Hmm...doesn't a base F150 get better mpg and perform all truck duties better than a Ranger? Isn't a base F150 cheaper than the higher trimmed Rangers?
/devil's advocate
rotard wrote: Hmm...doesn't a base F150 get better mpg and perform all truck duties better than a Ranger? Isn't a base F150 cheaper than the higher trimmed Rangers? /devil's advocate
It does, and it is. It's also bigger than ever, and can be very difficult to park in a crowded environment. There is something to be said for a compact pickup, though apparently that "something" is "good luck finding one."
Dodge discontinued the Dakota last year, which wasn't all that compact anyways. Nissan makes the Frontier still, but pretty much all of them are V6, and get awful fuel economy. Toyota still makes the Tacoma in the 4 cylinder, but not a ton of them, and they seem to be getting bigger each generation as well.
Australian Ranger looks cool. Also available with a 275 lb-ft, 4 cylinder diesel or a 350 lb-ft, 5 cylinder diesel!
Get rid of the stupid chicken tax and bring us this truck!
RossD wrote:
OK, thats pretty damn nice.
Guess I'm a lone wolf here, but I can't say it bothers me the Ranger is gone. I'm sure it served it's purpose as a small beater truck well. But beyond that, I didn't see many redeeming qualities to it. Ford hadn't made any notable changes to it in how many years? So it felt horribly old and outdated. As said before, poor fuel mileage, poor driving dynamics even for a pick up (haven't driven a new one, but that's what all the write ups say).
Or maybe for me it was just the fact that every, and I mean every Ranger I encounter on the road drives at least 10mph under the speed limit. Heaven forbid they actually hit the speed limit, they panic and slam on the brakes. 
rotard wrote: Hmm...doesn't a base F150 get better mpg and perform all truck duties better than a Ranger? Isn't a base F150 cheaper than the higher trimmed Rangers? /devil's advocate
Honestly, its not fair to compare even the latest Rangers with the latest F-150s.
Ford gave up on the Ranger a long time ago. And the F-150 has constantly be updated since the early 2000s. The Ranger got what? A new IFS? A minor Facelift?
The Ranger got the short end of the stick since the early 2000s. It needed major retooling and Ford didn't want to shell out the money.
Ford really should consider the Global Ranger, but they are too scared that it will effect the sales of the F-150, and they're stupid for thinking that.
if I were in the market for a truck.. I would be looking at the smaller trucks. I do not need to move 30 sheets of plywood and carry a 20 foot ladder ontop.. nor do I need to hike it up 5 feet and put 30inch mudders on it.. and I certainly do not need "truck nutz" to make up for any perceived lack of manliness on my part.
I would just need a truck for going to Home depot for a few things that are too large to stuff in the back of my hatchbacks, occasional (very very occasional) towing, and general throwing a boat in the back and going out on the water for an afternoon (kyak)
Why don't any of the car makers have small diesel trucks? I was just talking to a friend who just bought a Tundra who said he would have bought a diesel Hillux if it was over here.
FWIW, my dad has a GMC canyon, and loves it
For most people, a small truck has 90% of the utility of a full size. The fact that the Ranger was not getting the mileage of the F150 is a shame on Ford. Of course you have to suspect the lacking mileage of the Ranger was not a concern for Ford, since it made paying more for a similar mileage, much bigger (and presumably higher profit margin) F150 an pretty obvious choice.
It is a bit dumbfounding that as gas pushes to $5 a gallon Fords offer for a light utility vehicle is a 5000 lb 17 foot long, 6 ft high vehicle.
Klayfish wrote: Ford hadn't made any notable changes to it in how many years? So it felt horribly old and outdated. As said before, poor fuel mileage, poor driving dynamics even for a pick up (haven't driven a new one, but that's what all the write ups say).
To me, the fact that it continued to sell at all given those things is a great reason to fix them and own the small pickup market. If people are willing tp put up with all that E36 M3 for an admittedly outdated and crappy truck, why wouldn't they be more willing to buy one done right?
In reply to aircooled:
this is true, but the fact of the matter is that after incentives, the f150 was cheaper than the ranger, and got better mileage. it is a shame though that they didn't give the ranger a bit more thought and update the engine options like a 2 liter DI motor for low power/high mileage hauler and make the next option up a 4cyl ecoboost motor. the main thing that weighed the ranger down was the best motor they could be bothered to put in it was the old 4.0 sohc.
rotard wrote: Hmm...doesn't a base F150 get better mpg and perform all truck duties better than a Ranger? Isn't a base F150 cheaper than the higher trimmed Rangers? /devil's advocate
So what you're saying is that Ford gave up on further development of the Ranger platform, which in this day and age should get over 30 mpg on the highway.
In reply to Sky_Render:
Good lord. 30MPG? A 4 cylinder manual Tacoma only hits 25. What makes you think an updated Ranger would squeeze out another 5 MPG? A little diesel could do it, but that is a stretch for a gas truck.
Ford's "excuse" for not bringing the global Ranger to the U.S. is that it " is very similar in size to an F-150 (oh really?) and would have to sell for nearly the same price".
A few years ago, I went used truck shopping and at the saleman's suggestion I looked at a '98 F-150 (that's about 2 gens away from the current truck). Not a bad truck, and yes it had more room than my regular cab Ranger had in the cab (which is to be expected), but I had difficulty getting in and out of the front seat. Incredibly, even tho I am 6 foot 4 and have long legs (36 inch inseam) I could barely get my feet to reach the ground when getting out and getting in it felt like I was falling onto a couch. One critical area that did tell me where the F beats the Ranger is that ALL Rangers had/have a steering wheel that is too close to the driver. Unfortunately, even a telescoping wheel couldn't fix it if it was offered, at least to my taste.
As far as the MPG numbers of the Ranger...the Cologne V6s at one point were at least as good as the 6s in the F series...but adding a supercab, automatic transmission and a bit more weight for safety items and the MPG numbers slipped. For those of us with 4 cylinder Rangers, the 21-23 MPG of the Lima wasn't too bad a price for the low power levels, but the newer 2.3 bests those numbers by about 10-12%...not too shabby for a small truck.
The Ranger, the last example of "Old Ford" where they "refined" an old platform to death. I considered buying one of the last new ones but even tho the tooling should have made these dirt cheap, Ford still priced them "competitively" with the Japanese, even tho the specs were no longer there. THAT, and just like THE LAST Ranger, in 2011, Ford seemed determined to build all the "last" Rangers as supercab, V6 with automatic 4WD trucks, with 2WD drives thown into the mix for fleets.
keethrax wrote: To me, the fact that it continued to sell at all given those things is a great reason to fix them and own the small pickup market. If people are willing tp put up with all that E36 M3 for an admittedly outdated and crappy truck, why wouldn't they be more willing to buy one done right?
exactly.. there must still be a market/demand for a small pickup if the ranger continued to sell all these years
You'll need to log in to post.
