Author Topic: Ford Ranger  (Read 1801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lakota

  • Trade Count: (26)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • Gender: Male
Ford Ranger
« on: October 31, 2012, 09:25:07 AM »
I just found out that Ford phased them out. Why would they do such a stupid thing? I have owned two a 1994 Ranger 2.3L and a 2000 3.0L and they were both great vehicles. The only reason I ditched the 1994 and bought the 2000 was because the 1994 had 225k on it and it developed an issue where it would just stall at freeway speed and would not start again for at least 72 hours and no one could figure it out. The 2000 had about 225k when I got rid of it too. I was always happy with them and never saw a need to step up to an F-150. The only thing I would have changed about the Ranger would be to offer a crew cab option instead of that ugly Explorer Sport Trac that looked like the designer changed his mind that he would rather have a pickup instead of an SUV about 3/4 of the way through designing.
Hi NSA! Can you see how many fingers I am holding up?

Offline Larry L

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2012, 10:40:04 AM »
The Ranger is still being made....but you can't have one. They come with several engines like a turbo 4 banger, a turbo V6, and a turbo 6 diesel, in most countries. Fuel mileage from the diesel is about 35 mpg and has about the same power as an F150 with the 5.4 V8, for comparison. Ford says that the market for the truck has dwindled to where they no longer can sell them against the price of a full sized truck in the USA. I know, BS, but it's their truck and their business plan. The Ranger is no longer the small, compact truck. It's the same size as a Frontier or a Tacoma. I'd have one in a heart beat versus the F150 bloated pig I now drive. The new F150 is nothing but an open air trunk soccer mom car that you can't reach inside of the bed to get what yer carrying. But the Ranger is still in the works, just not for the US market. Too bad. A lot of the folks are waiting for a mid sized diesel option and it looks like Nissan is going to be the winner unless GM gets it's act together on the Colorado which is coming with a diesel as an early 2014 offering.
But to add hurt to yer pain, here's a pic of the Ranger:

Offline lakota

  • Trade Count: (26)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2012, 10:46:02 AM »
I just saw those crew cab rangers for foreign markets on the internet. Those would never sell here!::)

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk
Hi NSA! Can you see how many fingers I am holding up?

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18267
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2012, 01:17:26 AM »
i detest fords  but if i could buy a ranger like that with a turbo diesel that got 30 mpg id be the first at the dealership!!!
blue lives matter

Offline hillbill

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2012, 03:04:48 PM »
i detest fords  but if i could buy a ranger like that with a turbo diesel that got 30 mpg id be the first at the dealership!!!

i too detest fords, but if they offered a diesel like that? id have to step back and wonder. is this like the 6.0 that was posed to be so great and then ended up being a flop?and ford would not stand behind it and lied and said"oh yu had bad fuel"?

Offline Ranger99

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9581
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2012, 04:14:19 PM »
if you'll think back, there were diesel
rangers on the us market in the early 1980's.
diesels in light trucks with u.s. emission controls
are just not viable because of the inherent filth
involved with diesel combustion. the two biggest
polluters there are in the world are diesel and
jet engines. most diesel light truck owners are not
willing to maintain their vehicles at the level needed
for longevity and the maintenance cost is prohibitive
for the average owner. probably 50 % or more of the
3/4 and one ton diesel light trucks purchased are never
used to their potential, that is to say used as a commuter
vehicle and grocery-getter, and the average light truck
diesel owner would likely be better served with an escort
or sentra or the like.

18 MINUTES.  . . . . . .

Offline charles p

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2012, 10:56:00 PM »
I'm guessing the eco boost engine has something to do with it.  That engine probably will not fit in the Ranger and the fuel economy on the 150 with the eco boost could be better than the Ranger.  Ultimately, it boils down to sales.  If it sells well, they will continue to manufacture it.

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2012, 02:06:21 AM »
I just found out that Ford phased them out. Why would they do such a stupid thing? I have owned two a 1994 Ranger 2.3L and a 2000 3.0L and they were both great vehicles. The only reason I ditched the 1994 and bought the 2000 was because the 1994 had 225k on it and it developed an issue where it would just stall at freeway speed and would not start again for at least 72 hours and no one could figure it out. The 2000 had about 225k when I got rid of it too. I was always happy with them and never saw a need to step up to an F-150. The only thing I would have changed about the Ranger would be to offer a crew cab option instead of that ugly Explorer Sport Trac that looked like the designer changed his mind that he would rather have a pickup instead of an SUV about 3/4 of the way through designing.
my 86 ranger had the same problem as yours.  I even had it checked by two private garages, so it wasn't ford trying to shaft me.  mine finally laid down completely and it turned out to be a little computer thingy mounted on the wheel well.  it was right there in plain sight all the time.
in 99 I tried to buy a new ranger and they offered me $200.  toyota offered me $1000 for my truck so I now drive a 99 tacoma.    65500 actual miles.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline hillbill

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2012, 01:20:22 PM »
phantom electrical problems can tend to really turn on off on a particular brand of truck.very frustrateing.ford does seem to have a prob with that and other things. but then so did dodge in the 80's and chevy well... never
 

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18267
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2012, 12:01:25 AM »
Ive seen rangers with big blocks shoehorned into them so it no doubt could be put in one at least with a bit of redesigning. Bottom line though is there not in the real world at least getting any better or at best very little improvement in gas milage over chevs and dodges v8 trucks. I too agree that most desiel full sized trucks arent used to there potential. there brutes made to work and very few use them for there intented purpose but i dont think a v6 ranger diesel addresses the same croud. I dont need 500ft lbs of torque or need to pull a barn down. Im just looking for a truck that gets decent fuel milage and thats what this would address. I really dont feel its a polution thing either. Diesels product alot of the polution but its the big rigs that are doing it. theres probably not enough diesel pickups on the road to make a big differnce in pickup truck polution. They dont seem all that conserned about cleaning up the big trucks so why pick on the little ones! I think a fairly priced 4x4 pickup that got 30mpg would sell so well that Ford couldnt keep them on the lots. 
I'm guessing the eco boost engine has something to do with it.  That engine probably will not fit in the Ranger and the fuel economy on the 150 with the eco boost could be better than the Ranger.  Ultimately, it boils down to sales.  If it sells well, they will continue to manufacture it.
blue lives matter

Offline hillbill

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2012, 12:39:05 PM »
if you hadnt noticed, deisel small rigs have almost dissapeared from america.small vehicles have to operate under stricter emission regulations than heavy vehicles. remember the 80's? rabbit car and trucks, 50 plus mpg, my gpa had some of them. luv deisel trucks, 35 mpg, i had one. ford tempo deisel,40 plus mpg.gpa had one of those also. deisel jetta . all those have gone.
 
i have been told the epa figures pollution amount per gallon of fuel consumed and doest take into account that the  gallon burned may of went 2 or 3 times as many miles as a gas rig.thats ingnorant if its true and may explain why they disappeared. not to mention lots of people not familiar with deisel engines are scared of them. oh it wont start, they say in the winter.that can be true if the proper care and maintence is not done. i had block heater and a timer on mine that kicked in a couple hours before i went to work.
 
another thing to take into consideration is that basically detroit has ruined the rep of deisels.i would not own a diesel truck made nowadays.they dont go 200k like they used to without expensive work done on them.sometimes work so expensive the truck is not worth fixing.

Offline 30calflash

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2012, 07:42:18 AM »
I just found out that Ford phased them out. Why would they do such a stupid thing? I have owned two a 1994 Ranger 2.3L and a 2000 3.0L and they were both great vehicles. The only reason I ditched the 1994 and bought the 2000 was because the 1994 had 225k on it and it developed an issue where it would just stall at freeway speed and would not start again for at least 72 hours and no one could figure it out. The 2000 had about 225k when I got rid of it too. I was always happy with them and never saw a need to step up to an F-150. The only thing I would have changed about the Ranger would be to offer a crew cab option instead of that ugly Explorer Sport Trac that looked like the designer changed his mind that he would rather have a pickup instead of an SUV about 3/4 of the way through designing.

 Just look around and try to find one with low miles and little rust. There should be some around that would work til you get 225m on it.

 I've a Mazda B2300 (ranger) with 213m on it now, don't plan to get rid of it soon.

 And I like Chevy's BTW!
Hold still while I overthink this.

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18267
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2012, 11:45:39 PM »
vw, bmw, and mercedes all make desiels that meet emission standards so why cant we?
blue lives matter

Offline mjh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2012, 04:48:22 AM »
Suppose Ford would rather I give my money to Toyota or Nissan and while I might look at the Dodge Dakota I'm not likely even going to step onto a GM lot.   Maybe its not lack of market but lack of good sales against what is in the market.   

Offline Larry L

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2012, 05:45:19 AM »
vw, bmw, and mercedes all make desiels that meet emission standards so why cant we?
Quote



WE can and it's expensive- costing several million to get certified but that's not the real issue. The issue is politics. There are no tax incentives for development of diesel engines here and the makers are encouraged to leave the technology on the shelf. From a barrel of oil you get roughly 19.5 gallons of gas but only 9.2 gallons of diesel. What would  we do with the remaining gas if diesel were to become popular here like it is in other countries? We try to maximize our resources which means few diesel engines on the roads. If diesels became popular, a lot of folks would go cold in the winter as diesel and home heating oil are almost the same thing.
[size=0px]I give my money to Toyota or Nissan and while I might look at the Dodge Dakota[/size][/size]
Quote
The Dakota is a poor choice. Bad history on front end issues and a brake system that is far too small for the weight of the truck. Resale value is non-existent. The Toyota does nothing remarkable except cost you a lot of money to buy and to maintain. The Nissan has a Wards Ten Best Engine under the hood and is bolted to the same transmission as the big Titan 5.6 V8. Only down side to the Frontier is resale value, but try finding a used one. There are none.[size=0px]

Offline Goldstar225

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2012, 04:14:56 PM »
I've owned two Rangers, an '88 and a '93.  Both were good trucks.  One thing that hurt the mid size truck sales is the improved gas mileage on the full sized trucks.  As an example, my 3.0 V-6 '93 got 23-24 MPG highway.  The 2012 Supercrew F-150 with a 5.0 I bought a month ago gets 21-22 highway.

Offline Mike in Virginia

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2012, 09:04:16 AM »
I had a Ranger.  Definitely not the best truck for the money, IMO.  I like full size Ford trucks, but not the Ranger.  Mine developed transmission troubles right after warranty expiration.  I drive a new Nissan Frontier now, but if I had my wish, I'd have a new full size Dodge. 

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18267
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2012, 12:37:21 AM »
you did well. We had a couple 2x4 rangers with the  v6 as fleet vechicles and they were lucky to get 18mpg. the full sized fords actually did better.
I've owned two Rangers, an '88 and a '93.  Both were good trucks.  One thing that hurt the mid size truck sales is the improved gas mileage on the full sized trucks.  As an example, my 3.0 V-6 '93 got 23-24 MPG highway.  The 2012 Supercrew F-150 with a 5.0 I bought a month ago gets 21-22 highway.
blue lives matter

Offline scout4

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2013, 03:23:44 PM »
Hey lakota, a work friend of mine has a 1998 Ranger with a 4.0 liter engine. That truck now has over 320,000 miles on it and is still running great for him! He had head gaskets replaced about nine years ago and had to have the reverse gear fixed. But that was it, pretty amazing I think. The box and cab are still in real good shape to, no rust. Been a good truck for him! scout4

Offline hillbill

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2013, 04:29:13 PM »
Hey lakota, a work friend of mine has a 1998 Ranger with a 4.0 liter engine. That truck now has over 320,000 miles on it and is still running great for him! He had head gaskets replaced about nine years ago and had to have the reverse gear fixed. But that was it, pretty amazing I think. The box and cab are still in real good shape to, no rust. Been a good truck for him! scout4

even a blind hog finds a acorn once in awhile. bet if yu added up the mechanic werk it be worth more than the truck is worth.

Offline scout4

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2013, 01:14:34 AM »
Hey Lakota! You know here where I live alot of folks have these Ford Ranger's most that have them keep them very few ever sell them. Without question, this will be my next truck! I'm going to be looking for one with a 3.0 liter vulcan engine as this is an all cast iron motor and was built in Ohio. Here's a tip! If you look for another small truck, stay away from the chevy's or gmc with the little pig of 4.3 engine. Not only does the engine suck, but you'll have constant ongoing problems with the front wheel bearings and hubs. scout4

Offline Ranger99

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9581
Re: Ford Ranger
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2013, 06:54:49 AM »
the 3.0 is for sure what you want.
just make sure the cooling system has
been kept maintained

18 MINUTES.  . . . . . .