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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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....

 

Tacoma

2.7-liter DOHC EFI 4-cylinder with VVT-i
159 hp @ 5200 rpm
180 lb.-ft. @ 3800 rpm

Escape 2.5l Duaratec

171@6,000 HP

171@4,500 Tq

I like the 2.7 yota engines power range better and think it would be a better motor in a small truck or SUV.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

Like this Ford Ranger (UK market):

First Look: Ford Releases Details on Thai Ford Ranger


It's a crew cab with a 3.0L diesel

UK's Ford Ranger Wildtrak piles on the features - Autoblog

 

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.

 

Tell that to the owners of turbo diesels......force fed won't shorten the engine life any if its built to take it....

 

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!