Chevy Silverado

 

Ford should do good, on all my tours. I have seen small Ranger sized trucks everywhere.

 

My 98 2WD Ranger had 83,000 on it when I got it in 2002. It has 226,500 on it now and its not rusted, burns no oil and is still running strong. I can do a whole lot of repairs for the cost of a monthly vehicle payment so I wont be giving up on it anytime soon. When and only when the time comes, if I cant find another suitable used Ranger, I will most likely get an F150.

 

God created blacktop so yuppies could go four wheelin'. Woo Hoo!!

I'll probably have the 73 Bronco rebuilt way before the '05 Level II Ranger wears out. Only got 145K on it now. If all else fails I guess I'll have to take out a loan and just keep putting fuel in the '76 Highboy (beefed 390). LOL!

You guys worry too much. I was up in Michigan picking up a rototiller for my 30 yr old AC 620 tractor (the Onan CCKB is still running strong). The guy who sold me the tiller liked the looks of the Ranger with the 10.5x33 Mud Terrains and asked if I wanted to check out his Father-in-Law's old Ford trucks. Of course I accepted the invite and was astounded to see the shop full of '52 F2
Marmon Harrington 4x4s including a van!. The old fella's tow vehicle was a '52 F6 single axle semi tractor upgraded with a 391 and 5 speed/2 speed with 20" Alcoas and a custom built 40' trailer for hauling the F2s. Wow! Eye poppin stuff!

Anyway . . . my point is . . . quit whinin'. If you don't like Ford's the latest offering for the yuppy market, just be patient. There has never been a time in Ford's history that they didn't build a small kick *** pickup for gearheads. Not likely that will change. And if you're short on patience just find an early Ranger X cab and a 300 inline six. Chop the firewall, stuff in the 300 with a top loader/dana transfer, 9" rear, dana 44 front and leaf springs all around with 35s . . . it should get you around in style & economy for a few hundred thousand miles till Ford builds something that suits your fancy.

BTW: **** on toyota! Bwwaaaahahahah

 

naw! dont wanna do that to a yoyo that would overload its suspension. Better to toss them into the crusher

Not sure what a top loader 300 is? Will thius get better economy than a 2.3 ranger?

 

I think Ford is brain dead for abandoning the compact pickup market. Instead, as one previous poster pointed out, they should be putting smaller ecoboost engines in it, maybe with a bit of a superficial exterior redesign. They'd be back to what the compact pickup truck should be. That being, a truck that gets better mileage than a full size, for someone that does not need the capabilities of a full size. That need has not gone away, it's just that Ford has forgotten about it.

I think someone in Ford management has this obsession with the "good enough" mentality. This person needs to be found out, fired, and replaced with someone with a bit more ambition.

 

Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.
Henry Ford

A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.
Henry Ford

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
Henry Ford

And one for current events -

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Henry Ford

 

And a couple from the Quality Guru who helped Donald Peterson and Ford in the 1980s -

It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.
W. Edwards Deming

And for the Ranger Enthusiasts out there -

Profit in business comes from repeat customers, customers that boast about your project or service, and that bring friends with them.
W. Edwards Deming

 

Ford could continue the Ranger as a F-100 with an ecoboost and 5.0. Make it smaller and lighter than the F-150, could make quite a hotrod. Four door, extended cab and a variety of bed lengths. I would buy one. The efficiency would be there. I don't need to haul a ton of stuff, but something to pick stuff up at the home improvement store and weekend camping would be great.

 

Also, The Ranger was the many tpt vehicle for the Afghan National Army. They were painted tan complete, had a 12.5 MM MG mounted to them and 4 ANA soldiers in the back. I'll try to find a pic of the Right hand drive version.

 

Cannot seem to be able to insert. Maybe able to email someone to upload them?

 

Hi Arnold,

Its the bed length that is their problem.
The Ranger dropped the 7ft. box, Why. What good are these small 5 and 6ft boxes.
The Ranger can easily handle an 7 or even 8ft. box.
More importantly they should always build a extended cab with a 7ft. box minimum then we could use it for work purposes.
Ford will say well sales for 7ft box dropped off and buyers went for the extended cab model. Well why the hell didn't they put the extended cab with the 7ft. box.
Can you imagine how many buyers would flock to Rangers.
The full size trucks are just too high up and too big.

Ray

 

I agree Marsden, make them about the size of the 70 models and they would have something for sure.

 

I disagree. I think you have missed the entire point of a COMPACT pickup truck. If you want a 7ft or larger, you are in need of an F100 or larger. The 6 ft bed or smaller is ideal for a light pickup.

Ford's mistake was putting gas guzzling engines in it. Its sad when the 4.0L cannot get better fuel economy than a half ton. Ford should have put the emphasis on the 4 cylinder, and then used turbocharged options to keep the power up if the customer is willing to pay the upgrade. Ford had turbocharged 2.3L engines back in the 80s, and running those turbo engines is a popular swap in Rangers.

Another mistake is not having 4WD on the 4 cylinder models. The excuse was lack of power. Ok, and the Mitsubishi and Mazda pickups of the 80 made it work how then? All of those were 4 cylinders, and all of them had 4wd options. It won't win any races (unless you add the turbo) but the truck will still move just fine.

I think the word Ranger would sell just fine here, the problem is its too big.

 

Kudos from an owner of a 95 Ranger XL, std bed, 4 cyl, 4x4. I like the economy of the 4 cyl. and luv the 4x4 for snow conditions in the Northern Ohio area. It easily hauls the stuff that would beat up my passenger car interior or trunk. A 4 cyl eco-boost engine would make it the perfect vehicle for my needs.