[QUOTE=tseekins]First, which 4.0, the 4.0 OHV was a great engine, even though it was a bit weak..

Ford COULD have built a better mini-truck if they wanted to. The problem is that they pratically abandoned the ranger early on, just sticking a new cab on it throughout the years. As to why ford did that? Who knows. The ranger was immensly popular at first, so my best guess is that they were trying to milk for all the could, and they waited to long to do anything about it.

Heres an interesting tidbit, in other countries, Ford does not fall into the category "American junk" Like it was said earlier, the European, Australian, ETc.. version of ford cars and trucks are often better then their american counter parts.

 

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I had a '91 tbird w/ a 3.8L and it was excellent.

Tim

 

Yes the 3.8L in the FWD cars had a slightly different heads and they did have problems but in RWD like the t-bird there was no problem just sold my 93 t-bird with 130K and was never touched except for routine maint.

 

[QUOTE=Lead Head]Does the US market have the strictest emissions and safety requirements? Or does it reflect back to an earlier thread concerning union labor in the US?

Tim

 

[QUOTE=tseekins]
The answer to that question is VERY complex.

 

[QUOTE=tseekins]Emissions standards should not have anything to do with the QUALITY of a car. Europe's emissions standards are slightly relaxed, not much more then ours now though, and their safey standards are just as safe if not higher.

 

are the new trucks getting ugly? yes i think so

 

I'm not sure if new trucks are getting ugly. I've always been upset with ford's new design and each time I end up liking them. I guess ugly is too subjective to argue either way. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

 

Dang greythorn, thats just mean! I printed a copy off for the office wall

Its true that we get used to newer shapes, but I will never think the 2007 F150 is good looking, I hated it from day one and still do to. Personally I prefer to say that beauty is only skin deep, and would much rather all the time and effort that goes into making the next "bold new look" instead go into working on the inner beauty.

And by inner beauty I mean transmissions that are reliable, and affordable to repair, engines that are simple to maintain, and are made to be easily overhauled instead of scrapped, rustproofing that will hold up even in the rust belt, tie rods that don't fold up, radiators that are reparable instead of thrown away if they spring a leak, and transfer cases that don't split in half when used offroad in low range.

For apearance, I think the 2004 was an improvement, but its still not something I would drive, but looks are only part of the reason for me. Might get linched for saying this, but I kindof like the look of the new GMC from the front, of course overy other view spoils it.

 

^^^ Modeled after the mid 1950's "Cornbinder" pickups and Travel All's, that were homely as a mud fence from day one.

The 3.8 V6 (230 cid) was a real terd of an engine, regardless of what it was installed in.

If a 3.8 goes more than 85,000 miles without the timing cover beginning to seep, not blowing heads gaskets or cracking the heads....it's a miracle!

 

Would a Ranger with a small diesel engine sell today? Maybe.

With the optional 2.2 (134 cid) 4 cylinder SOHC diesel engine available in 1983/84, it didn't sell worth a hoot.

 

[QUOTE=Lead Head]I agree with you, it shouldn't. But reading through various posts on this site might indicate that emssions systems and the very complex electronic management systems that our vehicles are built with are the culprit for so many repairs in both new deisel and gas markets.

I've been driving for 30 years and have never experienced a MECHANICAL breakdown in the engine or tranny. Every vehicle that I ever owned to date has either had no problems or electronic / electrical issues to varying degrees.

I owned fords that have taken up residence in the dealership's repair shop. 1984 F-150 2wd 300 I-6 and a 1995 T--bird 4.6L.
Ford's quailty in many cases is surpassing that of the Japanese market. But, the original question remains to be answered.

Tim

 

Ford coes not have the home field advantage in places like europe or australia, so they have to try harder. Where as in the states, all the domestics come with the friendly impression of being "american made", that has to be worth something when loyal, and prahaps patriotic individuals want to buy a new car.

While at the same time, places like europe seem to have taken a more ballanced approach to emissions VS fuel economy, and allowed both to gradually get better, instead of saying "zero emission or die" in the case of diesel engines.

 

Hey Greythorn.... That's my grandson's favorite truck! I printed out a copy of it for him ! LOL!!

 

I disagree that the European cars are 'better' in any way, they do offer a different model lineup. It's just a different market over there.. Look at the Ford Mondeo, one of the most popular cars in Europe..
anyone here remember how much of a hit the Ford contour was? Anyone? Same damn car with the steering wheel on the other side, it bombed here, people hated it.

We want and get two different kinds of vehicles.. it's not quality, it's quality in different areas. Small bit of noise out of the exhaust, plastic interior and a rough ride is tolerable to Americans, most of us don't care.. it's a deal killer for most European nations.

dunno why people are saying European Fords are better? If anyone replies to anything, at least answer WHY you think that.. if it's a mileage thing, the European gallon is smaller than ours so their cars look to get better mileage (engine to engine, they're always the same).
We DO have stricter safety standards in some areas.. in most large cities our emission requirements are quite a bit stricter than most of Europe. I'm sure most of the diesels sold in GB wouldn't be legal to sell in California.