2012 Global Ranger Pulls Locomotive and Pours Salt in our Wounds
 

Check out this homepage article featuring the all-new 2012 Ranger pulling a big 'ol locomotive. Does this video make it harder to swallow Ford's decision to halt sales of the Ranger in the U.S.?

Matters vs Doesn't Matter
 

Well, I'm not a fan of the new look in that body style. I think that a few folks here are jealous of the diesel engine and given the towing capacity, I think it does add a bit of salt. Sad that Ford couldn't live up to the 1st Point in Management and establish constancy of purpose to provide jobs to folks who build products that people want.

Meh. Steel wheels + Steel rails = very low friction. It looks amazing, but if one knows the physics involved, it makes sense.


Kind of like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yczxUJLPhkg

I have to agree. The style of vehicles elsewhere in the world is absolutely strange to me, and I would rather see the Ranger nameplate be taken from the U.S than to have them bring the global Ranger here. It looks too similar to what Mistubishi and Toyota offer.

International appeal
 

Fordzilla,

Normally, I can appreciate the International designs for vehicles we've come to appreciate here. Some look downright impressive with the international styling. But this design for the Global Ranger will have to grow on me...or not. The sloped front end troubles me a bit and the four door cabin reminds me of the ugly Explorer/pickup design (looks like an older Frontier design). Yuck!!! The bed walls also looks too tall and less functional. The styling gets low marks in my opinion.

Perhaps this body style has international appeal, but for me, the current design gathering so much criticism is much better.

Kevin

Not real crazy about the double cab design, and a few other styling items, but it's still a lot better looking than what we will have available........ (nothing at all).

The lack of the diesel options here has also been rather annoying. I have seriously considered hunting down an I-4 Turbodiesel to transplant into my B2300, once the gutless 2.3L OHC gives up the ghost.

i would absolutely love to have a 4cyl diesel in my 99 ranger. i like the 4.0, but i just love diesels too. i also have a 06 350 with the 6.0.

so either bring us a ranger or a 150 with a diesel.


there was a ad on ebay a couple weeks ago of a 98 ranger with a 4 cyl cummings from a small ups truck.

Look at that thing again. The Global Ranger is almost a half ton, and we already have half tons here in the states. In other words, that video is not impressive in the least. Its a cheap publicity stunt. I mean honestly, when you deal with the low friction of steel rails, all you need is enough power applied over time to get it moving, and it will keep moving. This can be demonstrated just by the fact that a full sized train with just a couple thousand horsepower can pull over 50 cars by itself on level ground at 50 mph. That kind of horsepower can be acheived by high end race cars. Its all about how the power is applied, which has a lot to do with gearing. Truck are designed to tow and haul, so any truck should be able to repeat that demonstration, even a 4 cylinder non-turbo american ranger. Even if you had to rev the engine a little and slip the clutch a lot to produce more power, you could do it. And if you have 4wd and you put it into low range, you can pull just about anything.

World Records - not!
 

Yeah - reminds me of the guy who pulled buses with his teeth. I also recall some friends pulling a FedEx cargo plane a few yards for charity.

I love diesels in any pickup and hate the Faux beds that are 4 feet long. Heck even the 5 foots beds in the F-150s and bigger trucks seem useless to me.
Why raise the payloads and then shrink the beds??

for the record; if this truck was available in the U.S. I would buy one.

hey now!! Its states its doing all this on "unsealed" surface, but it looks like concrete to me, what a joke.

For the record, the entire problem with the World Ranger is it is too large. There are currently no other real compact pickups in the US market. I mean seriously, look at them. You have the Colorado, Tacoma, Ridgeline, Frontier, Dakota. All of these are much larger than a compact truck, all are pretty much just shy of a half ton. In fact, I guess the class you would put them in is small pickup, which is larger than compact pickup. The old Rangers greatest strength was that it was the last of the little guys. Bigger does not equal better. It was the smallness of the platform that appealed to me. If I needed a truck that could haul sheets of plywood, I'd buy any other other small pickup, or even a half ton. If what I need is something that can deliver parts, occasionally haul a bike, maybe some bags of concrete here and there, and get good gas mileage while doing it, the smallness comes in handy.

I wouldn't buy a global Ranger.

When an American company becomes 'global', it loses my loyalty, on the basis of it's 'non-American' / 'global' status.

My Father loved Buicks. Yet when Buick went 'global' in scope (mainly design and engineering), he would no longer ignore price advantages / warrantee advantages / fit and finish advantages, over competing global manufacturers. Thus when it came time to buy a car, his money went to Hyundai (which, by the way, built his Sonata in Alabama).

And in this way, I am my Father's son...

Former American companies (E.g. Ford & GM) can't have their cake and eat it too.

One other thing: Wiper controls belong on the left side of the steering column!

So if it was built in Canada would you buy it?
If you mean by "gobal" built in a country, because its cheaper for the company, I agree.