heres my opinion . The Ranger is the last compact truck . All the other so called compacts make my 01 ranger 4x4 look tiny.

 

The Colorado/Canyon is roughly the same size as a Ranger. 5 inches longer, 2 inches narrower, so I'd still consider it in the Compact segment.

 

Problem with compact cars is, while everyone screams about gas prices and how they want more fuel-efficient vehicles, what they really mean is :
"I want a big, fast vehicle that gets 50 MPG, can tow a yacht AND pass a Ferrari (at the same time), and doesn't pollute the environment... at all. Oh yes, and can I get that with a leather interior and some bogus 'safety' features that allow me to talk on my cell phone while eating a chimichanga and speeding down residential streets and highways? Great... and I want to pay $10K for that, or less if you can give me some special discounts. Thanks!"
I think the Ranger will be getting updated pretty soon, but as far as a *total* redesign, that probably won't happen. I wish they'd re-do the engines... maybe get rid of half the sparkplugs in the 4cyl... add a little hp maybe... get 50 MPG...
And I agree... it'd be dumb to have a SuperCrew Ranger in addition to the SportTrac... I've actually been thinking about getting a SportTrac, but after I pay off the couple thousand I owe on my Ranger, I don't think I'll be too eager to sign onto another car payment... unless, that is, it's the 2007 Cobra!!!

 

What about in the cabin? Interior space is what the EPA uses to classify vehicle sizes...

 

Just so we can compare hard numbers

Toyota Tacoma Feb 2005 Sales - 10,930
Ford Ranger Feb 2005 Sales - 8,214

2005 Sales to Date
Toyota Tacoma - 20,365
Ford Ranger - 15,848

2004 sales had the ranger up by only 2k.

 

I think at some point people quit buying it because the design has stayed the same too long. It's like buying a new-old car. I personally like the style and am one of those that will keep it till it dies. Style is very subjective, but I think the new Taco and the GM twins are ugly. The Nisson so-so. The Ranger is long in the tooth and yet the best it's ever been. They should keep the size -- same chassis is fine. Just update the V6's and style the body and interior more like the F150. JMHO.

 

Would you consider the sales of the Explorer SportTrac in with those for the Ranger, since the Tacoma includes the same "type" of vehicle... "double cab" if you will...? I don't know that it's necessarily fair to count total Tacoma sales with double cab included otherwise...

 

I think Ford counts it as Explorer sales and would prefer that didn't consider it a Ranger...

 

You know for the life of me I can't understand why they don't offer more trucks with the Duratec 2.3 Liter. With gas prices going up so much you'd think there would be a major market for a truck that can get 25+MPG. When I went looking for my 2001 Ranger I wanted a 4 banger with the 4 door Supercab and well it turns out they didn't make one. It would have been the perfect little truck for those Homedepot runs. I would have loved to buy a 4 banger with a tilt wheel an extended cab but they didn't make them. I still ended up buying one but to get the options I wanted I had to get the 4.0 V6. I engine does get a surprizing 20MPG no matter what I do but with gas prices 25. What happened to the small truck market that Datson started so many years ago?

 

I meant, if we compared sales of the Toyota pickup (all models) to the Ranger (all models, incl. SportTrac even though it's labeled an Explorer... we all know it's still a Ranger... ) I'm sure we'd find a different result, since the only fair way to compare the two would be trim option to trim option... And if we really wanted to gauge compact truck sales, we could compare sales by engine size...
And totheendoftime... do you mean the "double cab" or the extra bit of space that can sort of count as extra passenger room in a Ranger? Or an actual rear cab, with bucket (or bench) seats and regular seatbelts? Because I can promise you... if you put a 2.3 into a vehicle that heavy, you will disappoint. And it probably won't get 25 MPG anyway... this is what I mean about people and their expectations... unrealistic. If a vehicle can't get to 70 MPH from a stop in a decent amount of time, it's not really safe to be driving on highways, meaning it's just not safe to drive. Anybody who drives around Detroit area will know all too well about cars not driving the speed limit in the passing lane... death wish anyone? I've seen cars whose drivers would have fared better had they been riding lawnmowers trying to "merge" with traffic going highway speeds... that's not cool. Especially if you're the one at highway speed and the guy in front of you is pushing 30 MPH with little hope for acceleration... grrr...

 

I think I can answer that one. I used to own a '94 2.3L (Lima) extended cab Ranger. It was a 5-speed 2WD truck. It also couldn't get out of its own way to save its life. It also only got 18-19 mpg and only about 16-17 mpg on the highway, about the inverse as what I get now in a newer 4.0L extended cab 4WD truck, so the 4 cylinder fuel economy wasn't an advantage - at least not in the heavier extended cab.

They dropped the offering because its performance was so poor that relatively few people bought them. The manufacturers gravitate toward what most people are asking for or buying. And the V6 is what a lot of people want. Granted the new 2.3L is a completely different engine and has a higher rated HP level, but I somehow doubt that the end product vehicle would be all that much better.

I'd bet that in a fairly stripped-down and light 2WD regular cab truck, the performance and fuel economy would be a bit better. But in the truck I had, that engine had to work so hard to do anything that the fuel ecomony went down the tubes...

 

No I just wanted a 4 banger extended cab not the crew cab. You know just some extra space to recline the seat and store so personal item. The problem was that you couldn't get one with any options like tilt streering and the 4 doors on the extended cab. I think power would be fine with a manual transmission. I think the bigger problem is that no one drive a stick shift anymore. Heck it's getting hard just to find a stick in a new car or truck. I was shopping online last night for a Focus and had to look up inventory of 4 dealerships before I could even find one with a stick and these are not small dealerships by any means since they all had close to 20 Focus's.

 

Like I said, I used to have a truck in that configuration. It was perhaps the slowest vehicle I've ever driven (no, I take that back - a 1980 2.3L Mustang automatic with 1V carb was). I drove it cross country once. Keeping up with traffic across Nebraska was tough. Over the rolling hills, I had to constantly shift back and forth from 4th to 5th to 4th to 5th... The fastest I ever got that truck going was about 90 mph, but I needed the long down hill grade coming out of the Rockies to get there. I made that trip again after trading the truck on a Contour SVT and it was much better...

It was actually an XLT, so it had a tilt wheel, cruise control, etc. The trouble with the cruise was that it didn't have the power to maintain highway speed in 5th gear, so the cruise was worthless anywhere the road wasn't dead flat. We also couldn't use the a/c because it sapped enough of the engine's meager power that it slowed us down below what traffic was doing.

 

I've got a manual and trust me... it's a *little* better, but not much. Transmission isn't really going to give a weak engine a huge boost. There are some things you can do with the axle, I believe, but the fuel economy still isn't going to improve. People drive sticks, but not as much, especially now that they're coming out with the CVTs in cars and stuff... nobody sees the need. There are certain areas where they keep more because customers actually request them though... In my case, my parents and I were looking for a vehicle for me and the salesman wasn't going to show us the one I ended up buying because it was a stick. My mom saw it as we drove in and said it was "The One" and was going home with us, so I said, "I'll learn" and the rest is history.

A lot of people seem to think manual transmissions will make a car insanely fast... I've got this friend who was going to race a kid with a 15 year old modded Cavalier, that is, until the guy with the Cavalier saw his Tiburon with the Shiftronic transmission. My friend thinks this equates it to the power control of a manual... heh heh. Long story short, the kid was scared that my friend was going to totally waste him so they didn't race, even though they had roughly equal HP (160 vs 173). "He's even got a stick, and he was scared to race!" "I beat a V8 Mustang, off the line... and it was a stick!" "Sure, the manual of my car would have been a little faster, but I can control when it shifts anyway, so it's not by much!" Dang, if I had a quarter for every time I heard something about the magic of a manual tranny... or how it *must* have been a Mustang with a V8... or better... a Cobra... I'd have enough to buy myself one!

Oh yeah, and the A/C in my truck (I've got a 2.5 even... ooh!) takes so much power that I almost have to turn it off as I'm starting from a stop or it'll stall! I can't imagine having a heavier truck (mine is the smallest you can get) with a tiny engine and trying to stay cool in the summer... can't go fast enough to make a breeze and can't run the A/C... that would be miserable!

 

I carpooled with a guy who had a 2.5 ext cab and 5-speed. Nice looking truck, but the ride was scary. Absolutely now power with 2 people in there. He had to go to 3rd gear and scream the motor to get up to highway speed. The engine pottered like a Model T. And yes, he'd turn off the A/C and downshift to merge, pass, or go up a hill.

On the other hand, my "new" little 03 B2300 (thats the Duratec motor, right?) zips right along. Passing power is limited in 5th (compared to my old F150), but there, and it'll keep up with highway traffic just fine. I hear the newer trucks have more interior insulation, too. Much nicer vehicle to drive than the guy's 2.5. Very sporty. And I can't knock the mileage at $2.10 a gallon, if I can learn to keep my foot out of it from 2500-4000RPM :-).

I do have to say that I see Rangers taking abuse like no other truck. Lots of small time contractors, service crews use Rangers, and they just keep on going. Not unusual to see an older Ranger going down the highway, loaded to the suspension stops with concrete rubble or tools.