

 

not a good test for efficiency.

 

beating the shit out of vehicles and then measuring how much fuel they used is not reflective of the majority of drivers and what they could expect.

 

This is evidenced by the variance between Edmunds numbers and the EPA numbers.

Edited November 21, 2006 by J-150

[Stray Kat]

You know what, I love the V4 idea for small rear drive apps. I think that a half of the H/Boss 6.2 would be a coup de 'ta (sp?) for Ford. Let's see.... current or new Ranger, future Bronco, maybe a 2- seat niche vehicle like a mini- Cobra, a marinized version of both the said V4 and the H/Boss V8 to capture some of the thousands of boat powerplant applications. Oh and don't forget "plug and play" electronic engine controls so the aftermarket can have their fun. You're right J that this would be "outside the box" thinking and truely a Bold Move. I really like the idea of a back to basics Ranger with a spartan "industro- cool" interior and exterior. That would work in everything from my property maintenence biz, to hauling dirtbikes to hooking kids that are into minitruck customizing. Don't forget between the banks of a V4 would be a sweet place to stick one of those nice superchargers that are popping up all over the place. I dig this! Build it and I will buy one.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Stray Kat

[JW]

It is a 2wd Extended cab, and YES....I regularly get 22-24 mpg in mixed driving, unless my speedometer/odometer measure miles faster than actual (but I don't think so).

 

Only if your tires are smaller than stock and you never recalibrated your speedometer. What rearend gears do you have?

 

For comparison, my '94 4.0 5 speed with 3.55's averaged around 17 around town (due to all the Stop Light Derby driving I do), and about 21 on the highway.

[swenson88]

Only if your tires are smaller than stock and you never recalibrated your speedometer. What rearend gears do you have?

 

For comparison, my '94 4.0 5 speed with 3.55's averaged around 17 around town (due to all the Stop Light Derby driving I do), and about 21 on the highway.

 

All the people I have known with 4.0L Rangers tend to report mileage below 20mpg. Maybe it's a little better on the highway for a brief time, but overall many say they get 16-17mpg.

[RangerM]

Only if your tires are smaller than stock and you never recalibrated your speedometer. What rearend gears do you have?

 

For comparison, my '94 4.0 5 speed with 3.55's averaged around 17 around town (due to all the Stop Light Derby driving I do), and about 21 on the highway.

 

 

The tires are the same size that came on the truck 225R14 (I think). Originally they were Firestone FR480s, but I now have a set of (quieter) Bridgestones.

 

As far as the rear dif, all I can say is that it's stock for whatever came on an STX 2wd 4.0/5-spd in '93. 3.55 sounds familiar, but I can tell you that I turn almost exactly 2k RPMs at around 63/64 miles per hour. Naturally this assumes that the Tach and Speedo are reasonably accurate.

 

17 around town is what the EPA rated my Ranger for, but I've always got better than that. The only way I can think of how I'd get that low is if I never went beyond 3rd gear. I always run in the tallest gear I can without lugging the engine (a habit I've had for 20 years).

 

If I keep below 65 on the highway I can get around 24 mpg. 70-75 usually gets me around 22. Above 75-80 and the mileage goes down from there, but like I said before, I've never got below 20, ever since I bought the truck new (7 miles on the odo).

 

The truck now has around 133K, doesn't burn/leak oil, and has never failed to start. Maybe I've just been lucky.

[RichardJensen]

That is the OHV Cologne V6, and IIRC it was tuned less for power than economy.

[jpd80]

That is the OHV Cologne V6, and IIRC it was tuned less for power than economy.

 

I really wish they'd use our Aussie I6 in a "Ranger truck".

A longer nose wouldn't be much of a concern in a truck.

250 hp @5200 and 280 lb ft @ 2500 now that's gotta be a good start.

[Edgey]

I really wish they'd use our Aussie I6 in a "Ranger truck".

A longer nose wouldn't be much of a concern in a truck.

250 hp @5200 and 280 lb ft @ 2500 now that's gotta be a good start.

 

Well, you'd need an all new Ranger for a longer nose, and length is always an issue for a truck. Length reduces ground clearance over rough terrain.

[JW]

The tires are the same size that came on the truck 225R14 (I think). Originally they were Firestone FR480s, but I now have a set of (quieter) Bridgestones.

 

As far as the rear dif, all I can say is that it's stock for whatever came on an STX 2wd 4.0/5-spd in '93. 3.55 sounds familiar, but I can tell you that I turn almost exactly 2k RPMs at around 63/64 miles per hour. Naturally this assumes that the Tach and Speedo are reasonably accurate.

 

17 around town is what the EPA rated my Ranger for, but I've always got better than that. The only way I can think of how I'd get that low is if I never went beyond 3rd gear. I always run in the tallest gear I can without lugging the engine (a habit I've had for 20 years).

 

If I keep below 65 on the highway I can get around 24 mpg. 70-75 usually gets me around 22. Above 75-80 and the mileage goes down from there, but like I said before, I've never got below 20, ever since I bought the truck new (7 miles on the odo).

 

The truck now has around 133K, doesn't burn/leak oil, and has never failed to start. Maybe I've just been lucky.

 

No, you're not lucky. I have 340,000 on my 4.0. It doesn't leak oil, either. It did try to throw a timing chain at about 275,000 miles, but I got to it before it broke. Other than a timing set, the engine is all original.

 

Your mileage results don't sound terribly unreasonable. I drive NOTHING like you do and mine isn't much worse than yours. And it does sound like you have 3.55's. I think all the STX models ended up with 3.55's.

[jlsaylor]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Much CONTENT here, and one of the reasons I bother to read through the mountains of blather, is the rare gem like this.

 

I just wanted to comment on the fact that as I read this, several lights went off in my head.

 

Ford, build this sucker in China.........

 

Thanks for the compliment. As for your idea regarding the Chinese market, I had considered the possibility of manufacturing these in South America or Mexico for the US market, and even in places like Eastern Europe, etc, for other markets. But I must admit that while China had occured to me as a good place for low cost manufacture and distribution to pacific rim markets, the possible impact this vehicle could have on burgeoning markets like the one in China, or even Russia for that matter, had not occurred to me.

 

I think the concept is very sound indeed, especially since the same "low cost but appealing" approach that seems appropriate in the U.S. market would also have appeal in the Chinese market, or any other for market that matter. That original non-global small truck design just went global indeed. Go figure.

 

You're right J that this would be "outside the box" thinking and truely a Bold Move. I really like the idea of a back to basics Ranger with a spartan "industro- cool" interior and exterior. That would work in everything from my property maintenence biz, to hauling dirtbikes to hooking kids that are into minitruck customizing. Don't forget between the banks of a V4 would be a sweet place to stick one of those nice superchargers that are popping up all over the place. I dig this! Build it and I will buy one.

 

And thanks again. I was thinking of the same kind of universal appeal that you mention when the idea coccured to me. Also, I like the blown V-4 idea as well, and had considered that the same might make a very good top of the line engine offering for a back to basics small truck, or even a good base engine for a revived Bronco. IMO this would be the ideal alernative to a DOHC V-6 since it would allow for a torquier , less expensive package without sacrificing refinement.

Edited November 22, 2006 by jlsaylor

[jlsaylor]

I think the primary argument against the V4 is its odd shape for transverse engine mounting. High parts count is a problem, but not as much as packaging for FWD use.

 

Since it can be assumed that the 4-cylinder engine is, for all intents and purposes, an economy car engine, and since most economy cars will be FWD from now on, it would seem that the V4 is ill-suited to the task that it would be most often called upon to perform: propelling an econobox.

 

I see your point, and don't disagree that a 90-degree V-4 would be horrible for fwd applications. But, I can see the implementation of a 90-degree V-4 within the ford lineup because I dont buy the idea that all small cars should be fwd. Also, I don't subscribe to the idea that the best way to execute these small cars is to use the "penalty box" method of engineering. Which is to say that I do agree with your implication that most automakers are, and most likely will continue, using that approach to the same.

 

Below is a short list of small, economical vehicles which I believe could make excellent use of the above mentioned V-4, and which are IMHO sound in concept

 

1: The previously mentioned "back to basics" Ranger

 

2: A Bronco revival reminiscent of the original. (V-4 should be base engine only)

 

3: Ford Cortina 2-dr sedan. I can imagine a 2.9L SOHC V-4 powered version of this making the Kappa twins seems very ordinary and over-priced if executed properly. And a supercharged version seems far too good to pass up here. The same chassis this employs could also be used to spawn....

 

4: A proper Capri revival. A more upscale platform-mate to the Cortina it could offer a bit more tech, style, and performance for a somewhat higher price. The same also seems perfect for the US market as a Mercury (surprise, surprise) offering to slot between the Cortina and Mustang.

 

the list could go on and on. Also worth metnioning is the fact that the implementation of a V-4 like the one I mention could save Ford serious future grief since it would alleviate any future I-4 designs of the need to cover a dizzying array of displacements, which tends to lead to compromise on one end of that spectrum or the other, if not both. Ford should limit engine platforms, but not at the expense of those designs.

[tcap for now]

in 2001 we were supposed to get a new ranger for 2003 if i remember right. then it was delayed. then delayed again then cancelled. in 1998 when the ranger got ifs, it wasnt a costly upgrade from a production stand point. in fact its easier to assemble. and i believe almost all of our equipment was paid for long ago. especially the equipment that was used in the 80s for the first gen ranger and f-150. the only things i could imagine arent paid for is the new box automation that i was told mazda paid most of the bill on when the flare sides went away, and a few paint robots. there has been veryvery little spent on equipment for ranger production. we have been building a good solid truck with old should have been dead a long time ago equipment.

 

needless to say im against any vehicle going to china. with every plant in the us that closes more american jobs go with it. everyone says well its cheaper if its made in china. but if there are no good paying jobs in the us who will be able to buy them. im one of those who bought new fords with my ford paycheck. i dont think i will be able to afford a new car for quite some time.

 

i believe the ranger was left to die, not only for the f-150 but also for the explorer. the reason there isnt a full 4 door ranger is because of the sport trac. if i were to guess id say the new explorer is what the new ranger was supposed to be. and that the sport trac was a test more or less to see if the two could be built together. the reason there isnt a full 4 door ranger is because of the sport trac. the f-150 out sells the expedition by a pretty good margin. if you buy an f-150 and put a topper on it you have a discount expedition without a 3rd seat. if the ranger was more like the explorer with 4 full doors and similar size they might loose profitable explorer sales to rangers with toppers. along with that a v-6 xl f-150 is close in price and fuel mileage to a ranger but with more capability. with the ranger lacking in seating and power ford is trying to get families to go for the explorer and companies to go with the f-series.

 

we are slated to end production of the ranger in the summer of 2008. many of us think it will be done a lot sooner than that. and there arent even roumors of a new truck in the works. for is leaving the mini van segment. they already left the sub-compact market, the touring sedan market, and have limited 2dr sedans planned. so far it looks like they will just leave the compact truck market all together. especially if they can raise the eficciency of the v-6 in the f-series or get the v-6 diesel worked out. partly for sales partly for cafe.

[WC-MAN]

I'm against a bigger Ranger. Look at the Dakota for your answers. The Starting price on a Dakota and a Larger Ram are almost even. The Ranger should be Compact. I also feel it should continue to offer bed choices and cab choices as well.

 

Ford does the Ranger right. Other than a possible 4-door cab (I'm not real sure what % of Tacomas and Canyons are 4-door) Ford offers a TRUCK line in the compact class as opposed to toys.

 

I've always seen the Spot Trac as Ford's cheap way of cashing in on SUV popularity by selling a compact truck for an SUV price.

 

The biggest thing Ford needs to do is quit acting like they are ashamed of the Ranger. It fell into the group in the nineties of vehicles you never talk about unless there is a rebate on them, and then act surprised when they don't sell.