nothing wrong with the truck at all. in my opinion throw some luxury items in the interior and give it a once over and drive it, it will feel the same as a new one.
i am still wondering what automotive engineer genius designed my explorer, functionality wise.
Not sure what his name was, but it must be the same idiot (engineer? NOT!)
who designed the wiper controls for the '05 Escape, and then didn't put a door lock on the passenger side door. Bummer!
__________________ TRITON V10 - THE BEST KEPT SECRET - (But word is getting out). '08 F350 Scab 4X4 V10
07 Gulfstream Prarie Schooner
'05 Escape
'04 Focus
Passed the exam today! I am now a licensed instigator!
Giving up on the Minivan, Full size SUV (Excursion), and Now Ranger! Dang fools...biz
It's getting worse.
Crown Vic's are now (2008) only being sold to fleets. That leaves the Lincoln Town Car & the Mercury Grand Marquis as the only full sized FoMoCo cars available.
Both the Crown Vic and the Mercury G/M are slated for extinction...very soon.
Things are looking up...
Look for the new Ford Flex at a dealer near you pretty soon...it's a box on wheels, complete with the Taurus & Fusions electric shaver grille.
It's a SUV and a minivan (without the sliding doors) all rolled into one.
__________________ Bill / Retired Ford Parts Manager ~ 1962/1997
Part Number Research: Trucks: 1928/2002 / Cars: 1928/2003
1963 Galaxie 500XL / 1965 F100 / 2008 Fusion S / 2008 Edge SEL
Giving up on the Minivan, Full size SUV (Excursion), and Now Ranger! Dang fools...
biz
The minivan going away is no big deal in my mind. FMC never really got a handle the minivan thing anyway. The Aeorstar as a precurser was interesting to say the least. The Windstar which evolved into whatever it's name became was grossly underpowered, underequipped, overpriced and unreliable. Good ridence.
I personally think the Excursion was an awesome vehicle but clearly, most consumers didn't. Behemoth isn't always better. If FMC had started off with the Expy EL to simply rival the Suburban, they may have cut into GM's sales.
Watching the Ranger go away is like watching an old friend die. Does FMC really believe that a $20K F-150 XL is an "entry level" pick-up? Is this an attempt to bolster F-150 sales? Is there a future plan to compete against GM and Dodge in this segment?
__________________ SCPO United States Coast Guard Retired Country Boy from Stockton Springs, Maine '04 Expedition ( Family Car) '99 Taurus. Former family car '88 F-150 4x4 XLT Lariat 5.8L 5Spd '90 Honda Civic (daughter's car) 37 mpg
The minivan going away is no big deal in my mind. FMC never really got a handle the minivan thing anyway. The Aeorstar as a precurser was interesting to say the least. The Windstar which evolved into whatever it's name became was grossly underpowered, underequipped, overpriced and unreliable. Good ridence.
I personally think the Excursion was an awesome vehicle but clearly, most consumers didn't. Behemoth isn't always better. If FMC had started off with the Expy EL to simply rival the Suburban, they may have cut into GM's sales.
Watching the Ranger go away is like watching an old friend die. Does FMC really believe that a $20K F-150 XL is an "entry level" pick-up? Is this an attempt to bolster F-150 sales? Is there a future plan to compete against GM and Dodge in this segment?
Furthermore, I think the minvan is a dying segement right now. Sure they will sell some, but I don't think they are the important vehicle at this time.
The Excursion was a good vehicle but it was aimed for a very very small percentage of people. People that need high towing capacity and offroad ability and need the ability to haul large numbers of people. For the majority of the people who were buying these, however, ford has better alternatives.
The ranger is like watching an old friend die, but a friend that has been suffering for a while, bittersweet. It hasn't been in the competetiion for several years. The only real loss here is in the low end 4 cylinder models. Anything higher was not much different than a low end f-150. Simliar price, similar fuel economy. You just get more hauling capacity and the price is the larger size. The f-150 is cheaper than all but the lowest end toyota tacoma too.
Now for my personal experience. I was at the dealer in late 2006 ready to buy a truck. I looked a mid leverl ranger, it was to be my second ranger. I think I was interested in the FX4 model. I liked its styling, it had a manual transmission, resonable performing engine and sentimental value. Disadvantages included, slightly small for me (6'2''), horrible fuel economy, useless back seat. I used my x-plan pricing and got down to low 20s. This was the best I could find out of several dealers.
I wasn't thrilled with this and started to look at other options. The tacoma was overpriced. GM's midsize product was horrible IMO. A friend suggested I look at full size domestics. I was finding all fullsize trucks comparably equipped for low 20's. The only thing I lost was some styling, amenites (they were low end models) and larger size. I have to think many have simliar stories to this. With the technology we have, there is not much reason to buy a compact pick-up unless you are getting a 4 cylinder model.
I hope ford does build a new compact or midsize pickup and I think they should put a four cylinder diesel in it, I'd buy one. As another tall guy (6'4") I would like it to be bigger inside then the ranger though, my 97 feels very small and cramped.
__________________
Josh
79 F'150 302 NP435/205
79 Bronco 400M/NP203
67 F100 352 Auto 2wd
72 F100 302 Auto 2wd
The ranger, as a concept has not been upgraded in a long time and was allowed to become obsolete (the nissan knock off fenders were an insult). Personally, I think its the last truck that ford made that was not ugly. The manual tranny option was nice, but the engines are basically unchanged for nearly 20 years now. For the small size, they were sort of guzzlers as well, the 4.0 was a joke, and a mild cam 5.0 V8 could have probably done better for fuel economy. A mild big block 300 inline six could have definately done better.
We did have a 2.9 V6 powered ranger for a while (before swapping a diesel in there ) and it was a good all round performer, with a lower powerband than the 3.0 V6, MPG was in the low 20s on a good day. The 4 cyl however is just too low output to be taken seriously in todays market, even if it might be good on gas. Come to think of it, I'm having a hard time thinking of any V6 that ford built thats worth mentioning.....
Having said all that, I think the ranger still has a lot of life left in it, and has a strong enough frame to be stretched to a 4 door like what is sold in other parts of the world. Now if only we could get those nice diesels that are available else where in OUR part of the world......
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
I tend to agree with most of that. I think they should have put the 4.6 in it. I got the exact same mileage out of my 4x4 f150 as I did out of the ranger. Plus the ranger had a 5 speed auto compared to the f150's 4 speed.
I also think that we just don't have the technology,or it isn't being used, to make a truck like that worthwhile. Consider that in most cases more room is an advantage, the f150 has much more room inside, more hauling room and more towing capacity. At this poing fullsize and midsize are getting the same MPG, simliar maintenence cost and simliar purchase price. If I need the interior space just 1 time, or the hauling or towing capacity just 1 time, then it makes sense for me to get the larger vehicle. I have used these advantages already in my 1 year of ownership. Would I have been ok with the less capacitys of the ranger? Sure but why give up any free advantage.
Now they do have the technology in other markets that would change this. Keeping the cost simliar, or less, and including a fuel effiecent engine would have sold me a ranger. But 1 mpg or less is not going to cut it. IMO its not worth having the model line.
I actually think this leads us to a big problem in the auto industry. Even our most fuel effiecent vehicles do not get that great of MPG. A family member of mine has a 4 cylinder base model toyota RAV4. They get about 18mpg during local driving. In my f150 I get about 14. Not worth it in my opinion. Espcially when you consider both of our driving is about 100 miles a week. I mostly use my truck for hauling bikes or skis and friends to the slopes and such. A honda element is aimed at this kind of stuff. Its features interested me but at 21 mpg, it wasn't worth me giving up the ability to haul firewood and my quad and drive offroad.
We need to get these alternatives to start getting truly good MPG before people will start flocking to them. IMO crossover SUVs like the RAV4, Elemint and subarus should be around 30+. Small compact cars should be 45+. But 2 or 3 more gallons a week is not going to get me to change my vehicle, even with 3 or 4 dollar gas.
Diddo on the Rav4, my mom has one (1997 base) and its not nearly as economical as it should be considering its small size and weight. It has been reliable though. The electric version was better for operating cost, but good luck getting your hands on one (they sell for more today than when they were new).
For what its worth, chrysler is claiming 30+ MPG out of its light boxy SUVs like the compass and caliper (rebodied K-car), but they also claim 28 MPG out of the hemi powered magnum, not sure if I believe any of that, and theres no way I could dive something THAT ugly (just trying to stay on topic ). The ranger sold down under is a nice rig though, two turbo diesels to choose from, up to 7000lbs towing capacity, close ratio 5 speed stick, optional crewcab, and a MPG estimate of 35. I would believe something more like 25 for the real world, and certainly be willing settle for that. Although even my old 8600 GWV diesel has past 20 MPG on ocasion.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
[quote=David85]
I'm having a hard time thinking of any V6 that ford built thats worth mentioning.....
Contrary to your belief sir, the 3.8L in the old T-birds and 1st generation Taurus and the 3.0L 24V that was just deleted were two excellent examples of a fine V-6 motor. The 4.0 is a crap engine, period. It's weak link seems to be the timing chain(s) on the BACK of the engine requiring an engine removal in order to make the repair.
The 4.6L in the Ranger wouldn't be any more successful than it is in the Explorer. It's a maintanence nightmare in that small of a platform. Just because Dodge stuffed a Hemi motor in a Grand Cherokee back in the day Ford thought they needed to play along. dumb, dumb, dumb.
FMC needs to learn to blaze a trail so that others may follow. Simply bringing a product to market just to compete is stupid and irresponsible.
FMC figured out that they can't build a better mini van than Honda and they can't build a better mini pick-up that Toyota so they did the right thing and dicontinued them.
They're finally doing pretty good things witht he Flex, Taurus X amd the Edge.
Instead if sitting on thier hands and waiting to how nice the Camaro and Charger will be, I say the time has come and gone that the Mustang needs a little freshening.
The Crown Vic is waaaaay past it's prime. If it weren't for the police, they wouldn't sell any. GM did a fine job with the Impala.
Bring back the old early 70's Bronco, mount it on an short F-150 chassis and build it so we can all afford it.
__________________ SCPO United States Coast Guard Retired Country Boy from Stockton Springs, Maine '04 Expedition ( Family Car) '99 Taurus. Former family car '88 F-150 4x4 XLT Lariat 5.8L 5Spd '90 Honda Civic (daughter's car) 37 mpg
teeskins, ford is working on the new mustang it'll be a little late to the party but not late enough that it'll hurt sales to badly. Late '09 or something is the prediction that I heard.
teeskins, ford is working on the new mustang it'll be a little late to the party but not late enough that it'll hurt sales to badly. Late '09 or something is the prediction that I heard.
I was hoping they would let the other ponies just ride by!
Tim
__________________ SCPO United States Coast Guard Retired Country Boy from Stockton Springs, Maine '04 Expedition ( Family Car) '99 Taurus. Former family car '88 F-150 4x4 XLT Lariat 5.8L 5Spd '90 Honda Civic (daughter's car) 37 mpg
i had an 83 tbird 3.8v6 and it was good, Imo better than the 255 and 302's of that era. how the 302 was so good in 71 then such a pos in 81 was amazing. i love the ranger but agree it was small and not efficient. but it could'v been if the offices decided it. it's just a crock that we're just used to. i agree a v6 f150 would be better if they actually made it stylish and good mpg. If a base 150 had a great style then a plain base model would be good enough. ahem like the old days.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
). The ranger sold down under is a nice rig though, two turbo diesels to choose from, up to 7000lbs towing capacity, close ratio 5 speed stick, optional crewcab, and a MPG estimate of 35. I would believe something more like 25 for the real world, and certainly be willing settle for that. Although even my old 8600 GWV diesel has past 20 MPG on ocasion.
