sure does look like it.

 

I think all this will do is cannibalize some F-Series sales.

Ford's original Ranger started out with great sales (over 300,000 vehicles a year) and then fell badly to 50,000 - 70,000 annually. They killed it after sales cratered.

 

Nah it’ll only keep buyers out of Tacoma’s and Colorado’s. Ford is just recognizing a market demand for a small truck, they technically never really left the game they were just playing it elsewhere.

 

I went to lunch with my grandpa on Friday, we drove his 2008 Sport Trac V8 AWD which is in great shape and 71k miles. I told him about the new ranger and showed him photos. He really liked with lariat with the chrome package. He turns 81 this summer and said it might be time for a new truck. He's had a few F-150s but likes the smaller Sport Trac for parking. Once they start arriving at the local dealer we might have to go take a look.

 

Agreed. And thats why they dumped it in 2012. it was taking sales away from the F-series and GM was catching up

 

The Ranger was a 1983 vehicle that was selling in small enough quantities that it was not worth the full re-engineering that it would have needed to meet crash and emissions standards. 29 years is a really long model run. And although it took some F150 sales, it was really its own niche and was not a big cash cow.

 

Sales tanked on the previous Ranger for two reasons. The primary reason being that Ford didn't do a doggone thing with it after 1998 except for minor updates here and there. Ford let the Ranger die a quiet death, much like they did with the whole Mercury division form 2005-onward, much like they're doing with the Taurus now. It bugs me how Ford does that. They will take a perfectly good vehicle and decide they want it to die. So they fire the engineers and design staff, and let the competition leave that vehicle in the dust until the public quits buying it. Then Ford has their excuse to discontinue it.
The second reason the previous Ranger died was because at that time the small and mid-size pickup market was drying up. If you'll remember that GM even discontinued the Colorado/Canyon twins for a couple years. Tacoma sales were slow, too. Fuel prices were at an all-time high across America, and Ford didn't see the market for smaller pickups coming back to the U.S. So they did the logical thing, they discontinued their slow-selling small pick-up so they could focus more resources on the F-Series.
The naysayers here seem to conveniently forget that the previous Ranger was on the market for nearly 30 years, and although originally slated to end production after 2008, managed to stay around for another few years because people kept buying it. For much of that time both the Ranger and the F-Series both enjoyed very healthy sales and were at the top of their collective market segments. Ford did it once, they can do it again!

 

With the help of the midsize truck sales it pushed GM past Ford for sales last year. I have to think the Ranger will help fight that...

 

https://jalopnik.com/the-lovable-for...ss-1822391448?

Good read here about the origins of the Ranger, and I feel this passage sums up it, and the new one, well:

"And now, the new Ranger is back to do it again. Except now the new consumer craze is crossovers, and so the Ranger has had to adapt. Fans of the original will say the new one is soft, and that it’s too big, and that it’s too expensive. But the Ranger wasn’t about being rugged, small and cheap, it was about giving consumers of the time the pickup truck they wanted."

 

I just wish it had a V6...

 

The full size Raptor has a V6. The new $100k Lincoln Navigator is limited to a V6. These facts seem weird to me also. Although these make 450 hp. Paradigms are changing.

The 2.3 EBoost has more horsepower and way more torque at lower RPM than its competitors' V6's... (In the Explorer, the 2.3 EB is an upcharge from the base 3.5 V6.)

Ford is doing power with turbos...

 

I'm not worried about power, I know those Turbo's are powerful. The idea of carbon buildup with DI is what messes with my head.

 

I was one of the people most fearful of carbon deposits from DI in the early days--you can look at my posting history--so I get it.

The new 3.5 and 2.7 Ecoboosts (non transverse applications) do have port injectors as well as DI, which is a Toyota system to both reduce emissions (better fuel atomizing at idle) and to clean backs of intake valves.

But there are DI-only 2011 Eboosts with over 200k miles on them that have had no problem with carbon deposits. (I'm a Subaru fan also and their current 2.0 DI Turbo DOES seem to have the intake valve carbon problems, so I have no illusion that this is no longer a problem...)

So 2 things make me feel better--Ford has a good history with no major carbon buildup problems with DI only, and as they revise their Eboosts into the next gen, they seem to be adding secondary port injection....although the first year Ranger 2.3EB may not be one of the engines to benefit from this.

For what it's worth, I have looked at Edges and Explorers with the 3.5 normally aspirated engine and the 2.7 and 3.5 Ecoboosts and THEY scare me because it costs 2 grand(!?) to replace a water pump (internally driven by the cam chains and inside the valley), and there have been people who have bricked engines when water pumps have failed. Not a problem with non-transverse engines, but I'd take a 4 cyl EB in an Edge or Explorer and take my chances with intake valve carbon over the prospect of a blown up water pump.

It's always something...my '02 E150 needed new cylinder heads on the Romeo 4.6 because of the bad design of the early Romeo PI heads. Covered by warranty... And then the history of shooting out spark plugs, sticking plugs in 3V heads, etc. I am hoping all of those cyl head engineers are retired by now.

 

Didn't realize that even the 2.7 and 3.5L ecoboosts bad the water pump issue. You say the none transverse versions don't have the waterpump behind the timing chain cover? That include the new N/A 3.3?

My Ex is still driving the 2014 Subaru Forester XT that I bought new....Subaru screwed it up with some update that was eventually corrected. 84,000 miles and it runs fine. I guess thats all the proof I need.

 

I'll be in the market for a new Vehicle around the time the Ranger hits the lots. Hopefully the dealers aren't exactly expecting MSRP...otherwise I may end up with a Hyundai lol.