This Might Be Why Ford Isn't Bringing the Ranger Back to the U.S.



A Forbes contributor seems to know why Ford isn't bringing the Ranger back stateside.

Read the rest on the Ford-Trucks.com homepage. >>

 

I call complete BS on that article. Ford didn't want the ranger cutting into its precious Full size trucks sales and the 31+ year best selling vehicle.

GM is gaining sales plain an simple.

If the ranger is so close in size to the f150, then why offer a Explorer when it is so close in size the the Expedition?

 

I honestly don't believe Ford has anything to worry about if they bring back the Ranger. Even if it did hurt F-150 sales, it would not be so much that it would knock the F-150 off its perch. Everyone has already stated the mid size market is small. I see no serious threat to the F-150 that Ford seems to think there is. Just like the Canyon/Colorado trucks are not making people shy away from the GMC/Chevy full size trucks.

Jim

 

I'm a die hard ford fan. Never owned another. I do a lot of off road stuff but am not wanting the big truck for that. We already have an f150 2 wheel drive. Great for hauling furniture and what not. I have been considering a Tocoma for my weekend camping I want a smaller more numbat truck.

 

I for one would buy another Ranger, however we traded in our 2012 Ranger because for it's size it under-performed. Both MPG and Handling and actual carrying capacity. Plain too big for a daily light hauler.
If Ford builds another Ranger it should be smaller and utilitarian with decent handling and rated to haul some weight. Unibody or body on frame would be irrelevant for me as long as 30+ mpg and safe and comfortable transportation is the end result. In Mexico they make and sell a small Ranger that would suit us just fine.

 

The F150 has become quite bloated in recent years. I believe this may be due to crumple zones mandated by safety standards. Compare a 90's F150 to the current offering and you will see what I mean. Now throw a Ranger into the mix. The Ranger is closer in size to the older full size pickup than the current offering. Given the times in which the decision to drop the Ranger was made, it made sense. I have several Rangers and F series pickups. The Ranger fuel mileage is not significantly better than a 5.0l equipped F150, but I prefer my regular cab short box 2003 Edge Ranger simply because it is fun to drive. Room and cargo advantage is with the full size pickup. I'm pretty sure the marketing research of the time showed no advantage to keeping the Ranger, but I don't think that holds true today.

 

Regarding the allegation that the Ranger is "too big" and too close in size to the F-150, my brother's 2011 F-150 dwarfs my '98 XCab Ranger. So obviously the article is referring to the newer, larger versions of the Ranger that are built and sold outside the US.

My questions are: Why does the Ranger have to be a "midsize" truck? Why not build a new US Ranger the same size as my '98? Or maybe even an inch or so wider and just a few inches longer?

 

I tested a 2011 ranger sport recently. Man the neighbors 2015 CC XL F-150 looks like a land barge in comparison! I forgot how small and nimble Rangers are (had a 2007 XL long bed ranger 2.3L for two years.)

 

I think the perfect Ranger would have 2 more inches of width and height for the interior with the Ecoboost 4 cylinder as a better option than the 3.0 V6. I plan to keep mine a long time unless this happens.

 

I keep hearing Ford's excuse was the rangers were not selling.

Well if they would of updated the US platform and not run it for 13 years(99-12) then maybe they would of been selling more.

Also how about the 3.0 power stoke that is offered South America. They get 30mpg and also have the power of the 4.0

I love my ranger. It currently has 200k on it and in the next couple months i will be fixing the rust and repainting the whole thing. I plan on making it to 300k then putting in a BT4 Cummins

 

I have owned a couple of Rangers before moving to F150's. I see Fords point, keeping the product line clean (bye bye Mercury) helps the bottom line. That is probably why Ford didn't need bail out money, I don't understand why GM still makes two versions of most of its vehicles, other than they are spending government money.
I would rather Ford spend money being the leader in technology and manufacturing than lose money building vehicles that don't sell enough to make a profit. GM and Dodge can be the leader of vehicles that nobody wants. SEE; Is The 2015 Chevy Colorado In Danger Of Becoming A Failed Experiment?

 

IMO, Chevy/GM are dropping the ball on this because they aren't getting a good enough selection on the lots, AND dealers won't budge on pricing.

 

It costs as much for Ford to build a Ranger as it does a full-sized truck but it still has to be somewhat less in sticker price to remain worthwhile or buyers will simply opt for the extra capacity of the full-size. The fuel economy is marginally better so that's just another nail in the Ranger's coffin. I don't blame Ford for dropping it. I might add that GM has been playing a game of tug-o-war whether or not to continue with its smaller trucks. I'm sure that the imports are seeing similar things, especially with the majority of them being built over here.

 

i can almost guarantee my 98 3.0l ranger could outhaul, outrun, outride and v6 f150 out there, at least up to 2010 models. i rode in a 05-08 fx5 v6 and its suspension was first thing i noticed, u can actually feel how wimpy they are, and how that v6 struggled to gain speed and better grab sped or make her holler when u floor it because of speed loss while maintaining a steady accelerator. 8 cylinders are fine in f150. the ranger has a much better vehicle size/engine ratio. the v6 f150 just seems like the engine has to drag the truck, while my ranger can carry and follow with ease. enough to bark 17 in chromes on high pro tires, cant say ive seen even a ranger on stock 14's accomplish as much. full size trucks with v6 engines should be outlawed

 

secret is to check fluids before you start it up everyday. ive owned several vehicles that crushed 250k miles with me standing up on pedal everywhere i go. never blown or cause an engine to smoke, except for a 300k+ chevyz71(because its a chevy)which turned black before oilchange, none of my several other makes and models of vehicles broke down, most problems found before i cranked it, usually on ground right under engine, several were over 300k miles all stock parts and never missed a lick until totalled or tire of ageing cosmetics on it