How I think Ford should replace the Ranger

[atvman]

We aren’t getting the global T6 Ranger and I don’t really see a problem with that. The T6 Ranger is too big for the American market, it would simply compete too much with the F150. Here is my plan, replace the top-end Ranger sales with the lower end F150 and replace the lower end Ranger sales with something based on the new C platform.

 

V6 powered Rangers, especially 4X4’s, don’t come cheap. They easily get into the mid $20K range. They aren’t very fuel efficient either. That’s probably a big reason why Ford isn’t selling many high option Rangers. STX and XL trim V6 F150s should cover that market just fine.

 

Lower end I4 Rangers make up the biggest chunk of the Ranger market. These trucks are cheap and fuel efficient, but their towing and payload capacities are limited. A small uni-body truck built on the new global C-platform would probably cover this market just fine. The Escape and TransitConnect are both C-platform based, so why can’t a Ranger be built on this platform? Give it the 2.5L I4, a six speed auto, and a six foot bed. Maybe even give it more truck-like styling like the Escape has. If the truck can be made cheap enough, I could see it being a popular option among those who just want a small truck.

[twintornados]

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....

[OAC_Sparky]

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....

Apart from RWD/4WD and BOF the Ranger doesn't have that now anyways, and for most uses that is just fine with many buyers.

 

The shortcomings in the Ranger is that it gets horrendous mileage for its size by today's standards (which could be addressed by an EB2.0 or a naturally aspirated 3.5 ; either would give it more power and torque and better mileage than a 20 year old 4.0L pushrod engine) and updare the interior. A CrewCab would be nice, but even without wishful thinking the aforementioned improvements would be sufficient with relatively little investment.,

[NickF1011]

Apart from RWD/4WD and BOF the Ranger doesn't have that now anyways, and for most uses that is just fine with many buyers.

 

The shortcomings in the Ranger is that it gets horrendous mileage for its size by today's standards (which could be addressed by an EB2.0 or a naturally aspirated 3.5 ; either would give it more power and torque and better mileage than a 20 year old 4.0L pushrod engine) and updare the interior. A CrewCab would be nice, but even without wishful thinking the aforementioned improvements would be sufficient with relatively little investment.,

 

I think the biggest problem is safety advancements. The Ranger Supercab already gets by with 4-star side impact ratings under the old test regime.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I think the biggest problem is safety advancements. The Ranger Supercab already gets by with 4-star side impact ratings under the old test regime.

 

That can't be hard to fix. Add a few more sheet metal "c" channels welded to the bottom of the cab running from side to side. Problem solved.

[jpd80]

That can't be hard to fix. Add a few more sheet metal "c" channels welded to the bottom of the cab running from side to side. Problem solved.

It's not that easy, you have to vector the crash force energy away from the impact point.

The side impact test is much higher in US tests than in Euro pole test,

more strengthening of B pillar and roof for rollover compliance was needed.

Edited November 20, 2010 by jpd80

[Sevensecondsuv]

It's not that easy, you have to vector the crash force energy away from the impact point.

The side impact test is much higher in US tests than in Euro pole test,

more strengthening of B pillar and roof for rollover compliance was needed.

 

All I'm saying is that I could take a Ranger to my shop and install a full out race-ready roll cage in less than a day. (That's the beauty of BOF construction, btw). It couldn't be very hard for Ford to tweak the construction of the cab such that it scores better.

[akirby]

All I'm saying is that I could take a Ranger to my shop and install a full out race-ready roll cage in less than a day. (That's the beauty of BOF construction, btw). It couldn't be very hard for Ford to tweak the construction of the cab such that it scores better.

 

Apples and oranges. You don't put roll cages in production vehicles. You have to add the strength and energy absorption in without compromising weight or visual appeal.

[fordmantpw]

Apples and oranges. You don't put roll cages in production vehicles. You have to add the strength and energy absorption in without compromising weight or visual appeal.

 

Pffft...can't be that hard!

[jpd80]

All I'm saying is that I could take a Ranger to my shop and install a full out race-ready roll cage in less than a day. (That's the beauty of BOF construction, btw). It couldn't be very hard for Ford to tweak the construction of the cab such that it scores better.

Of course you could but stop and listen to yourself for a minute and ask why Ford is not doing what you said.

 

In short, the accountants at Ford feel that they can make more money by having less platforms

and that is bloody hard to argue against given the stunning turnaround over the past four years.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Of course you could but stop and listen to yourself for a minute and ask why Ford is not doing what you said.

 

In short, the accountants at Ford feel that they can make more money by having less platforms

and that is bloody hard to argue against given the stunning turnaround over the past four years.

 

Yeah, but I don't work for Ford, or even own stock in Ford. Rather, I am a consumer of Ford products. As such, I don't give a crap what the accountants think. All I care about is the product. I know, I know: "but don't you want a viable, profitable Ford so that they can continue to be there in the future?" - to which I reply: not if they're only going to build junk that I couldn't care less about!

 

Hopefully that helps you guys understand my point of view.

[twintornados]

Rather, I am a consumer of Ford products. As such, I don't give a crap what the accountants think. All I care about is the product. I know, I know: "but don't you want a viable, profitable Ford so that they can continue to be there in the future?" - to which I reply: not if they're only going to build junk that I couldn't care less about!

 

Hopefully that helps you guys understand my point of view.

Well, your point of view is noted, but as far as anyone is concerned...Ranger as a vehicle is dead in North America....but on the bright side, that could then be a lead in to a new "Ranger" trim level underneath Lariat and XLT to replace "XL" trim....just like my Dads old 1975 F250 Hi-Boy in Ginger Glow and with a "Ranger" trim package....back then, it was "Custom", "Ranger", and "XLT"

[fordmantpw]

Yeah, but I don't work for Ford, or even own stock in Ford. Rather, I am a consumer of pre-owned Ford products. As such, I don't give a crap what the accountants think. All I care about is the product. I know, I know: "but don't you want a viable, profitable Ford so that they can continue to be there in the future?" - to which I reply: not if they're only going to build junk that I couldn't care less about!

 

Hopefully that helps you guys understand my point of view.

 

Fixed it for you. Basically, Ford doesn't give a rats-a$$ what you think. You won't buy a new vehicle, so why would they care? Sorry, that's just the way I see it.

[Sevensecondsuv]

You won't buy a new vehicle, so why would they care?

 

I would if they if they built something I wanted to buy - it's not my fault Ford won't build something I want to buy new.

 

If they took the current Ranger and gave it a Crew cab option, the new 3.5L and a turbo diesel - both with 6-speed manual transmissions at 25 mpg highway or better, made it about 3" wider, and put an unlocking mechanism on the front hubs (4x4 models), I would be waiting at the dealership with a pocket full of cash to put down on an order.

 

Although, Ford is doing me a favor by not offering it. I'm going to save 10s of thousands of dollars by driving my current junk for another decade

Edited November 22, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

Although, Ford is doing me a favor by not offering it. I'm going to save 10s of thousands of dollars by driving my current junk for another decade

 

Fingers crossed for you that Ford relents and introduces T6 Ranger a little further down the track...

[joihan777]

Well, your point of view is noted, but as far as anyone is concerned...Ranger as a vehicle is dead in North America....but on the bright side, that could then be a lead in to a new "Ranger" trim level underneath Lariat and XLT to replace "XL" trim....just like my Dads old 1975 F250 Hi-Boy in Ginger Glow and with a "Ranger" trim package....back then, it was "Custom", "Ranger", and "XLT"

 

I kinda hope the next gen F-150 would be a tad smaller framed....

 

So that would accomplish 3 things:

 

1. Give a little better fuel economy to * average * F-150 models with trade-off tad less towing capability.

 

2. Give those who * need * larger capability incentive into F-250.

 

3. With a slightly smaller frame, an F-100 can be produced (that uses the shorter F-150 frames) for small business/ previous Ranger customers & folks in cramped places , but with safety, modern powertrains, and bells & whistles of big brother for those who won't/ can't use a full size truck. The F-100 cab size would be more like 90's era Dakota-sized cab. The powertrains would be for F-100: EB 2.0L I-4, V6 or EB-V6. With common frames/ powertrains should be cheaper too.

 

Could even have a "Ranger" edition like a mini-Raptor...... :shades:

 

Or perhaps a 'tuner' SVT version?

Edited November 23, 2010 by joihan777

[blksn8k2]

2. Give those who * need * larger capability incentive into F-250.

 

That is a point that everyone else seems to be missing.

 

Why is it that the current F-150 has greater capability than the 3/4 ton trucks from even ten years ago? If someone needs all that size and capability then why not push that buyer into a Super Duty instead of forcing those who don't need or want the size into a huge F-150? Seems to me the current 1/2 ton has outgrown the market, literally. If you need proof just look at the sales decline since the $4/gal gas scare. The best solution might be to replace the F-150 with a smaller, more efficient Dakota sized model (F-100?) and keep the SD line for those who truly need a bigger than life truck. That would be a win-win for everyone.

[J-150]

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....

 

 

 

whatever will the guys with small weiners and too much back hair ever do without the above?

[J-150]

Yeah, but I don't work for Ford, or even own stock in Ford. Rather, I am a consumer of Ford products. As such, I don't give a crap what the accountants think. All I care about is the product. I know, I know: "but don't you want a viable, profitable Ford so that they can continue to be there in the future?" - to which I reply: not if they're only going to build junk that I couldn't care less about!

 

Hopefully that helps you guys understand my point of view.

 

 

No, you are a consumer of USED Ford vehicles. You might as well be in the Panther mafia for all you add to new car sales.

[crs2572]

The current F-250 Superduty makes no sense to me. Who needs a 3/4 ton truck because they feel a 1 ton is just too much truck? What is the difference between an F-250 and F-350 besides an extra leaf spring?

The F-250 can become the current F-150. Design a new F-150 that is smaller than the current F-150, but larger than the ranger.

[drewzx3]

The ranger needs ecoboost.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Please don't even consider putting a gutless underpowered ecoboost engine that will cost the earth due to sky high road taxes because of sky high C02 gasoline engine chuck out & piss poor MPG to-boot in a gasser Ranger, Ford will only sell about 1 gasoline Ranger a year in Europe to some halfwit like they did last time around many years ago. We have to many global warming taxes attached to high C02 gasoline Ranger in Europe sad to say.

 

Its gotta be an RWD/AWD Econetic bomb proof Diesel powerplant that lasts forever Ford F-100 "Made in USA" sold to Europe, l would buy one today without any hesitation.

 

Lets hope Ford can will make big improvements on the current piss poor MPG as 44 MPG Average & 55 MPG highway on our current Diesel only powered Rangers in Europe as fuel prices are going to go above $148 oil levels on January 1st 2011 due to our greedy government putting a 20% VAT tax that will push fuel prices through the critical £1.28 ($2.02) a litre price which it was at $148 a barrel. Diesel/Gasoline sitting at £1.26 a litre at the moment.

 

Lets have a Ranger that as handy as a swiss army knife add-on options - tipper beds, tail-lifts that come out from under the bed or integral part of the tailgate that are hinged flaps with electric rotary actuators that can carry anything from small plant machinery to a paraplegic mother-in-law. Extendable side rails so Aussies can take their favorite sheep out for ride to the abattoir. Gotta say it would be great to have all the mod cons like Big Al's EICAS screens on maybe a HUD like you get on a Peugeot 3008 as standard that displays information like fault codes & warning icons that can be reset by yourself not a main dealer when you have fixed the problems, a digital rev counter & other tuning tools, engine oil levels, brake fluid levels, washer fluid levels, coolant levels, TPIS (That gotta be fitted to all cars by law soon in Europe). Aural warnings for low oil, low brake fluid, coolant & tyre puncture/very low air pressure. It would great to have the green - OK, amber - advisory, red warning! system of warning lights so just before you start off you check everything is colored green, so if you maybe might get an amber advisory light to warn your child/nan has not put the seat belt on the back or a door has not been properly closed, oil/water level has fallen below half way between Max-Low level, your offside front tyre is 5% below recommended tyre pressure. ECAM uses much nicer reservoir symbols with a notch to display fluid levels which could be used to display engine, brake, washer, coolant fluid levels in your Ford which turns to amber advisory meaning it could do with a top up. Don't like the cast iron seats hat were soooh uncomfortable on a Focus, maybe Big Al could get some of those nice Volvo seats fitted with nice warm comfy 75-6 lambswool covers in a Ranger.

 

Aussies have made a top class job of designing the current Ranger its stunning you can't fault it hope we get more of the same and not just a change of look for changes sake, l noticed a stunning classic 2010 F-150 parked up nearby our local Stang importer a couple of months ago they are as rare as rocking horse shit in the UK so l just had to have a look. Gotta say l was absolutely knocked out by the quality interior which would not look out of place in a Mercedes Benz, so l do hope USA F-150 interior design team have some input into the next Ranger. My only fear for pick-ups is somebody will introduce boring dull mundane aerodynamic styling to save a thimble full of gasoline a month that will make pick-up trucks as dull as ditchwater like cars, you will then see F-150 sales drop of a cliff from 50,000 a month to 10,000 a month as everybody jumps ship in protest to a dull Camry pick-up in silent protest at dull styling. I would rather see Ford try to save weight, put up with a bit more plastic, downside it by reducing the frontal height x width aspect ratio, stretch the bed, l don't mind paying the extra cost of a thimble full of oil a month whatever but please please don't ruin the classic shape of the pick-up truck like Mitsubishi have done who enjoy next to no sales reward for mundane styling its pick-up.

 

Not one bit interested in sending my hard earned cash off to Thailand/South Africa for a World Ranger l don't like those countries one little bit, but l do like the Ranger its absolutely awesome.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[gnirevol]

Apart from RWD/4WD and BOF the Ranger doesn't have that now anyways, and for most uses that is just fine with many buyers.

 

The shortcomings in the Ranger is that it gets horrendous mileage for its size by today's standards (which could be addressed by an EB2.0 or a naturally aspirated 3.5 ; either would give it more power and torque and better mileage than a 20 year old 4.0L pushrod engine) and updare the interior. A CrewCab would be nice, but even without wishful thinking the aforementioned improvements would be sufficient with relatively little investment.,

please remove the valve covers on the ranger 4 liter engine and show me the push rods

[OAC_Sparky]

please remove the valve covers on the ranger 4 liter engine and show me the push rods

I stand corrected, it was the 3,0L that was available in '08 when I bought that was a pushrod,

 

Point is it still sucks gas harder than a forum n00b without something useful to add sucks dick.

 

No offense.

[blksn8k2]

I stand corrected, it was the 3,0L that was available in '08 when I bought that was a pushrod,

 

Point is it still sucks gas harder than a forum n00b without something useful to add sucks dick.

 

No offense.

 

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. The jackshaft had a sprocket on each end which ran a chain connected to the overhead cam in each cylinder head. Still not a very efficient design but it was obviously better than the original pushrod design since the hp jumped from 160 to 207. So you are both right, sort of.