Hey I also had a ranger 89 2.9 2wd, yes they are tough but outdated was my point the colorado is all new from 2004.

 

'new' doesn't mean much. Have you driven one?

 

I drive one- a Crew 4X4 Z71. I'm not going to call it worlds best pickup, but it's light years ahead of what it replaced. Wasn't much of a choice though- it was either the Colorado or a Amethyst pearl Cobalt.

 

I was looking at the ranger sales numbers from August an a old truck desighn is sure selling good. Ive seen lots off people trade in there S-10s for new rangers an several people that bought a Colorado who had rangers are back in a ranger. Every review Ive seen off the colorado has not been favorable. This is one vehicle that GM did not do right. I like the higher stance off the ranger to the colorado. Off roading in the colorado might be difficult at best. I still can figure out why GM makes such low stance trucks. A truck is supposed to have some clearance. I guess its made for city folks.

 

At least the Ranger can be ordered with a V6. What the heck was GM thinking by putting a 5 cyl in a pickup. Aren't them things made for those dang furren cars?

 

Why not the I5? the mpg is great and it has 220hp only 225tq but most people tow with a full size. And yes I did test drive the colorado it would have blew the doors off my old ranger with better mpg and all of the above. I think GM would have hit a home run if the had the 4.8 as an option but only time will tell. The ranger lost the number 1 spot for a reason now the tacoma and colorado out sell it and isn't that the goal.

 

Spose so...
But I would still own an Audi Quattro in a hearbeat.

 

I actually like the 3.5L I5 option. When I get to drive my friend's Colorado, it does quite okay for itself. 24mpg's on the highway doesn't hurt, with only a few thousand miles on the ticker, either. Since Volvo (uh, a FORD thing, of course!) has an I5 in the lineup, I support that.

I ain't complaining that my truck gets about 30mpg's on the highway, but if I had something with numbers even close to the 2.8L I4 and 170hp (no, the 3.slow won't cut it for me and I don't like v6's that much anyway), I'd really be a happy camper.

I really hate the lack of gauges on the C-truck clones, though. I don't want a message center instead of an ammeter or oil pressure gauge (the Ranger dummy gauge can be converted...).

The 4.8L as an option would be good. Way better fit than Ford cramming a 4.6L into any Ranger, that's for sure.

Getting away from basics in terms of pricing didn't help the Ranger, though. Wen you can pay $10K for a base Ranger or $12K for a base F-150, what would you chose? I am no 4.2L v6 buff, but the extra room in the F-truck is helpful. A loaded 4.0L Ranger costs as much as some F-trucks. Now that the SCab 2.3L truck is around, that will help. I would never have taken my truck with a 3.slow in it, like my friend had thought it had. Also, I especially think the swing doors on the reg cab F-trucks are cool. I wish I had those on my last truck to grab stuff from behind the bench seat. It also throws reg cab homers for a loop. Sure, it's not a reg cab to them....maybe they get confused and think it's a SuperCrew instead. Who knows.

 

The F-Series has almost surpassed GM in the truck dep't, which is good. GM started out farely strong with truck sales in the beginning of the yr.
As for a 4.6L in a Ranger...that would be awesome!!

 

Speaking of the GM 3500 I-5 engine, I've read that GM intends to use this engine as their base powerplant in the new half ton trucks when they debut in 2007-08 as a replacement to the 4.3L 4300 V6. If so, this would be a big mistake in my opinion. They've got a much better 4200 I6 which makes 275 ftlb at 3600 RPM and 275 HP at 6000 RPM. The torque curve is super flat on this motor as well. That 3500 is fine in a Colorado but it's too small for a full sized truck IMO.

 

Our equivelant to the Cololrado - the Rodeo (essentially an Isuzu) comes with LS1 power...

http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/carcontent/thecarshow/as/07.jpg

Well I tell a lie... The standard ones dont
http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/carco...show/as/03.jpg
http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/carco...show/as/02.jpg

 

I love when people say underpowered motor. Please look at my galley. It's not the first time I have pulled a full size truck around. That load was about 6700lbs. Is is great at this no but it can and has done it on more than one occasion.

 

...and see how to send a Ranger to an early grave!

















No offense... You're a braver man than me.

 

Interesting turn of a thread. Let's talk about that Colorado for a minute- yes, the I5 isn't a powerhouse, but it does get with the program over 3000 rpm. "Adaquate" and "Quiet" describe this engine to a "T." Oddly, one of the quietest vehicles I've ever driven- car or truck. Body structure feels rock-solid. Z71 Pkg is like ordering the factory lift- but Chevy still puts street tires on it. Are they telling us something? The cab is roomy, functional, controls are well placed. Seats leave a lot to be desired, and this is the first GM I've driven in awhile with a Automatic that "hunts" for a gear a lot (4.10 with Trailer Tow, Locking Diff).

GM makes no bones about ride and comfort being higher design priorities than off-road capabilities, and the Colorado is consistent with this design philosophy. You either agree with that design philosophy or you don't, but GM isn't trying to build a Ford-clone. There's obviously a large market for both.

 

Now, I don't want to start rumours, but I have heard rumours myself that Ford was just going to phaze out the Ranger...is this true, or completely unfounded??