The Colorado looks like something that should have a Nissan badge on it.

I love my 2004 4X4 ext cab 4.0L Ranger. It's practical, the right size for me, lots of power, and looks good. I don't really care about the posers that have to have the latest truck (that they never use) to try to look the part, or the soccer moms that think they are "too tiny" because they can't fit themselves and 5 kids into it. I want a truck, and this truck fits the bill nicely. Many of you would be surprised what you can do with one of these.

And as far as reliability, my last 2 trucks before this have been Rangers, and that is one of the main reasons I am a repeat customer!

 

Yeah I have the same opinion. I'm a purist and I think that most of the other vehicles out there are catering toward the trendy side of civilization right now. In a few years when the economic bubble bursts, you'll see all those plastic gizmos, doo dads, and bulky trucks and SUV's go away.

I like my Ranger, its got a good engine, hauls a lot, doesn't have anything on or in it that will break easily, and that's all I really care about. That massive plastic bed and wheel well cover that the Nissan's and Toyota's have just look stupid - no better than those idiot teens with the massive spoilers and coffee can mufflers.

And another thing - for the person who started this thread. Where are you getting your information? Last time I checked, Rangers and F150's were all the rage.

 

The only problem I have with the Ranger is that Ford doesn't offer the 4-door version here in the U.S.

 

He was probably recaptured and returned to his rubber room anyway.
Dono

 

I wonder if Ford simply does not make enough of the 4.0 Rangers and that has a lot to do with the sales numbers. When I was looking for a new or almost new Ranger around June this year, it was very hard to find a loaded 4X4 extended cab with 4.0 and limited slip rear. Took a month and I did find a 2003 with low mileage and did not have to settle for the FX-4 - it's a nice truck, but I really think the XLT with the right equipment handles better, rides a lot better and gets better mpg. I did not need it to be an off-road vehicle. Very happy with this little truck and frankly, I think it is the nicest looking of the compact trucks on the road. Guess Ford could make it better, but I have a hard time telling them how.

 

This kinda fits with why I ended up here. I need to get a diffrent vehicle than the beat up old saturn I have been driving for the last 4 years. I'm getting my degree in engineering soon so I figure I will have the money to spend on a new truck if I want one. The thing is I don't need a full size and I do a lot of driving to see friends and a girl that lives 600 miles away. I went and checked out the new rangers, but was not all that impressed. Granted they won't let you really try them out other than on the road but it just didnt' feel like it would stand the test of running through the feilds when I am on a friends farm. My second choice if I am buying new is a Toyota tacoma, and they seem to have a good feel to them that the new rangers just don't, not to mention they still have a manualy shifted transfer case. I love what ford is doing with there high end cars these days but I think they are letting there trucks slip from catering to the working to catering to the pretty.

 

The Ranger has been passing that test since 1983. I wouldn't sweat it.

 

Yeah I'll second that- one of the things I love best about my 2000 (and the new ones as well) is the fact that even the 2wd models (like mine) have real ground clearance. I own 28 acres of land that we're eventually gonna put a house on. Right now it doesn't even have a gravel drive- the access is whatever I decide to bushhog out with my tractor. As long as it hasn't rained too much I can drive all over it in my Ranger...trust me they can run in the fields no problem.

 

The post above is correct, the Ranger has been the best selling compact pick-up for 17 years and about to be 18 years. The Colorado if you ask me is sickeningly ugly. And now the Dakota looks just like the new plastic Durango...which I think fell out of the top of the ugly tree hitting all the branches on the way down. The 4.0 offers more hp and tq. than the 6 in the Tacoma, has a 5spd auto compared to the 4 spd auto in the Tacoma and standard 4whl ABS. Nothing against the imports so much as the trash being produced by GM and Dodge...those things are flat out ugly. I love my 2004 Level II! It is much better looking than the offerings from the other of the Big Three. My only complaint with the truck so far is that the windshield is so short you have to lean forward to see a stop light. Dang thing is short and too vertical. Anyway...enough of my rant...just my 2 cents.

 

well they are starting to shut down the ford plant in st. paul mn that makes rangers because of low sales

 

Problem is that Toyota and Nissan both have new designs for 05 with 4.0 V-6's that produce over 240 HP and somewhere around 270 ft-lbs of torque. I love Rangers, but feel that the competition has cought up to an d surpassed Ford for the best available small pickup. What I do still like about the RAnger compared to the rest is that it is still a small truck. The Dakota for instance is within 7 inches in width of the Ram, and only 3 inches narrower than the "Full Size" Toyata Tundra.

 

Personally, I think the power is good from the 4.0L SOHC, even if it is not up to spec compared with the DOHC engines from the Japanese.

It's still faster than most things on the road (around here), and it has enough torque to bust the tires loose for a good stretch, and easily haul stuff that would make the full size owning "grocery queens" cringe.

If I needed to tow a 7000lb trailer I would have bought an F-250. The Ranger is practical for me, takes whatever I throw at it, and the 4.0 can make the tires scream with a press of the skinny pedal. I don't need more.

Compare my 17-18000 dollar truck to the much more expensive Chevy counterpart with the 5 cyl engine. My 16.0 et and 8.1 0-60 beats the hell out of the Colorado's 16.8 et and 9.6 0-60. Add a load and the torque of the Ranger will outshine it even more.

Everyone whines about the Ranger's "dated" design from 1993.

I'd rather have a good looking truck with a proven design than the latest and greatest new look that hasnt even had the chance to have the bugs pop up, let alone be corrected.

 

Does anyone know when the next generation is supposed to be released??