NewsFeeder

Report: Ford undecided on Ranger replacement, but F-150 likely to be pressed into service

15 posts in this topic

Filed under: Truck, Ford, Australia, Rumormill

2010-ranger.jpg
2010 Ford Ranger - Click above for high-res image gallery

Ford is deliberating, according to reports, over whether to replace the Ranger in the North American-market. The compact pickup is the second most popular in its class, at 55,600 units last year selling roughly half as many as Toyota does the Tacoma, and it was once the segment's best seller.

According to Pickuptrucks.com, Ford's Derrick Kuzak believes that most customers buying the Ranger use their vehicle like they would a car, rather than taking advantage of its inherent load-lugging utility. With that in mind, Kuzak says a more fuel-efficient F-150 - on which they're currently working - and new global small cars like the Fiesta and Focus could very well effectively replace Ranger in the North American market.

As it is, the most efficient 2010 Ranger is the base rear-wheel drive 2.3-liter four-cylinder model with a five-speed manual transmission, and it only achieves 19 miles-per-gallon city and 24 highway. That's not much better than the much more capable F-150 with the three-valve 4.6-liter V8 and six-speed automatic, which gets 15/21.

Development is still ongoing in Australia on the next-gen version of the foreign-market Ranger, which is a completely different truck from that sold in North America. However with the Fiesta, Focus and soon the Mondeo/Fusion abandoning their regional entrenchments in favor of global universality, the prospect of bringing the Australian Ranger home to roost still isn't outside the realm of possibility, but doesn't sound all that likely, either.


Gallery: 2010 Ford Ranger

2010-ford-ranger-000_thumbnail.jpg2010-ford-ranger-001_thumbnail.jpg2010-ford-ranger-002_thumbnail.jpg2010-ford-ranger-003_thumbnail.jpg2010-ford-ranger-004_thumbnail.jpg

[source: PickupTrucks.com]

Report: Ford undecided on Ranger replacement, but F-150 likely to be pressed into service originally appeared on Autoblog on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:28:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

di
di

autoblog?i=TCvgtTX0guo:Oj74gQwiW-U:wF9xT autoblog?i=TCvgtTX0guo:Oj74gQwiW-U:V_sGL
TCvgtTX0guo

View the full article
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

too bad i guess a few inches thinner f-150 and maybe a foot shorter with the 2.5L and 3.5L with 5/6speeds would still prolly be a big venture as far as $$$ goes. make a f150 loose about 500lbs?

edit

maybe more like 1/2 ton

Edited by loki
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ranger gets crappy MPG with the 4.0L, the GMT355s get better mileage with the 3.7L than Ford.

Modern, yet capable and durable powertrains and clean sheet body design is all Ford needs to put their compact pickup back on top. They are giving up without a fight.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ranger gets crappy MPG with the 4.0L, the GMT355s get better mileage with the 3.7L than Ford.

Modern, yet capable and durable powertrains and clean sheet body design is all Ford needs to put their compact pickup back on top. They are giving up without a fight.

I guess the compact truck market isn't profitable enough for the ROI to make the business case to invest in a new Ranger for NA (or to adapt the ROW Thai one).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, there's always Toyota or Nissan if the domestics give up on the segment and return to 1981. I owned a Nissan pickup, and it took everything I could throw at it. Aside from the poor paint job that chipped easily, it was a tough little truck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Ford got even half the lifespan out of a next-gen Ranger as the current one, they surely would get a solid ROI on it's development. ;)

I dunno- the small trucks -no matter from who- have not kept even close to a pace with the progress the big trucks have. From what I've seenof them, they're still back in circa 1990.

-- -- -- -- --

I watch people come up with all sorts of attempts to load too-large materials into small trucks @ Home Depot all the time- simultaneously scary & funny. I watched a guy pile sheetrock on TOP of the bedrails of some japanese baby truck and tie it down to the wheel openings with twine. :wacko: It's more than worth it to me to have a full-size truck- to have that reserve for someone who even occasionally moves things is just like having a car that can do 180 MPH in a land of 55/65 MPH- there if you 'need' it. ;)

In fact, I lament having gone from an 8' bed to 6.5'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of full size trucks, I saw a late model F150 (not the newest generation, but the '03-09 one) that had a detail I'd never noticed before. Driving down my street earlier, I noticed this white F150 with a door in the bed side, behind the cab. Had a door handle and lock that looked like the one on the driver's door. Must be a work truck option of a bedside storage compartment?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have a small, nimble truck that got good fuel economy. It's not liek I would use it to tow my house, but having an open bed big enough to move a snowblower or a fridge or something like that would be very handy.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agreed, DF. The vantage point, the versatility, the durability... I will always love small trucks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have a small, nimble truck that got good fuel economy. It's not liek I would use it to tow my house, but having an open bed big enough to move a snowblower or a fridge or something like that would be very handy.

+1. I've never had a truck, but there have certainly been times I've bought things (and had them delivered) that wouldn't fit in my Jeep. Home Depot rents trucks, so I guess if I needed one I could rent one. I rented a big box cargo truck from Public Storage when I did my last move.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2010 Ranger is so long-in-the-tooth, it's like buying a 17 year-old new car. Or a brand new used car. Then again, I've said that before although that doesn't make it any less true.

If there is one truck that truly deserves a nice replacement, it's the Ranger.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... If I could buy a 17 year old new car (Caprice wagon), I'd be quite happy. ;-)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ocnblu ~ >>"The vantage point, the versatility, the durability... I will always love small trucks."<<

Big truck :: better vantage point from higher up.

Big truck :: anything you can put in a small truck, you can put in a big truck, but not the other way around.

Big truck :: how does smaller = better durability ???

Just pickin' - you are free to like what you like.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Balthy I was actually addressing the ridiculous point in the article about Ford trying to push a car, any car, as a worthy replacement for a compact pickup.

I prefer small pickups because they fit in my garage easily, they haul as much as I need, they cost less to buy and operate than fullsize, they are more maneuverable than fullsize, etc.

When the S-10/S-15, Ranger and original Dakota came out, they were sensational. A reversal from US-badged Japanese rustbucket pickups that were peddled for many years, they did well in the market for a long time, then they were abandoned, left to rot, by their creators and that's a shame.

I feel that with harsh fuel economy rules coming to fruition, now is not the time to give up on the compact pickup market, and a Ute is not the same as a compact truck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small pickups make sense for a small percentage of people, but enough that it'd be nice to see some good offerings from the American companies. The trouble with small pickups is their advantages usually aren't big enough to really make them stand out. Probably the biggest perceived advantage of a small pickup is better fuel economy... but it's not by as much as you'd think for the size & power difference. Lower cost is the same way - it's typically only been a couple thousand dollar difference in cost between the small & full-size models.

IMO, if someone is buying a truck for occasional use, it makes much more sense to buy the full sized truck, even if it means spending the same amount of money & buying a very lightly used full size instead of the brand new compact pickup. A full size will generally be built tougher and be able to do more. For occasional use, the small fuel economy loss in getting the full size isn't going to add up to enough of a cost to be a real issue.

However, if someone is going to be driving the truck around regularly and rarely actually needs to haul something, and almost never needs to haul anything really big/heavy, saving a few mpgs with a compact might make a lot of sense. There are probably enough people that fit this description, or that just plain prefer a compact pickup, that Chevy & Ford ought to have good offerings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room