The Ranger needs an update no doubt. I just don't think it needs to be larger, well maybe a little wider. Another problem I see in the midsize truck segment is pricing. A 2wd base ranger isn't too bad pricewise but make it a SC with 4x4 and the price gets salty quick.(Applies to other makes also)

 

I personally don't think it needs to be bigger, but whatever they do they shouldn't drop the Ranger name.

Mike

 

Another reason to keep the Ranger name - International Recognition. Which brings me to my next point, why not bring the new global Ranger to the US(along with its diesel power plant)?

Seems like that would be a better idea than reinventing the wheel yet again.

T. J.

 

The only reason I can think of that would keep the diesel Ranger out of the US is emissions.

Also I think that they need to see how fuel prices stabilize in the long run before putting a ton of money into light duty diesel. Diesel is $1.20 higher than gas where I am so a fuel efficient gas engine is more appealing to me at the moment. Everyone missed the boat on light duty diesel. Should have been on the market for the 04 F150.

Mike

 

I fully understand not offering the Diesel engine here for the reasons you mentioned (emissions, fuel price). Still, that shouldn't keep them from bringing the global version of the Ranger here and equipping it with a 4 cylinder direct injected, turbocharged Ecoboost engine.

The Euro Focus, Fiesta, etc. are already planned to be on their way to our shores in the next few years - why not the Ranger?

T. J.

 

No arguement there.

Mike

 

Preach on brother.. V8 option , solid axles auto&stick option, coil sprung, and a removable hard top. Who the hell wouldn't want one??

 

It sounds like a good idea to me. The F1xx has gotten a lot bigger and heavier over the years. Maybe Ford could base the styling on the '56 or '57 trucks? Offer some low-emission diesel, hybrid, flex-fuel engine options for the thrifty or paranoid, and a very limited edition with a ridiculously powerful V8 to star on magazine covers.

 

I well remember the F-100 and have OVER 255,000 miles on my '82.
Forget the F-100 my a$$

 

You go dude!!!!!!!!!!! I'd say to hell with the F-series in a minute.....if they did it right.

Tim

 

Just thought of another great reason for Ford to use the F100 moniker....




That model would be under the "F-Series" umbrella, and their sales volume would be counted towards the 'best selling truck 30+ years running' statistic. Ford does NOT want to lose that title. Ranger sales do not do anything for them now.

 

Let us not forget that the vintage F-1's and F-100's of the 40's and 50's that built modern day America as we know it.

I was carrying mail today and I stumbled upon mid - late 70's F-250 that had the old Ranger trim package on it. This truck was in great shape.
I remember the old fords that came in custom, Explorer, Ranger and some how XLT fell in there somewhere, etc, etc. Now we have 7 different trim levels or more precisely (cost levels) and each one has it's very own unique grill so as not to suffer from an identity crisis. Don't get me wrong, I love em. But, I liked better when they were more simple.

Tim

 

I hope they do make the F 100 "midsize" so many of the current Ranger owners will sell thier truck. This will flood the market which will potentially drop the value of the older Rangers, that way I can have 5 or 6 of them. Cheap.

I still need a 85, 90, 98, 2002, and 2009. In 2wd and 4wd.

Now accepting donations for the Ranger museum.

 

Don't forget the base Custom and the mid trim Explorer either. In March I sold my '79 Ranger XLT. I kinda miss it. It had a factory 460 4 bbl in it.

With the coming CAFE regs, I see all full size trucks becoming 3/4 tons. That will get them around the fuel economy requirements.

That's how we got the F150 in '75. Anything below X # of lbs GVWR had to have catalytic converters and run on unleaded fuel. Ford upped the GWVR and created F150s. That worked until about '85 , when the EPA closed that loophole.

The F100 was until offered until 1983, when the Ranger came out. My 1980 F100 was very light duty. It even had a smaller bolt pattern on the lugs nuts, than the f150s.

The new F100 should be plain and simple. With the latest NHTSA and EPA regs that will be easier said than done.

Straight axles are heavy and put the truck too high for maximum fuel mileage. It would also require to different frame and suspension set ups to be crash tested. Doubt it would ever happen, unless they made 2WD versions with a beam front axle (highly unlikely, but it would be cool and super simple).

Air bags, crumple zones, side impact beams, roll over protection, ABS etc are all required now. That adds weight, expense and more electronic components to the mix.

I would like to see a basic truck with a straight 6, manual everything, a simple straight axle 4x4 system, single stage paint with a lot of non metalic options, wing vent windows, simple metal bumpers front and rear, sealed beam headlights standard, low headrests (so I don't keep hitting my cowboy hat). I would buy one in a minute. Limit the options and don't try to build a semi luxury SUV off of the platform. A Bronco, with all of the features of the original (think Wrangler competitor) should be the only SUV to be based on it. Size it like a T100/1st gen Tundra. Even if it was sized like th '80-'96 trucks, it would be a lot smaller than the current F150.

However, even if Ford wanted to build it, the government would never alow such a thing out on the roads these days.

Too bad for us and for Ford.

 

That's some really cool info that I bet a lot of people aren't aware of. In '76, my dad bought his first Ford truck, a shiny new green F-150 4x4. 360 V-8, C-6 tranny and a very stout LS gear set-up. That 360 CID was the worst engine that he had ever owned. Chronic problems plagued that motor. However, he has yet to own a truck that would pull and crawl through mud and snow like that one would. The truck also burned unleaded gas and had auto hubs. Some people in those days called it a "full time" system. I don't think that's correct. Anyway, JKBrad hit upon something true: simplicity = reliability.

Tim