OK I was mistaken about the 2.9 being from Cologne Canada, but I am not mistaken about the Vulcan from Lima Ohio
You see I have a problem with people who think that "Function Follows Form". Your whole argument is that it is ugly or outdated. I am an engineer, "Form Follows Function".
Your base argument is that they should bring a vehicle over from another country to replace an excellent tried and true design with a poorer designed European vehicle and one that is larger. If you want larger get larger, get an F150 or a Sport-Trac. What proof do you have that it is better, what physical proof do you have that it is more durable. There isn't any solid evidence at all. As a member of Society of Automotive Engineers, I have it on good authority from people I associate with who are engineers at Daimler Trucks and some from Germany that the Euro-Ranger will not pass US emissions standards. European cars have to go through a huge regiment of modifications to be brought into the US and Canada, because they pollute more than American Built cars and trucks. This was confirmed by an email I got from the engineering dept. at Ford when I emailed them about the possibility of getting a 3.0 Deisel for my ranger.
So replacing the ranger with a larger truck, the F100, is a mistake because it is a larger truck.
Replacing it with a Euro-vehicle is a mistake because they are more polluting than any vehicle we have.
And again as stated by others, why replace what isn't broken.
I would rather see Ford get rid of all of the in-between models of vehicles, the first of all would be the sport-trac since they make a crew cab F150 with a short box. And next would be the all of the various models of focus and limit it to one. start making a few models and make them well.
"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.
Exactly, Ford can't just rely on customer loyalty to keep selling Rangers. As the rangers declining sales showed(even before the economy went down)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevil3758
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
So a 16 year old frame and suspension is any better? Why fix it if it ain't broken? To continually improve upon and make it better, stronger, more capable, and ford has done none of that with the ranger.
The 3.0 was/is still known to eat CPS, the early ones even had some problems with destroying distributor gears (although were not as wide spread/known) People over at any taurus forum recommend changing out your CPS on 3.0s every 80-100k, with a Ford OEM or re-manufactured part. Yes the 3.0s last a long time, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that they are low on power, don't have that much low end torque and are not very efficient. It was a great engine for the late 80s and early 90s, not for 2009. It has served its purpose and it was time for it to be retired.
The US Ranger has a payload of 1260 lbs, a TOWING of 1600-6000 lbs
The UK Ranger is rated for a payload of 1235KG, or 2750 lbs. More then double the US Ranger. Sure you can over load a US Ranger to say amount, but it takes its tole. The ranger in my sig belonged my dad. Early on he regularly overloaded it and what happened? Well all four rear spring mounts have been replaced, as well as several leaf springs because some broke. Some of the springs still have a serious de-arch, and the truck leans to the side a bit.
The UK ranger has either a ~145HP or 153HP diesel. So I don't see how it is supposed to be any faster then US Ranger. I also don't see how a truck rated to tow more and haul more is less tough or durable.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
I am going to quit arguing with Lead Head because we are getting off topic but one last thing. All of the arguments made against the ranger are bull. We want to keep the ranger for what it is a "compact pickup". The opposition keeps saying "it needs to be bigger". WHY? Its a compact pickup leave it alone. And we (the Americans and the world) don't need to have another nissan lookalike.
That is all
1999 4x4 Vulcan
Pride in America, Pride in American
P.S. let us have a moment of silence for the Vulcan 3.0L, May she rest in peace.
Trucks were never intended to be people haulers, it was a task forced on them by the yuppie crowd in the mass market. When we needed to haul people, some just jumped in the bed, thats the way it was done for years. The ranger is whats left of a pure truck and it will soon be gone. We like simpicity in our trucks, just hardcore without a lot of frills, just tough truck to do the job, not a powder puffs. I've seen some ranger trucks pull off some amazing things for there size and worked hard everyday as a lot of us use them in construction. Then I wheel the piss out of mine on the trails to boot where there size is an advantage. A ranger isn't for everyone, but there's enough of us loyalist to keep the brand moving. actually sales have improved as of late. There will be an all new world ranger on the scene by 2012, but there will still be millions of old rangers on the market it for us to enjoy.
__________________
2009 FORD RANGER fx4 off/road, 5-speed manual, torson diff and rancho's!
whats a cps? my wifes 3.0 taurus ate up a distributor gear. i do wish for a 200 C.I.D. diesel, but other than that im happy with my ttb platform, i wish they would go back to the ttb/tib front end and away from the current setup and rack and pinion steering. ive beefed up my rear suspention and for a ranger my truck has done quite alot. worst thing i cant do anything about is brakes, ive about roasted off a front set in the past year, they do fine when its just the truck, but add a 3,000 pound trailer and things get intresting.
"All of the arguments made against the ranger are bull. "
Are you buying a 2009 to back that up? If not, why not?
Because I love my 99, and I can't get the tried and true 3.0 Vulcan with a 4x4. again Ford needs to get there head out of their a**. They are F****** up the ranger year by year. First off they get rid of the 2.3/2.5 for a POS duratec, and change the good old pushrod 4.0 to an OHC motor and make it aluminum heads. then they get rid of he last remaining reliable engine. The 3.0 vulcan.
whats a cps? my wifes 3.0 taurus ate up a distributor gear. i do wish for a 200 C.I.D. diesel, but other than that im happy with my ttb platform, i wish they would go back to the ttb/tib front end and away from the current setup and rack and pinion steering. ive beefed up my rear suspension and for a ranger my truck has done quite alot. worst thing i cant do anything about is brakes, ive about roasted off a front set in the past year, they do fine when its just the truck, but add a 3,000 pound trailer and things get intresting.
Can I make a suggestion. Get a trailer brake controller on your rig. your trailer should be equipped with t-brakes being that big. And do you have 10" drums in the rear? Put 1993 Aerostar drums (new) on it. They are finned for better cooling, and this works great.
Exactly, Ford can't just rely on customer loyalty to keep selling Rangers. As the rangers declining sales showed(even before the economy went down)
So a 16 year old frame and suspension is any better? Why fix it if it ain't broken? To continually improve upon and make it better, stronger, more capable, and ford has done none of that with the ranger.
The 3.0 was/is still known to eat CPS, the early ones even had some problems with destroying distributor gears (although were not as wide spread/known) People over at any taurus forum recommend changing out your CPS on 3.0s every 80-100k, with a Ford OEM or re-manufactured part. Yes the 3.0s last a long time, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that they are low on power, don't have that much low end torque and are not very efficient. It was a great engine for the late 80s and early 90s, not for 2009. It has served its purpose and it was time for it to be retired.
The US Ranger has a payload of 1260 lbs, a TOWING of 1600-6000 lbs
The UK Ranger is rated for a payload of 1235KG, or 2750 lbs. More then double the US Ranger. Sure you can over load a US Ranger to say amount, but it takes its tole. The ranger in my sig belonged my dad. Early on he regularly overloaded it and what happened? Well all four rear spring mounts have been replaced, as well as several leaf springs because some broke. Some of the springs still have a serious de-arch, and the truck leans to the side a bit.
The UK ranger has either a ~145HP or 153HP diesel. So I don't see how it is supposed to be any faster then US Ranger. I also don't see how a truck rated to tow more and haul more is less tough or durable.
If i wanted more capability id get a bigger truck, plus a total redesign would make the truck a lot more expensive then now... ive never heard of any troubles with the rangers frame and ive heard and seen ppl abuse them.
i changed my cps at 125k took it out was good as new just put the new one in because i had it out, and ppl on the ranger fourm recommended changing it with the rockauto part, and guess who's cps failed...
and as per ford the 2009 ranger has payloads from 1160 reg cab 2.3/4l 4x2 7' bed to 1600 w/ a supercab 4.0 4x2; the supercab 4x4 4.0l has a payload of 1520 with a 75$ payload package upgrade, ive had double the payload and the only problem was the rear brackets rusting out after 10 yrs
If i wanted more capability id get a bigger truck, plus a total redesign would make the truck a lot more expensive then now... ive never heard of any troubles with the rangers frame and ive heard and seen ppl abuse them.
i changed my cps at 125k took it out was good as new just put the new one in because i had it out, and ppl on the ranger fourm recommended changing it with the rockauto part, and guess who's cps failed...
and as per ford the 2009 ranger has payloads from 1160 reg cab 2.3/4l 4x2 7' bed to 1600 w/ a supercab 4.0 4x2; the supercab 4x4 4.0l has a payload of 1520 with a 75$ payload package upgrade, ive had double the payload and the only problem was the rear brackets rusting out after 10 yrs
Thank you. And to add to your comment, it is a 1/2 ton truck. that means 1000lbs. so guess what, it is doing more than it is built for anyway.
Why would you want the twin I beam back, other than travel length advantange. You have better steering radius with independent suspension. I have driven both and don't really see any other difference between the two.
Exactly, Ford can't just rely on customer loyalty to keep selling Rangers. As the rangers declining sales showed(even before the economy went down)
So a 16 year old frame and suspension is any better? Why fix it if it ain't broken? To continually improve upon and make it better, stronger, more capable, and ford has done none of that with the ranger.
The 3.0 was/is still known to eat CPS, the early ones even had some problems with destroying distributor gears (although were not as wide spread/known) People over at any taurus forum recommend changing out your CPS on 3.0s every 80-100k, with a Ford OEM or re-manufactured part. Yes the 3.0s last a long time, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that they are low on power, don't have that much low end torque and are not very efficient. It was a great engine for the late 80s and early 90s, not for 2009. It has served its purpose and it was time for it to be retired.
The US Ranger has a payload of 1260 lbs, a TOWING of 1600-6000 lbs
The UK Ranger is rated for a payload of 1235KG, or 2750 lbs. More then double the US Ranger. Sure you can over load a US Ranger to say amount, but it takes its tole. The ranger in my sig belonged my dad. Early on he regularly overloaded it and what happened? Well all four rear spring mounts have been replaced, as well as several leaf springs because some broke. Some of the springs still have a serious de-arch, and the truck leans to the side a bit.
The UK ranger has either a ~145HP or 153HP diesel. So I don't see how it is supposed to be any faster then US Ranger. I also don't see how a truck rated to tow more and haul more is less tough or durable.
"I am not argueing with you in the sense that we are bickering, just trying to dicuss this"
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but can I ask you a question have you looked at the European ranger and seen pictures of people standing next to it an such. It is as big as the F150 or the Sport Trac. That is not a compact pickup, which is what the ranger is. The Euro-Ranger is a full size truck same as the F150.
so the question still being said, why exchange the compact ranger for a full size truck when we have that with the F150 and the sport trac? oh and by the way why have two crew cab trucks, the F150 supercrew and the sport trac.
And I see a way that the current ranger could have a little more without changing the whole vehicle. But unfortunately they got rid of the Vulcan so that part is out. The could put the 8.8" rear end on all rangers, with the Explorer disc brake system. The 3.0 can be supercharged to take it from 155HP to 220HP and the frame could be fully boxed instead of just the front end. like they did in 98.
Hey at least we both drive rangers and love em ehh.
A US. Ranger is 69.3 inches wide, the UK Ranger varies between 66 and 71 inches depending on if its a Reg/Extended/4 Door cab and 4x2, 4x4. The UK ranger's wheel base is 2 inches longer then the US ranger. A US 4x2 reg cab ranger @ 66 inches tall is actually 3 inches TALLER then a UK reg cab ranger.
For comparison, a regular cab 6.5ft bed F-150 has a 126 inch wheel base, , is 74 inches tall and 79 inches wide.
As for the UK/Redesigned ranger being more expensive? A base model US Ranger is $16,395, a base model UK ranger is $16,671
So you have a truck with twice the payload, is the same size, weighs the same and costs the same, and yet you still defend the U.S Ranger as being the better truck for people who don't want to go full sized?
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
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.
