What will follow the Ranger?

[omicron]

Do they also sell the Scorpio there? I just rode in one and I think that despite the fact that the fit and finish is absolutely appalling, the new one's going to sell like hotcakes going solely on the fact that it's a pretty sharp-looking SUV.

No, not at this stage. Just the Pik-Up crew cab ute.

[TheIntrepid]

No, not at this stage. Just the Pik-Up crew cab ute.

Oh, okay. I think the Pik-Up is to the Scorpio what the Silverado is to the Suburban; mechanically identical.

[omicron]

Oh, okay. I think the Pik-Up is to the Scorpio what the Silverado is to the Suburban; mechanically identical.

Oh, ok then. I think it's main advantage is that it is cheap relative to the competition.

[TheIntrepid]

Yup. Also, being an Indian car, it's virtually indestructible.

[heelntoe]

Yup. Also, being an Indian car, it's virtually indestructible.

er, the scorpio is far from indestructible.

[Soup DeVille]

No it's not.

Ok, that's an exaggeration, but not much of one

[nickdrinkwater]

Isuzu (Rodeo) usually know what they're doing with these kind of cars.  I've always liked the Navara though, so it would be a tough choice between those two, and the Hilux (after seeing Top Gear!)

I always thought the latest Triton/L200 looked like shit, but maybe that is just me.

No Ford Ranger in Oz, Omi?

[omicron]

Isuzu (Rodeo) usually know what they're doing with these kind of cars. I've always liked the Navara though, so it would be a tough choice between those two, and the Hilux (after seeing Top Gear!)

I always thought the latest Triton/L200 looked like shit, but maybe that is just me.

No Ford Ranger in Oz, Omi?

Yes, the same Ranger as yours.

The Triton is.........interesting.

[ChrisV]

Ok, that's an exaggeration, but not much of one

But what really needed to be newer than that other than the engine? A tough little truck is all it was supposed to be, and it had a better interior than the tiny Toyotas and Nissans. They got rid of the strong dual I beam front suspension the year after mine, but that little Ranger was pretty much all the truck most people need, and especially small delivery companies, like auto parts stores, etc.

The reason it was stuck in the '80s was because that's all it needed to be to be a real little work truck.

I loved mine. And hard to work on? Maybe the V6 versions. but the 2.3 liter was SIMPLE to get to anything on it.

[the_koof]

I think Tonto will follow the Ranger.

[280Z Turbo]

But what really needed to be newer than that other than the engine? A tough little truck is all it was supposed to be, and it had a better interior than the tiny Toyotas and Nissans. They got rid of the strong dual I beam front suspension the year after mine, but that little Ranger was pretty much all the truck most people need, and especially small delivery companies, like auto parts stores, etc.

The reason it was stuck in the '80s was because that's all it needed to be to be a real little work truck.

I loved mine. And hard to work on? Maybe the V6 versions. but the 2.3 liter was SIMPLE to get to anything on it.

I'm not real impressed with the build quality I see on Rangers. After looking at what was on the lots, we came to realize that it was better to keep the Dakota.

The Rangers just looked chintsy and seemed to rust a lot easier than what the Dakota has. The interiors have a tendency to look like shit after a few years.

I hated my '86 because it looked and handled like a piece of shit, but it was very reliable for its age. It felt a lot more nimble than our current Dakota.

I don't care that the Ranger still uses the same bed stampings and dome light as my '86 and is considered passe by the automotive press. But the fact is that for a little more money, you can get a much better truck from Nissan, Toyota, or even GM.

[SaltyDog]

^
It depends on how the truck is taken care of.  Mine rides nice down the road - except for bumpy surfaces, but that's expected - because the PO was apparantly very good about maintanance.  Looking in the throttle body for example, there's no signs of dirt or carbon.  I'll bet the engine is similarly clean.  The interior is solid, no rattles of any kind, no falling off panels.  My friends Ranger, V6 auto of a similar year and mileage, rides crappily down the road, not suprsingly because he does the bare minimum, and probably not even that, maintainance.  Anyway, my point is that there are good used Rangers out there.

"But the fact is that for a little more money, you can get a much better truck from Nissan, Toyota, or even GM."

I actually looked in to that recently and found that base model Tacomas, new, were going for $2k+ over similarly (un)equipped Rangers.  The Nissan comes with more standard and cost even more.  If you go used, depreciation affects the Ford more and the price gap grows.  So, I wouldn't call it "a little more money", though everyones concept of that will differ.  You can save thousands buying a Ranger.

[TBR]

But when you go to sell you won't be able to get nearly as much for a Ranger as for a Tacoma or Frontier. The actual cost to own data is probably similar, if not in the Tacoma's favor because of its amazing resale.

[The Pirate]

But when you go to sell you won't be able to get nearly as much for a Ranger as for a Tacoma or Frontier. The actual cost to own data is probably similar, if not in the Tacoma's favor because of its amazing resale.

Holy shit, you ain't kidding.  I was looking seriously at Tacomas, til I realized what $8K was going to get me.  It wasn't pretty.

[Soup DeVille]

But what really needed to be newer than that other than the engine? A tough little truck is all it was supposed to be, and it had a better interior than the tiny Toyotas and Nissans. They got rid of the strong dual I beam front suspension the year after mine, but that little Ranger was pretty much all the truck most people need, and especially small delivery companies, like auto parts stores, etc.

The reason it was stuck in the '80s was because that's all it needed to be to be a real little work truck.

I loved mine. And hard to work on? Maybe the V6 versions. but the 2.3 liter was SIMPLE to get to anything on it.

In all honesty, not much, and yes the truck filled a need.

But then again, a '55 Ford F100 in decent shape is also all the truck most people buying F-150s today will ever need.

[Rupert]

But what really needed to be newer than that other than the engine? A tough little truck is all it was supposed to be, and it had a better interior than the tiny Toyotas and Nissans. They got rid of the strong dual I beam front suspension the year after mine, but that little Ranger was pretty much all the truck most people need, and especially small delivery companies, like auto parts stores, etc.

The reason it was stuck in the '80s was because that's all it needed to be to be a real little work truck.

I loved mine. And hard to work on? Maybe the V6 versions. but the 2.3 liter was SIMPLE to get to anything on it.

My 2000 with the 2.5 can be a pain... Eight freakin' plugs, four under the intake.

[SaltyDog]

My 2000 with the 2.5 can be a pain... Eight freakin' plugs, four under the intake.

You aren't kidding, it cost me $266.

[Rupert]

*twitch*

I'll be digging into that job in a week or so...

[ChrisV]

My 2000 with the 2.5 can be a pain... Eight freakin' plugs, four under the intake.

My '96 had the 2.3. 4 plugs, a 15 minute job at most. And my Splash's interior was much nicer than my similar year Toyota truck's, which still had exposed metal on the doors and flat door panels. It rode good and handled really well for a truck.



This is pretty much identical to mine, except for the stripes and air deflectors. It didn't share any body or interior with the earlier Rangers...

[Rupert]

Yeah... So what was wrong with the 2.3? Stupid plugs...

[SaltyDog]

*twitch*

I'll be digging into that job in a week or so...

Good luck!  I took one good look and said eff that.  The plugs don't come off w/o a plug remover btw and you have to remove part of the intake to access some of them. Course, if I knew it would cost me nearly 3 large with no gas mileage gain I would have either manned up and did it myself or let it go entirely.

[SVT666]

The Ranger still sells pretty well and is a money maker for Ford.  They won't kill it.

[Onslaught]

They should kill the Mazda B truck. They can't give them away.

[Madman]

Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 02, 2007, 06:06:43 PM
It's also the same truck it was in the '80s...

No it's not.

Actually, yes it is.  Well, most of it anyway.

1983: Ranger introduced.
1989: Facelift.  New flush headlamps, front fenders, grille and dashboard.
1993: Another facelift.  flush-mounted window glass, wider doors, flared fenders.
1995: Another new dashboard.  Passenger airbag added in 1996.
1998: Yet another facelift.  Wheelbase and cab made longer, front suspension and front half of frame redesigned, steering changed to rack-and-pinion.
2001: And yet again, another facelift.  New grille, hood, front bumper, headlights and taillights.
2004: Yet more cosmetic changes to the grille, hood, front bumper and seats.
2006: And still more cosmetic updates to the grille, front turn signals, taillights and a new gigantic blue oval badge in the middle of the tailgate.

It may have evolved, but it is still clearly related to that little truckette Ford introduced way back in 1983.  Engines and transmissions changed almost annually, but the overall design can trace it's roots back twenty-four years.  No wonder Ford can't give them away.  Can you imagine any other 1983-vintage designs competing in today's marketplace?  The Volvo 760, the Renault R9/Alliance, the second-generation Honda Prelude, the Isuzu Impulse and the first front-drive Mazda 626 were all introduced the same year as the Ranger.  Just imagine if heavily facelifted versions of these cars were still being sold today!


Madman of the People

[Onslaught]

I think it was 98 when the best change was made. That was when then dumped that POS front suspension.

[Rupert]

Good luck!  I took one good look and said eff that.  The plugs don't come off w/o a plug remover btw and you have to remove part of the intake to access some of them. Course, if I knew it would cost me nearly 3 large with no gas mileage gain I would have either manned up and did it myself or let it go entirely.

Meh, the intake won't be that hard to get off... I'm still dedicating all of Sunday to it, though. 

[93JC]

Can you imagine any other 1983-vintage designs competing in today's marketplace??

[TheIntrepid]

Even that turd evolved.

[JWC]

I more curious how Ford will answer Chrysler's lifetime powertrain warranty, than I am about what the Ranger will evolve into.

[Madman]

Oh no, it's the photo that will not die!!!

Actually, the XJ Cherokee was introduced as a 1984 model, but I get your point.  However, it's still very crude by today's standards.


Madman of the People