bob u

http://www.impomag.com/scripts/ShowPR.asp?RID=15368&CommonCount=0

bob

c. e. white

Sad to see the Ranger's go. Over the years my family has owned 5 Rangers:

1983 - Ranger S, 4 cylinder automatic, no other options (not even a radio).
1986 - 2.9L V6 Automatic, Regular Cab, Radio, AC, PS, PB, Short Box
1989 - 2.9L V6 Automatic, Regualr Cab, Radio, AC, PS, PB, Long Box
1992 - 3.0L V6 Automatic, Extended Cab, Radio, AC, PS, PB, Power Lock, Power
Windows, Short Box
1999 - 4.0L OHV V6, Automatic, 4WD, Extended Cab (4 Door), AC, PS, PB, Power
Locks, Power Windows, Short Box

These were all Farm Trucks mostly driven by my Father (I did drive the 1986
after he got the 89). My Father usually drove them 75,000 miles or so before
trading for a new one. My Father passed away a few years ago, but we still
ahve the 1999. It is suffering from diminished maintenance and the abuse of
my ****age sons, but is still goign strong. In all that time (27 years) I
don't think we spent more than $200 on repairs. I can only remember the
following failures (batters and routine maintenance not included):

Ignition Module (1986 Ranger)
Water Pump (1992 Ranger)
IAC Motor (1999 Ranger)

The 1999 has developed a couple of problems in recent years. The radio
mysteriously comes on at times (maybe becasue my son ran the thing into a
small pond???). The 4WD shift motor hangs on occasion (again, possibly
related to my son's abuse - he know how to wack it to get it to shift). The
pint on the hood is fading away (it has been in the elements for 11
years...).

The first Ranger was a real stripper. No power anything (including the
engine). The second Ranger was a bad luck vehicle. First it got backed into
while parked. Then my Father hit a deer with it. Next it was the victum of a
hit and run accident while my sister was using it to move. At that point, my
Father bought a new Ranger and gave me the 1986. I fixed all the damage and
had it painted. A year later a tree fell on it. I took the insurance money
and let a body shop have the truck. It was eventually repaired again. I used
to see it in the area, but I have no idea of it's ultimate fate.

Ed

mike

It really does not make sense to keep open a plant to build so few vehicles
in a year, especially when the F150 sells at that rate in a month or so.
On the other hand Toyota keeps making the Tundra that has annual sales that
is barely above a single digit, as a percentage of the US truck market.

c. e. white

Maybe Ranger sales would not be so low if Ford had updated it 4 or 5 years
ago. The truck has been basically unchanged for 15 years. Meanwhile Nissan
and Toyota have upsized their compact trucks to be more like the Dodge
Dakota. Ford seems to beleive that they can sell F150's against these
mid-sized trucks by offering smaller. more fuel efficient engines. Maybe
this will work. But I am not so sure. I have been up and down the pick-up
market, from a Courier (1979), to a Ranger (1986), to a regular cab short
box F150 (1992), to a mid-sized Frontier (2006), to an extended cab short
box F150 (2009). For me persoanlly, the Frontier was the best overall size,
except in typical Japanese fashion they managed to make a relatively large
vehcile incredibly cramped on the inside (the Frontier was actually less
comfortable inside than the Ranger). My current F150 is too damn big, AND
too bleeping high for any reasonable use. This is my number one pet peeve
with US pick-ups (throw the Turdra, Tacoma, and Titan in here) - they keep
jacking them up to satisfy some sort of male ego problem, and this makes
them less useful for people who really need a pick-up to haul things. I like
the size of the Tacom/Frontier, but they need much better cab ergonomics. I
don't need a 500 horsepower engine (nobody else does either as far as I can
see). If I could get over my aversion to Chrysler products (and the silly
styling of the current version), I suppose a Dakota would best fit my needs.
I tried to buy one of those once. They wanted thousands more for it than an
F150 with the same equipment (never figured that one out).

Ed

kevin bottorff

Ford is replacing the Ranger with a new F100 that will be Dakota sized,
with hopefully the new high output and mpg mtrs. Just hope it will be
affordable. KB

c. e. white

I've been hearing the rumor of an F100 mid-sized truck for more than three
years, yet it still doesn't show up in any production plans. I'll beleive it
exists when I see one at the dealer.

Ed

mike

Perhaps, but the market for small trucks in general is not worth the huge
expense of updating the Ranger. Me thinks Toyota is sorry they brought
the Tundra to market, its best year was its first year and sales have
falling in the tank ever since.

mike

I don't know about that, Ford has had the mid size F100 on the shelf for at
least eight years and still has not brought it to market, by now it would
need to be updated. Perhaps the V6 diesel would help the newer truck CAFE
however.

mike

The problem is the income from the full size trucks would have to be used to
subsidize the smaller truck, just like the bigger cars have been subsidies
the price of small car ever since CAFE but currently light trucks can meet
CAFE without subsidize the smaller truck. Now with direct injection V6
getting 30 MPG the subsidy for the small cars is not that critical and their
price in going up. Just look at the Fiesta at $20,000, the price of a
Focus just two year ago. Even the Focus is up $3,000, now that the 5.0 at
415 HP is getting 25 MPG. That's one mile PG more than the 300 HP 2010 GT

dr_jeff

Actually, there are two Rangers. One was designed in the US and is made
and sold in the US. The other was designed by Mazda and sold in most
other markets outside North America. The one sold outside North America
will be replaced by one designed by Ford in Australia. So Ford has a new
truck they can sell here. They just don't think it is worth the effort.