Lots of rumours flyin about the F100. Even heard its not gonna happen any more and that Ford is bargaining on the Raptor to pull it through. As much i love the idea of a Raptor it really is more of a (powerhouse) toy than a work truck. Is the market for an (expensive) toy that big? Still feel that a frontier sized truck with decent capabillities and mpg is a no brainer.
I too think they should keep the little 2wd 2.3 Ranger. Its a great inexpensive little errand runner truck that has many uses especially for businesses.
DING, DING, DING !!!
We have a winner.
I own a construction company and have several vehicles including an '06 F-350 that was my DD until diesel got to $5/gal and I said enough!
I went down to my local Ford dealer and picked up an '07 2.3L 2WD XL Ranger that I'm now getting 26 MPG with.
I still have to drive the F-350 on occassion but I spend 90% of my time in the Ranger and will have the little truck paid for in fuel savings alone in less than 2 years regardless of what the price of fuel is (Diesel is still $.70 to $1.00 more per gal. around here).
I'm constantly suprising myself at what this little truck is capable of. Of course it will never completely take the place of its big brother but it fits in just fine and I for one hope they don't discontinue it.
Actually, as some others have said Ford need to pour a little R&D as well as advertising money into the Ranger and I'm sure it will see a nice ROI. They'll never make $10K on each truck but I think those days are long gone.
Why doesn't Ford advertise the Ranger as the ONLY american built pick up to get up to 26 (or whatever the official EPA #'s are) MPG??? It seems like a no brainer. Even if gas is cheap people are still looking for ways to save money.
__________________
Eddie 2006 F-350 XLT Larriat 4X4 CC PSD - OEM 20"wheels, Spray in Bed Liner, Pace-Edwards Toneau, Fumoto valve, Coolant Bypass filter, Hidden Hitch 2007 Ranger XL 2.3 -2WD, Auto, Short Bed, The Beast !
Thats pretty much my situation. My SD is my daily driver and business truck. I don't pull the trailer all the time but need the SD. I'm more concerned about making the SD last than fuel prices though. Makes much more sense to me than to wear out a cheaper Ranger than a SD costing more than twice as much.
I was looking at the Tacoma and as of now favor it, mainly because of its 2.7l I4 thats outpowers the 3.0l V6.
Ford does advertise the ranger as getting the best mpg of any small truck on TV. Not as much as they should. You guy's should the love the 2012 ranger. It will be redesigned from the ground up and built a round the 4 cylinder engine With the power of the new ecco boost engines comming out, you won't need anything bigger than a 4 cylinder in a small truck. Even the new 2.5 duratec is a 170 hp, thats 50 more hp than the 302 had back in 74.
__________________
2009 FORD RANGER fx4 off/road, 5-speed manual, torson diff and rancho's!
but how is it in the tourque dept? my 2.3 had 100 hp which is adequite most of the time, but lacked in torque. while the 4.0 (ohv) and the 302-2V have similar hp, the 302 has more torque. hp is how fast/hard you hit a wall. torque is how much you push that wall after youve hit it. thats whats so great about a diesel. the 6.9 wasnt a h.p. king by any means but it has much more torque. and 170 hp out of a 4 cyl, im sure its possible, but at what rpm? most high-horsepower small-displacement motors are making that power wound out at 4,000-5,000 rpm's. how much power do you really have at highway crusing speed of say, 2,000-3,000? power on the lower end of the rpm band is what im intrested in knowing. just some stuff to ponder about....
Even the new 2.5 duratec is a 170 hp, thats 50 more hp than the 302 had back in 74.
Where did you get those #s for the 302 in 74'. I have a 74' F-100 with the orig 302 and I have been looking for some factory hp and tq #s for it and have been unable to find them. The truck 302 and car 302 are different. I only have EGR and an Evap tank on my truck where as emmissions on the cars were much tighter. I'm shure my trucks 302 is making more than 120hp.
Back in the 70's I had a chiltons manual, but I made a mistake, it was a 140 hp for the 302. It was the first year for the big hp drop. In 73 they still had some. In 74 they lowered compression and measured hp differently if I'm not mistaken. That was a long time ago, things are a little scetchy now. I was big into drag racing then and kept up more. Anyhow my dad had a 74 F-100 with a 302 and we were looking up tune up specs and it gave the hp as 140.
__________________
2009 FORD RANGER fx4 off/road, 5-speed manual, torson diff and rancho's!
ok, why not make the ranger a crewcab, i know there out there in australlia or wherever and ive seen them driving around town here every so often, call it the f-100 throw in 4 cyl 4x4 all the way up to 3.5L out of the edge/flex and call it a day? or just leave it alone as the ranger, and pump em outta st. paul/edison as fast as they can for 17-20k and watch em be all over the place...i mean the tooling as paid for itself 100 times over so save some money, fine tune em and go!
__________________
Big B's Fleet......
2002 F-150 5.4L with K&N intake Magnaflow Exhaust, programmed, 33" BFG A/T KO Rhino Lined and a drinking problem!
2000 Mazda protege es 1.8l
2003 Honda civic ex 1.7l
1997 ski-doo 583
2000 ski-doo 700
Have to think that they are just making the most out of the "F" Series Logo. Is there information on the wheel base of the F-100? Might end up being the same chasis size vehicle with a new name.
The japanese don't make a compact truck anymore either, they have gone midsize, the ranger is the last comapct still made. However a comapny from India is going to start importing compact p/u's and the base engine is going to be a 4 cylinder diesel. I believe there is still a market for the small ranger, all people want is a crewcab option, if it had the crewcab, it's sales numbers would be great again.
ok, why not make the ranger a crewcab, i know there out there in australlia or wherever and ive seen them driving around town here every so often, call it the f-100 throw in 4 cyl 4x4 all the way up to 3.5L out of the edge/flex and call it a day? or just leave it alone as the ranger, and pump em outta st. paul/edison as fast as they can for 17-20k and watch em be all over the place...i mean the tooling as paid for itself 100 times over so save some money, fine tune em and go!
Ford makes a Ranger Crew Cab in St. Paul. It's just not sold in the US Market. I've seen them many times in Latin America.
I spoke to a guy last year that recently retired from the Twin Cities Ford plant, and he said they didn't release it in the US because they make more money on the Sport Trac.
Thats what I said in another thread. Make a ranger or F-100 crew cab and discontinue the Sport Trac. There are a lot of parts made especially for the Sport Trac where if they would use the ranger or F-100 platform they wouldn't have to make as many parts. The Sport Trac is nice but its just an explorer with a super small somewhat worthless bed. As for the Ecoboost engines, I doubt I will own one, I doubt a force fed engine is going to last long enough for me.
Discontinuing the Ranger will be just another mistake by Ford to keep up with the fuel saving vehicles. Chevy tried the midsize truck(colorado) and it failed. People still want a fuel efficient small truck to get the small jobs done. Oh well, I am glad I got one!
__________________
2006 Ranger XLT
2007 Ford Escape XLT
2007 Ford Mustang Premium
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
