I would like to see the following:
- 1 more foot added to the Super Cab option with bucket seats
- True 4-door option
- Diesel options. 4cyl & 6cyl
- More rugged interior
- A v8 option with the supercab option
- Manual locking hubs
- Manual Shifting T-Case
- 6 inch wider cab on all models
- Factory Bilstein shocks
- Class V tow hitch with 1/2 way deacent wiring harness
- Beefed up frame

 

I agree with thumper all ford needs to do is fix all the little bugs in the ranger.Some of the things you guys are talking about would just make it to big and heavy.All i would like is a little bigger supercab. One that would actually fit an adult. Just my opinion

 

Yeah I'm still surprised at how many of you said the Ranger needs a V8 option. I don't know about you guys, but one of the main reasons I went with the Ranger this time rather than the full-size trucks I used to drive is to get AWAY from the V8. Especially with fuel prices the way they are now. I think if you polled people who own Rangers, you would find that fuel economy is a MAJOR reason they chose the smaller truck as well.

With Toyota and Nissan both going to 4.0L V6s pushing 250+ HP, and knowing that Ford can get a lot more from it's already strong 4.0L V6, why does the Ranger need a V8? The Dakota has a V8 that drinks gas like crazy and barely puts out more power than the V6 that's in the Ranger already. With a little tuning, Ford, Nissan, and Toyota will all have V6s making more power than the V8s we are used to.

In any case...I forgot to add that Ford should ditch the torsion bars and go to coil-overs like on the Tacoma.

 

I definitely agree with the Crew Cab option. Seems like all the Ranger's competitors have it, and it would be nice.

I think the 4.0L V6 is plenty of engine for a truck of this size. Ford could probably get some more power out of it though.

 

You make a very valid point, however I would really like the V-8 option because I don't seem to be getting better gas mileage with my OHV than I would with a V8. I think it has more to do with my driving style than the engine. I think a v8 would be a nice upgrade because I always find myself at 3k RPM's or more just accelerating with traffic, and there is no gas mileage at 3k+.

I know next to nothing about engines,trannys, and rear ends, and I would imagine it is showing in this post, but I would sorta like to see ford shove a 4.6 into a ranger with a 9" rear, and a T-5z, with 3.73 gears

I also think that if the Ranger were to come with a Crew Cab option that I would want a V8 to move the extra weight. Also just think of how it would sound

 

Eveyone has great ideas for a Ranger redesign and I agree with almost all of them but here is $.02- Better suspension/frame - Built Ford Tough huh...then why do 98% of all Rangers in all year modles slant to the left?? Widen the truck by 2-3 inches, raise it in all models

- More Options- You can get an F-150 anyway u want it Super Cab, Crew Cab, Regular Cab, 6' box, 7' box, 8' box etc etc etc. Make the ranger have some of the similar options. I would love to have a 7or 8' box on my ranger cause my bed right now isn't cutting it.

- V8- I think it would drive the cost of the truck up to high and not do much for it. It's a pain in the butt as it is to get all the spark plugs on a 2.3L 4 cyl imagine what kind of room you would have under the hood if there was a V8 in there.

- Cab Forward design- Simply more interior room, interior redesign, sunroof??

- Themed Rangers- They have Harley Davidson F-150's, F-150 SVT's, King Ranch....show one of your best selling vechiles some love for pete's sake. Make the Thunder (Ranger SVT comprble to the Lightning), there is endless possibility for a themed Ranger look into it Ford.

- More HP- More horsepower all the way around

-Towing- Good towing kit should come standard!!!! why do I have to pay for an upgrade to be able to pull a waverunner????

 

I forgot to mention this in my earlier post, but I think before any other changes are made to the ranger I would LOVE to see disk brakes on all wheels. I cannot explain the hatred I have for the rear drum brakes.

 

personally I would like a strong 6-speed manual w/ a granny low and over drive, manual hubs, locking rear differential on at least the fx4 models, an engine with some low end power, and better back seats. Also Ford needs to increase the reliability of the Ranger and other models to a level that matches or exceds Toyota and other asian manufacturers, at the vary least to build a positive reputation with the younger crowd; And for once build a vehical with no recalls...

 

I agree on disc brakes..it should be on the XLTs standard.

 

Things I meant to add originally that ya'll already hit was a 4 banger diesel and disc brakes. As for a V-8, I think it would make a nice option, but I would think that if they could get a V-6 with more all around power, especially down low, since thats what people with the SOHC 4.0 seem to dislike, that a V-8 would just add to the overall cost of a Ranger. But a 4 cyl diesel with over 250 ft-lbs and 30+ mpg, that would just kink ***. I like the idea of lockers on the FX4's, a coil over shock front suspension, and the power roll down rear window.
I have a queston about the super cabs though. I have been in a Colorado, instead of jump seats it has two forward facing rear seats. If you have a midget wup front, it is possible to sit in them facing forward, otherwise you have to sit in them jump seat style anyways. Would you add extra length, (weight) to make the supercab roomier, or would you continue to use jumpseats. I'm kinda mixed on this because it seems that the rear seats usually get used for storage more than seating anyways, and even if extra length is added, it's stilll gonna be extremely uncomfortable for anyone over the age of 12, so if you need the seating, you should get the crew cab. I think I'm in favor of keeping the jump seats. If the Colorado I rode in would have had them, I could have at least been buckled up while being as uncomfortable as hell.

 

I pretty much agree, I would like to see a 4 banger turbo-diesel option, disc brakes all around, and the suspension changes.

I'm also in the WXboy camp when it comes to powerplants ...the Ranger doesn't need a V8, just a more tuned and robust V6. I've read some things about the new Ford 3.5L Duratec engine that will be coming down the pike at some point. There currently are no plans to put it in the Ranger (it's going in the new Ford 500 initially). But of course, that applies to today's Ranger. But what happens when a new Ranger platform comes along? Supposedly that 3.5L design is "tuneable", in that Ford can tweak it different ways (move power curves up and down the RPM range, etc.) to suit different applications. The HP numbers I've heard are 220+, which ain't bad for a Ranger.

Yes, if the new Ranger is widened a tad, which has been suggested, then that will also make for some more wiggle room regarding engine possibilities, but that doesn't mean Ford should simply add 2 more cylinders...

There should be 2 options for 4WD systems: (1) a reliable PVH system for the more mainstream motoring public who demand better gas mileage and more convenience, and (2) a constant engagement, heavy-duty system comprised of a beefy manual T-Case and manual hubs. Upgraded suspension components, large tires, etc. would also figure into this second category.

Also, FWIW, I saw some Ford diagrams posted over at TRS which indicate that both Ford Ranger 4.0L engines, the OHV and SOHC, are more or less equal regarding torque and HP at the lower and middle ranges. Then at the upper RPM's the SOHC runs away from the OHV. So I'm not understanding why some of the SOHC owners are complaining about their motors in that respect. I think maybe a lot of it has to do with expectations. In any case, my point is that I feel that the SOHC is a pretty nice fit for the Ranger and the Explorer. Ford just maybe needs to tweak it a little (and fix that pesky timing chain tensioner problem!). Take a look:

 

Cool graph, I've wanted to see one of those for a while. It kinda backs up what I've thought all along, but there are lots of people that swear that the SOHC has lots less low end. I would still like to see more out of it. I don't know if I'd want to see a 3.5. It seems that they are DOHC's that don't get as much torque as the 4.0, they just have a flatter torque curve. I would rather see them pull more out of the 4.0, like the way it is tuned in the Explorer with 210 HP and 254 ft-lbs. I don't know why they detuned it for the Ranger.

 

I have an 86 Ranger with a turbo 2.3 Diesel. I haven't driven it in about 6 years (cab rotted out) and havn't run it in 3 years (fuel pump blown). With the recent high fuel prices I am looking at resurrecting my Ranger (I still turn it over occasionally). I have been waiting for Ford to produce a Crew cab Ranger with a turbo diesel and hopefully, as fuel prices increase, thy will. There must be enough people like me, who need the torque of a diesel to pull a 3000-4500 lb boat or trailer and family on the weekend but, don't want to be penalized all week by the low gas mileage of an 8 cyl full size truck, to make a diesel crew cab Ranger viable. As the kids get older I need a proper back seat for them and therefore the desire for a crew cab. They are getting too old to sit in the jump seats. While Ford is at it they could produce a Ranger model with a 135" - 145" wheel base and a 1 ton dually rear for the mini motorhome and mini innercity delivery van markets since Toyota no longer imports their 1 ton truck into North America.

 

consider the following:
Ram air induction; electronic ignition and fuel, 2.3 6cyl, dual plug for speed, or 4cyl for torque.... (mabey even 2.5 if ford would ever succum to such a thing.) Titanium rods, crank, and a fly-by-wire valve train. Cylinder sleeves on gas, gas hybrid or diesel engines STANDARD.... Zinc alloy water jackets for no corrosion. At-the-spout filter for imporities/minerals into the cooling system - no calcification, no paying for "deionozed" water. Engine tuning switch STOCK w/option for user custom programming via USB/serial/whatever (more $$$). Supercab, but only 2 seats w/center console, for 2 adults to fit comfortably, yet without the bother of additional passenger seats. Short box, stock 9" diff for further upgrading to the user discretion. Titanium alloy powertrain out the tranny (6sp w/OD) to the diff and out the diff. McPhearson struts at the front AND rear. or/option for tortion setup. 4 wheel disc.Optional 5th wheel for extra heavy loads at the rear end (for trailing). Rhino Liner, factory, on the box AND undercarrage (can you tell im from ontario?). NO DISCREET/EPOXIED components that CANNOT be inspected/tested without the replace-and-try method. (there's some angst right there). A thinner, lighter, stronger alloy frame that allows more movement around corners but can still handle the weight. Better/intelligent slip control around corners! (no more skidding purfusely around the corner @ 20 kph!) ABS WITH switch. STOCK mp3/cd/am/fm, with 6 speaker sound (mid/high) and 2 NICE 10" on a STOCK 200W BOSE or ALPINE amp. A real INDEPENDENT engine troubleshooting system that can assume control of the engine AT the user discretion for emergency/troubleshooting purposes and can interface with or without ANY run of the mill laptop or readout diagnostics via CEL. NO incandecents. ONLY LED's. Old style fan/water pump assembly. On board GPS STANDARD (ok now im really dreaming). Trucker style seat suspensions and last but not least WAY DEEPER CUP HOLDERS!! Am I asking too much?

 

Question.. Has ford even thought about redesigning the Ranger?? What is it suppose to come out??