Ford Ranger farewell revisited

[Joe771476]

I'm sure this must have been posted here before, but it popped up on Huffpost the other day, so here it is again.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/27/a-sentimental-goodbye-to-the-last-ford-ranger/

[Edstock]

Glad it's gone, let's move on with the times. Currently VW Canada is pondering importing their FWD pickup, but the US is not.

[Bob Rosadini]

Glad it's gone, let's move on with the times. Currently VW Canada is pondering importing their FWD pickup, but the US is not.

Yeah,here is a shot of my 04 with a 16 ply 11:00R x 24 Bridgestone strapped to the Back-Rac.

 

I know, if I don't want a 150 I can buy a Fiesta as an alternative.

[NLPRacing]

Yeah,here is a shot of my 04 with a 16 ply 11:00R x 24 Bridgestone strapped to the Back-Rac.

 

I know, if I don't want a 150 I can buy a Fiesta as an alternative.

 

Or a TC.

[GTwannabe]

Or a TC.

 

1000lbs of sod fits great in an Edge. Just remember to get the leather seats for easier cleanup!

[Ranger20]

Great Video

[jpd80]

1000lbs of sod fits great in an Edge. Just remember to get the leather seats for easier cleanup!

Or you could hire a trailer....

[Edstock]

IMHO, it's the side-impact regs that kills the small truck segment, because by the time they can meet those regs, they are 90% as wide as an F-150, and the costs to produce a small pickup with the NVH people expect from the F-150/RAM/Silverado mainstream means that the T-6 just costs too much to make, when you get the ol' American knee-jerk that smaller has to be cheaper, a LOT cheaper, just because it's smaller.

[Bob Rosadini]

IMHO, it's the side-impact regs that kills the small truck segment, because by the time they can meet those regs, they are 90% as wide as an F-150, and the costs to produce a small pickup with the NVH people expect from the F-150/RAM/Silverado mainstream means that the T-6 just costs too much to make, when you get the ol' American knee-jerk that smaller has to be cheaper, a LOT cheaper, just because it's smaller.

Not to beat this horse to death again, I understand what you are saying. I don't look at it however as a matter of "cost per pound" but rather an issue of what I want. Is a 5 pd. jar of peanut butter cheaper than a one pd. jar on a unit cost basis? Yes-I just don't need 5 pds. of peanut butter. My Ranger(s) has/have met MY needs-would have loved one with an efficient power train however.

[GTwannabe]

IMHO, it's the side-impact regs that kills the small truck segment, because by the time they can meet those regs, they are 90% as wide as an F-150, and the costs to produce a small pickup with the NVH people expect from the F-150/RAM/Silverado mainstream means that the T-6 just costs too much to make, when you get the ol' American knee-jerk that smaller has to be cheaper, a LOT cheaper, just because it's smaller.

 

Really?

 

Focus = 71.8"

T6 = 72.8"

 

Taurus = 76.2"

F-150 = 79.2"

 

More critical than width is the 1000lb difference between Focus/Taurus and T6/F-150. Ford has their reasons for not building/importing a new Ranger, but it's not due to width or side-impact concerns.

[jpd80]

IMHO, it's the side-impact regs that kills the small truck segment, because by the time they can meet those regs, they are 90% as wide as an F-150, and the costs to produce a small pickup with the NVH people expect from the F-150/RAM/Silverado mainstream means that the T-6 just costs too much to make, when you get the ol' American knee-jerk that smaller has to be cheaper, a LOT cheaper, just because it's smaller.

Even though not federalized, the lead engineer has said that T6 was designed with future crash test regulations in mind.

The "Ranger" that Ford NA wanted was considerably smaller than the one the global markets wanted and that vehicle

didn't fit under the product envelope....

Edited June 3, 2012 by jpd80

[2005Explorer]

There just isn't a market left for a small truck in North America. It is better to let the other companies have it. The F-Series serves the needs of 95% of truck customers. The other 5% can simply buy a truck from Toyota, Nissan or GM. It's really a non-issue.

[Joe771476]

If wider and bigger is so safe, explain this:

 

Ram pickup leads group of Most Dangerous Cars In America

[jpd80]

If wider and bigger is so safe, explain this:

 

Ram pickup leads group of Most Dangerous Cars In America

Poor side and rear impact scores,are one thing but are they converting

into an increase in real world crashes and more/worse injuries?

[Edstock]

If wider and bigger is so safe, explain this:

 

Ram pickup leads group of Most Dangerous Cars In America

 

Designing a reasonably safe BOF vehicle is obviously is too much of a challenge for Chrysler. All automotive companies are not equal in design expertise, it seems.

[Ron W.]

oops, double post.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Ron W.

[Ron W.]

If wider and bigger is so safe, explain this:

 

Ram pickup leads group of Most Dangerous Cars In America

Designing a reasonably safe BOF vehicle is obviously is too much of a challenge for Chrysler. All automotive companies are not equal in design expertise, it seems.

 

 

The comments section from that article make more sense than the article itself.

[retro-man]

Back in the early 80s, when I was a furniture maker and in the market for a small truck, I wanted a Ranger. I ended up getting a Mazda B2000 el-strippo ($4,995.00 brand new, + $150.00 for a rear bumper). I loved that truck, however it wasn't all that robustly built. Fast forward 30 years, I occasionally see those early 80s Rangers around, they are trimmer and less bloated looking than their 2000-something descendants, and they still look really attractive to me - albeit now "classics".