Jump to content

Since we now have our own forum


ghstwolf

Recommended Posts

Four doors and more room is ok as long as they sacrafice bed room in an effort to keep the truck the same size. I think these new "midsized" little trucks make no sense whatsoever. Why folks would buy a truck that is within a few inches and a couple grand of a full sized truck is beyond me.

 

My four banger gets almost 30MPG on the highway and if it gets less than 24 in the worst conditions I am thinking something is wrong. Also it is extremely small and easy to park. It also was very inexpensive to buy.

 

Honda, Toyota, and Nissan build trucks in the small truck class that are well over 20, even 25K dollars then wonder why the hell no one is buying. DUH! I bought my Ranger for less than $9500 and it's a 4 banger with a 5 speed. I was beating the hell out of it before it was broke in, but that's what I bought it for.

 

Yeah, let's see, I am going to go out and buy a Tacoma or Ridgeline for 20 large or more and then throw concrete and dirt in the bed and go off into the woods. Ummm...NO, I don't think so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep it the same size, have a real 4 door variant, offer a small straight 5 or 6 cylinder diesel. Keep it truckish for the real backwoods, offroad people. Simple, rugged, tough. need i say more?

 

Umm, 1 thing.

 

Four doors and more room is ok as long as they sacrafice bed room in an effort to keep the truck the same size.

 

Ok, there it is. We covered what would make the perfect Ranger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I retract the 4 door variant, if you want a 4 door buy an exploder err sport trac. My thinking on this is, if you want 4 door its cause you probably want to haul people and just a little junk in the back, otherwise accordian your passangers in to the jump seats! haha if you want to haul people and lots of junk a ranger it probably not the best choice better step up to a F-series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Having owned 2 Rangers, '89, and '97 s/cabs, I would like to see the same setup available that I currently have; 4 Cylinder, 5 sp. manual trans, Super cab 2wd. With the newer 4 cyl's additional power and torque, why is it all of a sudden not acceptable to build this combo? The '89 s/c I had with the old 2.3L was only 100HP, maybe a little slow, but totally acceptable on the highway with a moderate load.

 

And while they are at it, make limitied slip available with the 4 cyl. 2wd model.

 

This is the last of the truly compact trucks, and the opportunity to make an economical truck will be lost if they "up-size" it like Toyota and Nissan. Make a new version, but keep what made it a best seller all those years, economy and reliability.

 

Oval Man

 

That's my shape

Edited by Oval Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think that ford will make the ranger big. becouse i think they are going to have the new sport trac in the mid size truck catagory...they have the f-150 in the full size area.and the super duty in the tank area.keep the ranger in the compact truck area...then ford will have all area coverd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Keeping the Ranger small allows them to be able to Sell a Crew Cab in the States w/o directly competing with the now larger Sport Trac, or at least not as much. Also making the Sport Trac more urbanized to an extent, catering more to the SUV crowd, with the Ranger more rugged, catering more to the truck crowd. The ST has a IRS, while the Ranger should keep it's Solid Rear Axle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeping the Ranger small allows them to be able to Sell a Crew Cab in the States w/o directly competing with the now larger Sport Trac, or at least not as much. Also making the Sport Trac more urbanized to an extent, catering more to the SUV crowd, with the Ranger more rugged, catering more to the truck crowd. The ST has a IRS, while the Ranger should keep it's Solid Rear Axle.

 

 

Frankly, I think this is a bad product mix. An F-150 that is too big, a Ranger too small and the answer is an independent rear suspension, 4.5 foot composite bed in the Sport-Trac? Not for me. The Sport-Trac is at best an answer to Honda's Ridgeline. It is not a small truck in the spectre of the Ranger - the Ranger is and has always been a little truck that really can do some truck duties. The SportTrac is nothing more than an SUV with a little plastic bed on the back.

 

Not for me and neither is the current F-150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I agree with the above opinions that the current Ranger is the right size, could just use a refresh, but needs to stay a tough little WORK truck. There is a big gap up to the F150, and the ST fills it from a passenger truck/SUV combo side, but not really as a work truck. On my morning commute, I often pass a guy in a Toyota T100, set up as a work truck. I'm not a toyota fan, but this truck sets the goal for the ideal size and proportions to split the ranger - F150 difference. Make it simple, make it cheap, sell 'em as F100s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the above opinions that the current Ranger is the right size, could just use a refresh, but needs to stay a tough little WORK truck. There is a big gap up to the F150, and the ST fills it from a passenger truck/SUV combo side, but not really as a work truck. On my morning commute, I often pass a guy in a Toyota T100, set up as a work truck. I'm not a toyota fan, but this truck sets the goal for the ideal size and proportions to split the ranger - F150 difference. Make it simple, make it cheap, sell 'em as F100s.

 

 

I agree with the T100 assessment and have seen plenty of them working very hard myself. So much for that wimpy Toyota - these appear to be pretty tough trucks. But, so is the Ranger. I've parked my 2003 Ranger right up against a very well used T100 and it stacks up well. Just needs a little more width to make it more comfortable. I think my 4.0 SOHC engine is stronger, I know my manual 5-speed is stronger and the Ford rear-end looks a lot stronger, especially with limited-slip.

 

Guess no one knows for sure, but it's a good bet that Toyota will drop the current Tundra in favor of a new, bigger "better" model. That will leave a big gap between the Tacoma and Tundra. Ford has an opportunity here in my mind. Maybe a company saving opportunity.

 

Build us a competent half-ton truck again with the 4.6 V-8 SOHC. Make it comfortable with the fancy options, but not a lot bigger. A little wider would be nice. We need at least a 6 foot bed and 6.5 option would be really nice. Throw in a strong 5-speed automatic and keep the manual (that already works with the 4.6 V-8) available and it would be a strong seller. It doesn't have to be a crew cab, just make it so that adults can sit in the back for short trips without leg cramps. A nice extended cab would work just fine.

 

That would be assuming that this truck doesn't gain a bunch of weight though. The power to weight ratio needs to be class-leading for the 4.6 V-8 to shine. Ford needs to make a new truck (F-100 sounds good again) that is strong, capable, comfortable, quick and efficient.

 

This vehicle needs to get at least 20 mpg on the highway in 4X4 trim. I don't think this is asking the impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the T100 assessment and have seen plenty of them working very hard myself. So much for that wimpy Toyota - these appear to be pretty tough trucks. But, so is the Ranger. I've parked my 2003 Ranger right up against a very well used T100 and it stacks up well. Just needs a little more width to make it more comfortable. I think my 4.0 SOHC engine is stronger, I know my manual 5-speed is stronger and the Ford rear-end looks a lot stronger, especially with limited-slip.

 

Guess no one knows for sure, but it's a good bet that Toyota will drop the current Tundra in favor of a new, bigger "better" model. That will leave a big gap between the Tacoma and Tundra. Ford has an opportunity here in my mind. Maybe a company saving opportunity.

 

Build us a competent half-ton truck again with the 4.6 V-8 SOHC. Make it comfortable with the fancy options, but not a lot bigger. A little wider would be nice. We need at least a 6 foot bed and 6.5 option would be really nice. Throw in a strong 5-speed automatic and keep the manual (that already works with the 4.6 V-8) available and it would be a strong seller. It doesn't have to be a crew cab, just make it so that adults can sit in the back for short trips without leg cramps. A nice extended cab would work just fine.

 

That would be assuming that this truck doesn't gain a bunch of weight though. The power to weight ratio needs to be class-leading for the 4.6 V-8 to shine. Ford needs to make a new truck (F-100 sounds good again) that is strong, capable, comfortable, quick and efficient.

 

This vehicle needs to get at least 20 mpg on the highway in 4X4 trim. I don't think this is asking the impossible.

 

The available V8s would provide nice options for those with towing or frequent hauling needs, or for a performance variant. Pricewise, at that point, youmight be getting into F150 territory. If the size is right, and weight is kept down, the base 6, preferably with a stick, should be sufficient for most applications, cheap, and durable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The available V8s would provide nice options for those with towing or frequent hauling needs, or for a performance variant. Pricewise, at that point, youmight be getting into F150 territory. If the size is right, and weight is kept down, the base 6, preferably with a stick, should be sufficient for most applications, cheap, and durable.

 

 

That's a common response to my "wish list" truck. However, I still think that if Ford ever built a truck properly around the 4.6 SOHC engine that they could capture a market that only Toyota's Tundra has managed to gather. The 4.6 has never been in a truck that wasn't too heavy for it to properly perform. The 1997-2003 F-150 was too heavy for it to work well in a lot of applications and it usually worked so hard that the 5.4 got the same gas mileage. The 2004 model year made the 4.6 V-8 not a good option at all for most folks. I do not see a smaller truck, efficiently built with the 4.6 taking market from the F-150. And, yes a manual tranny - a good one, probably six-speed - would push this vehicle into pretty good mpg territory.

 

I'm of the opinion that Ford needs to keep the Ranger as a cheap, reliable vehicle. But, then the F-150 can be had in that configuration as well. Why can't Ford make the Ranger platform in a manner that it is strong, cheap competitive with a V-6 and also a really nice, strong competitor with the 4.6 V-8?

 

Maybe Ford will simply fix the F-150 (as in losing at least 500 pounds) and narrow the margin between the two vehicles. I still think the Ranger should have been upgraded with the Explorer and now offer the 4.6 as an option. Will be interesting to see how the SportTrac sells - I would guess nowhere near the numbers that a redesigned Ranger could have done. And, while Ford tries to figure out how to fix this problem, the Tacoma and Frontier will probably take away Ranger customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Ford will simply fix the F-150 (as in losing at least 500 pounds) and narrow the margin between the two vehicles.

 

I'm picturing Anna Nicole Smith - before and after Trim Spa! ;)

 

It's been too many years since I owned an 8cyl - wow - thinking about it the last gasoline 8 I owned was the Olds 350, which I sold in '87.

 

Everything fun I did was in the 80s - but I digress.

 

Never owning the 4.6, I can't comment n it's suitability, but if you suggest it could do the trick in a T100 sized vehicle, with good economy, then I'm good with that. I get misty eyed thinking about my 72 F100 with the 3 on the tree, MS/MB, manual choke(!) and vent windows. The straight six, I think it was a 300cid, moved that truck plenty quick, and with the low gearing, it hauled many a heavy load.

 

When it comes to trucks, I think old school. A Courier sized Ranger - or Ranger sized - fills a market segment not addressed in the US - really small trucks. And I like the idea of Ford "owning" a segment.

 

I totally agree that the new F150, while an attractive, darn cool vehicle, is just too much truck for the 1/2 ton market. Losing 500 lbs, getting in the ballpark with the previous generation, is a good idea.

 

Thant also emphasizes the distiction from the F250/350. Ford's idea of splitting off the 3/4 / one ton into a new platform a few years back was , arguably, brilliant.

 

Sorry to ramble - I think we agree there is a gap in the product line, and several options to address it - now they gotta do it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
My 1993 4.0L 4x4 has 110,000 miles on it - love the mechanics and long life. I've gotta say that I am REALLY happy with it as it is.

 

A replacement with a bigger supercab would be nice for a future version. :)

 

I also have a '93 that I am happy with. My only wish is that the 4 doors were available when I bought it.

I have driven the Budget Rental Rangers and I must say the buckets in my Ranger are a whole lot more comfortable. It seems that the seats are much harder now than the used to be, and I can't imagine its a longevity issue, as mine are in good shape (no rips or worn spots)

 

I am old enough to remember the supercabs of the '80s from Mazda and Isuzu. Those seemed much larger (by comparison). I agree with your opinion on a larger supercab, but I do like the pictures of the crew cabs from Asia. As a family man, I would like to be able to safely haul a child seat in the back. Toyota does a decent job with their crew cab, but the truck is too big and too expensive (why not just buy a full size?). The Sport Trac is the same, and just isn't a truck that I would want to throw a load of dirt in the back.

 

Nissan's crew cab with a long bed (older generation?) did a fine job of compromise IMO.

 

I can't complain about mileage (I regularly get around 22 MPG), but it would be interesting to know what the diesels they use in other countries get.

 

An SVT variant would be interesting. I know they had a 5.0L prototype at one time, but that was a generation or two back.

 

No matter what happens, it is a shame that Ford has not updated the Ranger lately, since I have enjoyed my Ranger so much that Ford is my first stop anytime I look at cars (for my wife). I admit that I am not in the market for small truck, so I guess my opinion is rather hollow. But I am (potentially) in the market for a full size, and I am leaning Toyota, for the simple fact that it more closely resembles the previous F-150, which I considered to be a large Ranger look-alike. The new F-150 is too "contractor" looking, which is fine for some. I prefer the more "personal" look of the previous F-150 and the current Tundra.

 

The Ranger is the last small pickup truck on the market, which may be the reason it is a best seller. This seems to be an opportunity for the Koreans to enter the market with a small, cheap truck. Especially if you could get one rated for one ton. (Remember the late '70s and early '80s? You could get a 1-ton Toyota or Datsun with no problem. Don't remember if the Ranger was available that way, but I know you could get a diesel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...