I don't know how long i toiled over buying a ford ranger or F-150, but it must have been about 2 years of going back and forth. I have always liked the Ranger class and I really wanted to buy one but because if the jump seats only option, I finally decided to buy an F-150. All I know is as I was researching and trying to decide what one to get, I spent a lot of time on line looking at the different options, then one day type Ford Ranger in Google Images and saw a 4-door model being produced on the European market. I wish I could have ordered one from England built to U.S. standard and had it shipped to the U.S. What a fantastic looking truck and great idea. You know, I almost bought a Dodge Dakota because of the 4-door option.
Why???
Why must we all bow down to the Foreign loving yuppies of this world and change an Icon such as the ranger or even replace it all together with a Nissan Frontier wanna-be? What was wrong with American products? Why must we conform to everyone else. Damn Lemmings.
First, all of you who want the ranger changed think about this. The "foreign" ranger with all of its nissan looks, has a major flaw. It is a useless truck. if you want a full 6' bed you have to have a standard cab. if you want an extended cab, forget a 6' bed. NO OPTIONS. Yes I would love to see the ranger with a 3.0 Diesel because your options such as an exhaust brake are added, but I am not a conforming anti-American. Leave the ranger alone.
I don't know, you tell me whats wrong with a truck that hasn't had an increase in pay load or towing since its inception. The Rangers frame has barely changed in the 26 years it has been in production. A 2009 Ranger has the exact same capabilities as a 1983 ranger. The ranger has been in need of an overhaul for over 15 years now. The Euro-spec ranger's payload is almost DOUBLE the U.S. ranger!!!
So having a higher payload, more towing, 3 cab options (including a true four-door) makes it worthless as a truck and have less options? Sure.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
I've been wondering for a long time, when did it happen that the pickup became a luxury car with a bed? Don't get me wrong I like the PS and PB and all that stuff but why are all of the last twenty years worth of trucks snuffed full of plush options? The pickup was designed as a work/utility vehicle. Some of the new ones have got so much Blig they look like Pimpmobiles!
In 1999 I went to buy a new work truck. I had to go to three different dealers before I could find one. The F150 had V6, AT, PB, PS, rubber floor mats, vinyl set, and an AM/FM radio. Oh yea, it also had the tow package less the hitch.
The last truck I want to buy is a 2012 F100, if they make it. 2012 you ask? I learned a long time ago to never buy the first year model of a vehicle. They usually need time to work out the bugs. Just one of my pet peeves!
I hope they get the problems done with and put the 4.4 diesel in it.
I don't want to blast Ford or any other manufacturer but they need to get back to the basics. And support it with a quality product if they want to beat the Jap and European builders.
I don't know, you tell me whats wrong with a truck that hasn't had an increase in pay load or towing since its inception. The Rangers frame has barely changed in the 26 years it has been in production. A 2009 Ranger has the exact same capabilities as a 1983 ranger. The ranger has been in need of an overhaul for over 15 years now. The Euro-spec ranger's payload is almost DOUBLE the U.S. ranger!!!
So having a higher payload, more towing, 3 cab options (including a true four-door) makes it worthless as a truck and have less options? Sure.
So what your saying is it would be great to see a boxed frame and, God forbid, the stupid looking 4-doors (personal opinion), but still retain a 6' bed or the optional 7' bed. And possibly the 3 engine options with 2.3 and 4.0, and the new 3.0 diesel. Yes I can agree with that but we don't need to have a vehicle change to accommodate that. Can't we be proud of what we create not change to be like the rest of the world.
I'm still pissed that they discontinued the Vulcan. What a stupid move. That was Fords first clean slate fuel injection engine, and the damn thing was bullet proof. I know of 4 of these engines personally right now that are still running with over 200,000 miles on them and one of which is over 300,000. Never been overhauled, just regular oil and filter. WTF.
Personally I get sick of change, as soon as you get use to something, they want to change it. Thats what I like about the ranger cause it hasn't changed much over the years. It will haul all I need it too including passengers. If you need a truck, buy a truck, if you need an suv, then buy that. I don't know why people get it into there heads that a truck has to be able to haul the Waltons a round, especially a compact. The euro ranger has 4 doors because they don't have the sport- trac. There is a new ranger comming, but it doesn't mean we won't really miss the old one.
__________________
2009 FORD RANGER fx4 off/road, 5-speed manual, torson diff and rancho's!
I'm willing to bet that Ranger owner's are Ford's most loyal customer. I, myself am on my 5th Ranger ( '90, '94, '00, '03, and now '06). When we buy Rangers most of us buy Ford car's for our spouses. My wife is on her 4th Ford car or SUV since we've been married and will trade her '06 Fusion in for the new '10 Fusion when they come out this summer.
I'd hate to have to take my business elswhere.
__________________
Duane
It's better to burn out... than to fade away - Joe Elliot
So what your saying is it would be great to see a boxed frame and, God forbid, the stupid looking 4-doors (personal opinion), but still retain a 6' bed or the optional 7' bed. And possibly the 3 engine options with 2.3 and 4.0, and the new 3.0 diesel. Yes I can agree with that but we don't need to have a vehicle change to accommodate that. Can't we be proud of what we create not change to be like the rest of the world.
I'm still pissed that they discontinued the Vulcan. What a stupid move. That was Fords first clean slate fuel injection engine, and the damn thing was bullet proof. I know of 4 of these engines personally right now that are still running with over 200,000 miles on them and one of which is over 300,000. Never been overhauled, just regular oil and filter. WTF.
So doing a complete over haul of the ranger platform, making the frame boxed, putting on bigger springs, completely re designing the cab, can be done without changing the vehicle? Tell me how you do that. How can we be proud of something that we let age for 26 years without any improvements, with barely any changes. How can anyone be proud of what is essentially crude early 80s engineering?
I'm personally glad they got rid of the Vulcan. Ancient engine, terrible on power, terrible on efficiency, and they can't stop eating cam sensors. It wasn't a stupid move at all. They just weren't selling. The taurus no longer used them, and most ranger people either opt for the 4 cyl or the 4.0 V6. As its been said before, with the 3.0 in the ranger, you get the power of the 4 cyl, with the mileage of the 4.0. Really just no point to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wendell borror
Personally I get sick of change, as soon as you get use to something, they want to change it. Thats what I like about the ranger cause it hasn't changed much over the years. It will haul all I need it too including passengers. If you need a truck, buy a truck, if you need an suv, then buy that. I don't know why people get it into there heads that a truck has to be able to haul the Waltons a round, especially a compact. The euro ranger has 4 doors because they don't have the sport- trac. There is a new ranger comming, but it doesn't mean we won't really miss the old one.
The ranger hasn't changed since 1983. Just slight body and front suspension updates every few years(to simpifly production with the explorer) and that is the problem. Ford simply abandoned the ranger, and when people started to realize that they were buying esentially the same thing, with the same issues, same limitations and sales dropped, Ford decided to just get rid of it. Like the Crown Vic. Had they been continually improving it, they wouldn't be in the mess they are now with the ranger. Four door cabs were originally desgined for hauling around people at construction sites anyways, and IMO its a big limitation of the current ranger, espeically if you need to bring more then 1 person somewhere. Ever been in the back of an extended cab ragnger? It is not pleasant.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
[quote=Lead Head;7244575]So doing a complete over haul of the ranger platform, making the frame boxed, putting on bigger springs, completely re designing the cab, can be done without changing the vehicle? Tell me how you do that. How can we be proud of something that we let age for 26 years without any improvements, with barely any changes. How can anyone be proud of what is essentially crude early 80s engineering?
I'm personally glad they got rid of the Vulcan. Ancient engine, terrible on power, terrible on efficiency, and they can't stop eating cam sensors. It wasn't a stupid move at all. They just weren't selling. The taurus no longer used them, and most ranger people either opt for the 4 cyl or the 4.0 V6. As its been said before, with the 3.0 in the ranger, you get the power of the 4 cyl, with the mileage of the 4.0. Really just no point to it.
Well, since I own a 1999 Flex Vulcan with 4x4 and I get 25 MPG which is oh lets see 7 MPG better than my 93 2.3L 2WD. And it is an extended cab with a lot of room, and I tow a 2500lb boat to and from the mountain with it. It has 130,000 miles on it no work done, except grease in the driveline.
Yeah you and your canadian built 2.9 Fords worst engine ever. How many heads have you gone through.....Those overheating pieces of crap.
and at the risk of starting a war here on a discusstion forum. If you don't like the Ranger go get a ____ing toyota tacoma or a nissan frontier, let us who like the ranger the way it is keep it the way it is. It doesn't need those japaneese or eurotrash "improvments" you want.
Well, since I own a 1999 Flex Vulcan with 4x4 and I get 25 MPG which is oh lets see 7 MPG better than my 93 2.3L 2WD. And it is an extended cab with a lot of room, and I tow a 2500lb boat to and from the mountain with it. It has 130,000 miles on it no work done, except grease in the driveline.
Yeah you and your canadian built 2.9 Fords worst engine ever. How many heads have you gone through.....Those overheating pieces of crap.
and at the risk of starting a war here on a discusstion forum. If you don't like the Ranger go get a ____ing toyota tacoma or a nissan frontier, let us who like the ranger the way it is keep it the way it is. It doesn't need those japaneese or eurotrash "improvments" you want.
I highly doubt you get 25MPG with the Vulcan. People just get that with the 4 cylinder 5 spd, unless of course you drive at 50MPH. The Extended cabs have plenty of room - for two people in the front. I also don't know why you make such a huge deal about 130,000 miles? EVERY car should be able to make 130k without anything done.
Nice making your self look like a fool by the way. The VULCANS are CANADIAN built. The Colognes(2.6,2.8,2.9,4.0,4.0SOHC) are built in Germany.
This particular Ranger never had a person drive it that let it over heat, so it still has the original heads, only 150,000 miles however. I also don't think the 2.9 is Ford's worse engine, not by a long shot. Its renowned in Europe, partially because the Euro heads were slightly thicker in some areas, so they didn't crack, and they also had a set of 24 DOHC Cosworth heads for it there too.
If I wanted a Tacoma, Fronteir, Dakota, whateve. I would have bought one. Just because I have one, does not mean I can't complain about it. Ford could have made the Ranger much more capable, much more modern, even while still keeping it the same size. But they didn't. I also don't see how the Euro-Ranger is "Eurotrash" when it is built better and more capable then the U.S Ranger.
This is a discussion forum. I am talking about the issues I have with Ford. My own opinion. You can have your own opinion too, but it doesn't make mine any less wrong.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
"let us who like the ranger the way it is keep it the way it is. It doesn't need those japaneese or eurotrash "improvments" you want."
So precisely how do you expect Ford to make money selling them in a saturated market?
Anyone who wants a Ranger can buy a lifetime supply of used ones for dirt cheap, and when a truck doesn't change it makes sense to do that instead of wasting money buying a new one. Salvage yards crush straight, fairly clean Rangers all the time that just need drivetrain work.
So doing a complete over haul of the ranger platform, making the frame boxed, putting on bigger springs, completely re designing the cab, can be done without changing the vehicle? Tell me how you do that. How can we be proud of something that we let age for 26 years without any improvements, with barely any changes. How can anyone be proud of what is essentially crude early 80s engineering?
I'm personally glad they got rid of the Vulcan. Ancient engine, terrible on power, terrible on efficiency, and they can't stop eating cam sensors. It wasn't a stupid move at all. They just weren't selling. The taurus no longer used them, and most ranger people either opt for the 4 cyl or the 4.0 V6. As its been said before, with the 3.0 in the ranger, you get the power of the 4 cyl, with the mileage of the 4.0. Really just no point to it.
The ranger hasn't changed since 1983. Just slight body and front suspension updates every few years(to simpifly production with the explorer) and that is the problem. Ford simply abandoned the ranger, and when people started to realize that they were buying esentially the same thing, with the same issues, same limitations and sales dropped, Ford decided to just get rid of it. Like the Crown Vic. Had they been continually improving it, they wouldn't be in the mess they are now with the ranger. Four door cabs were originally desgined for hauling around people at construction sites anyways, and IMO its a big limitation of the current ranger, espeically if you need to bring more then 1 person somewhere. Ever been in the back of an extended cab ragnger? It is not pleasant.
Actually the frame is from 93 - 16yrs front suspension is from 98 - 11 years but either way why fix it if its broken? nissian did and look at their sales... so far this year titan and frontier sales combined doesnt beat the ranger... so why change?
also the 3.0l is an amazing engine, and to say it eats cps is a lie, very few ppl in fact have ever had a problem with it and the few that did had changed the ford oem part for an aftermarket part from rockauto that failed...
and lastly u can get a ranger with a payload of 1600, i dont think the euro ones are rated for 3200.... also ive had over 2600 in mine and well it was to much but didnt bother it at all, id take durability and toughness over speed and mpg any day in a truck
Not to lead this 2011 F100 thread further away from the subject, but I've own two Rangers in the past. I had a 1990 STX 2.9L/5 sp od/4x4 (bought new). Pretty truck but what a piece of junk engine. Heads cracked (71K) got antifreeze in block lunched the bottom end. After the fact, I find out that this was a bad metalurgy mix and design from the get go. The replacement heads are forged in Europe (Norway or Sweden I think) and cost a small fortune. I sold it as is and lost my A** on the deal. A few years later I picked up an 88 from a friend that was moving back to the states. Plain Jane 2.3L/5sp/2wd. Had to rebuild the tranny But I new that when I bought it. Tuned it, oil/filters/plug/cap, etc. Drove that thing for 3 years and all I did was add a quart of oil ever 2 months are so and got 25 mpg consistantly. I sold it to a buddy 2 years ago and he is still driving it for running around town and checking the mail. It still gets in the 25 mile range. Why could'nt Ford design that kind of preformance and longevity in all their rigs? Oh Yes I forgot, when I bought 88 it had 152K on it and still the original engine.
Ford needs to make a basic pickup mid or full size that will last! Thats what I'm hoping to see in the new F100?
Actually the frame is from 93 - 16yrs front suspension is from 98 - 11 years but either way why fix it if its broken? nissian did and look at their sales... so far this year titan and frontier sales combined doesnt beat the ranger... so why change?
also the 3.0l is an amazing engine, and to say it eats cps is a lie, very few ppl in fact have ever had a problem with it and the few that did had changed the ford oem part for an aftermarket part from rockauto that failed...
and lastly u can get a ranger with a payload of 1600, i dont think the euro ones are rated for 3200.... also ive had over 2600 in mine and well it was to much but didnt bother it at all, id take durability and toughness over speed and mpg any day in a truck
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.
