I noticed the ads for the new Ranger while flipping through Top Gear magazine.
http://ford.co.uk/ie/ranger/-/rgr_0608_introd/-/-/-/-
(http://ford.co.uk/spg/getImage.asp?imageName=SPG_3_28_0_28459.jpg&filename=lrggal_RC_13346.jpg)
(http://ford.co.uk/spg/getImage.asp?imageName=SPG_3_28_0_28462.jpg&filename=lrggal_RC_13529_NV.jpg)
(http://ford.co.uk/spg/getImage.asp?imageName=SPG_3_28_0_28539.jpg&filename=lrggal_RC_14074_NV.jpg)
WTF? Why does truck-loving America get stuck with the 1983 Ranger while the truck haters in Europe get this!
GM has had so many problems with its trucks designed for foreign markets and sold here that I wouldn't assume Ford's European Ranger does what Americans want.
I don't see anything wrong with that truck though... plus anything is better than the Ranger we have now.
Just look at the interior on that truck compared to the American one, which is basically the same as a 1995 Ranger.
Can you get Top Gear magazine in North America? :confused:
Yeah, but it's rediculously expesive.
I got mine at Schuler's Books, but you can also get them at Barnes & Noble.
Quote from: Raghavan on March 23, 2007, 07:41:22 PM
I don't see anything wrong with that truck though... plus anything is better than the Ranger we have now.
What can you tell from a picture?
And in some ways, the Colorado/Canyon is worse than the trucks it replaced, but in 2003 who would say that the S-10/Sonoma was a good truck?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 23, 2007, 07:47:43 PM
Just look at the interior on that truck compared to the American one, which is basically the same as a 1995 Ranger.
So the interior appearance is the most important aspect of a compact pickup truck?
Quote from: ifcar on March 23, 2007, 08:01:06 PM
What can you tell from a picture?
Well, I do see a picture of one with a bed full of logs, and it isn't dragging its rear around like a yellow lab with an itchy butt.
Try that in one of "our" Rangers.
I think it would make a great update here.
Quote from: ifcar on March 23, 2007, 08:01:06 PM
Who would say that the S-10/Sonoma was a good truck?
Other than their durability? No.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 23, 2007, 08:05:34 PM
Well, I do see a picture of one with a bed full of logs, and it isn't dragging its rear around like a yellow lab with an itchy butt.
Try that in one of "our" Rangers.
Pickup loads in US ads are generally exaggerated, either with lighter-than-appearance materials, or just a visible layer above a support. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case here.
Looks like the same version that South America gets. I don't know what the pictured truck has, but SA get a V6 diesel.
From what I've read, Ford fears that instead of expanding their market, a V6 diesel powered, crew cab, Ranger would hurt their full-size truck sales.
GVM? ? ? (highest) Euro Truck:? ?3070 kg
GCWR? ?(highest) N/A Truck:? ? ?2722 kg
Gross Vehicle Mass and Gross Combined Weight Rating are the exact same rating as far as I can tell, basically how much weight can actually be riding on the trucks four tires.?
The max towing capacity of the Euro truck is listed at 3000kg, compared the Canadian trucks 2730kg.? ?
Quote from: JWC on March 24, 2007, 07:09:38 AM
Looks like the same version that South America gets.? I don't know what the pictured truck has, but SA get a V6 diesel.
From what I've read, Ford fears that instead of expanding their market, a V6 diesel powered, crew cab, Ranger would hurt their full-size truck sales.
So they've been ignoring the Ranger for the past twenty years just to inflate their F-150 sales? It's all coming together now, oh I hate you Ford! :rage:
That's one long-ass bed.
Atleast with that Ranger, Ford could compete in the crew cab segment :huh:
Quote from: ifcar on March 24, 2007, 05:58:59 AM
Pickup loads in US ads are generally exaggerated, either with lighter-than-appearance materials, or just a visible layer above a support. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case here.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0021:01:EN:HTML
Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 December 2006
concerning misleading and comparative advertising
........
Article 2
........
(b) "misleading advertising" means any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor;
........
Article 3
In determining whether advertising is misleading, account shall be taken of all its features, and in particular of any information it contains concerning:
(a) the characteristics of goods or services, such as their availability, nature, execution, composition, method and date of manufacture or provision, fitness for purpose, uses, quantity, specification, geographical or commercial origin or the results to be expected from their use, or the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on the goods or services;
Then again you may still be right.
Quote from: ifcar on March 23, 2007, 08:01:06 PM
What can you tell from a picture?
And in some ways, the Colorado/Canyon is worse than the trucks it replaced, but in 2003 who would say that the S-10/Sonoma was a good truck?
About the most lucid point you've ever made. :ohyeah:
Actually, funny you should post this. I didn't realise there was a different Ranger in the US - I spotted one on the street the other week, and I remember wondering why people on CarSPIN had been slating the Ranger, as it looked quite smart.
Now I realise!
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on March 24, 2007, 06:50:01 PM
Actually, funny you should post this. I didn't realise there was a different Ranger in the US - I spotted one on the street the other week, and I remember wondering why people on CarSPIN had been slating the Ranger, as it looked quite smart.
Now I realise!
Same. I wasn't quite sure why everyone was all 'OH, this RANGER is a POS', especially with a new model launched recently. I have been enlightened.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 23, 2007, 08:05:34 PM
Well, I do see a picture of one with a bed full of logs, and it isn't dragging its rear around like a yellow lab with an itchy butt.
Try that in one of "our" Rangers.
Been there, done that. It does a fine job. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Galaxy on March 24, 2007, 04:52:09 PM
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0021:01:EN:HTML
Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 December 2006
concerning misleading and comparative advertising
........
Article 2
........
(b) "misleading advertising" means any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor;
........
Article 3
In determining whether advertising is misleading, account shall be taken of all its features, and in particular of any information it contains concerning:
(a) the characteristics of goods or services, such as their availability, nature, execution, composition, method and date of manufacture or provision, fitness for purpose, uses, quantity, specification, geographical or commercial origin or the results to be expected from their use, or the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on the goods or services;
Then again you may still be right.
He is. Take a look at the latest Ford SuperDuty ad that shows all the concrete mix in the box. The ass end of that truck should be dragging on the ground, but yet the truck looks like it's got an empty box.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 25, 2007, 02:28:33 PM
He is. Take a look at the latest Ford SuperDuty ad that shows all the concrete mix in the box. The ass end of that truck should be dragging on the ground, but yet the truck looks like it's got an empty box.
The Super Duty is sold in Europe? As a grey market vehicle only I think. I saw one at a riding stable once. However I have never seen any ads for it here except a few text ads from import companies in auto mags.
They need to do something. I work on the current one and I think it's one of the piss poor trucks built in a long time. Ride is horrible, build quality sucks, and if you get hit in a little wreck the frame gets bent all to hell and is difficult to ever get "right" again. Not that you could find anything measuring correct on a brand new one that's right off the delivery truck.
I like.
Quote from: Galaxy on March 25, 2007, 03:40:54 PM
The Super Duty is sold in Europe? As a grey market vehicle only I think. I saw one at a riding stable once. However I have never seen any ads for it here except a few text ads from import companies in auto mags.
I've not seen one before. I seen a few F150s and a lot of Dodge RAMs though.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 25, 2007, 02:26:20 PM
Been there, done that.? It does a fine job. :rolleyes:
Having owned two of them, I beg to differ.
Quote from: Raghavan on March 26, 2007, 10:30:48 PM
Pwnt.
Hardly. :rolleyes:
My best friend owned 2 of them, and I borrowed one a couple times when I was in high school to haul firewood and it was fine. Of course it doesn't haul what the mid-sizers do, but it's as good as any compact.
Quote from: chevyguy06 on March 24, 2007, 11:21:53 AM
Atleast with that Ranger, Ford could compete in the crew cab segment :huh:
It seems that people are forgetting that Ford already competes in the mid-size crew cab pickup segment.
(http://www.sportruck.com/news/07sporttrac/10.jpg)
My pops has an '02 2WD, regular cab with the stick and the 2.3l. I've hauled some heavy-ass loads both in the bed and on a trailer, and it handles it surprisingly well. Going uphill is a real shitshow, and I've even found myself with the throttle right to the floor in 5th gear on flat ground, but at lower speeds it really does impress.
Quote from: Pancor on March 27, 2007, 12:00:45 PM
My pops has an '02 2WD, regular cab with the stick and the 2.3l.? ?I've hauled some heavy-ass loads both in the bed and on a trailer, and it handles it surprisingly well.? Going uphill is a real shitshow, and I've even found myself with the throttle right to the floor in 5th gear on flat ground, but at lower speeds it really does impress.?
The one my buddy had that he would let me use was a 1990 4x4, extended cab, with the 4.0L V6. It took heavy loads just fine. People have to remember it's a compact pickup...not a half-ton.
My '94 4.0 Ranger hauled kegs of beer up mountains like you wouldn't believe!
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 27, 2007, 07:22:51 AM
It seems that people are forgetting that Ford already competes in the mid-size crew cab pickup segment.
(http://www.sportruck.com/news/07sporttrac/10.jpg)
I think I prefer the Ranger. Interesting though.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on March 27, 2007, 12:26:02 PM
I think I prefer the Ranger.? Interesting though.
I like the sport trac. The box is a little small, but how many people who own midsize trucks actually haul anything anyway?
(http://images.motortrend.com/roadtests/pickup/112_0503_03z+2007_ford_explorer_sport_trac_concept_pickup+interior.jpg)
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 27, 2007, 07:21:14 AM
Hardly. :rolleyes:
My best friend owned 2 of them, and I borrowed one a couple times when I was in high school to haul firewood and it was fine.? Of course it doesn't haul what the mid-sizers do, but it's as good as any compact.
It would haul it, yes, and would handle OK as well; but it'd be dragging its butt around like you cut the rear springs. Even the last generation F-150s did the same when loaded close to their payload rating.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 27, 2007, 03:50:47 PM
It would haul it, yes, and would handle OK as well; but it'd be dragging its butt around like you cut the rear springs. Even the last generation F-150s did the same when loaded close to their payload rating.
Don't you remember that all trucks used to do that because they came level from the factory. When they started getting the "raked" look to them you could load them up to max payload or beyond and the truck would sit virtually level, but that's because the ass end is a lot higher then the front when unloaded.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 27, 2007, 05:23:26 PM
Don't you remember that all trucks used to do that because they came level from the factory.? When they started getting the "raked" look to them you could load them up to max payload or beyond and the truck would sit virtually level, but that's because the ass end is a lot higher then the front when unloaded.
Some were worse than others, and the Rangers have always been on the 'worse' end of the spectrum as far as that goes. It would haul things though- I once had 2 3-ton electric chainfalls in the back of mine (about 660 lbs each). Didn't break anything, but that was an einteresting drive...
My Ranger ('90 4x4 4.0L) hauled decently well for being a small truck. I installed some add-a-leaf springs though, which helped a lot.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 27, 2007, 07:26:08 PM
Some were worse than others, and the Rangers have always been on the 'worse' end of the spectrum as far as that goes. It would haul things though- I once had 2 3-ton electric chainfalls in the back of mine (about 660 lbs each). Didn't break anything, but that was an einteresting drive...
No, the worst on the spectrum was my generation of 4runner/Taco. It dragged its ass even without anything in the back.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 23, 2007, 07:33:03 PM
I noticed the ads for the new Ranger while flipping through Top Gear magazine.
(http://ford.co.uk/spg/getImage.asp?imageName=SPG_3_28_0_28539.jpg&filename=lrggal_RC_14074_NV.jpg)
WTF? Why does truck-loving America get stuck with the 1983 Ranger while the truck haters in Europe get this!
Wouldn't be suitable for the US market. The steering wheel is on the wrong side. :lol: ;)
Quote from: etypeJohn on March 30, 2007, 10:54:35 AM
Wouldn't be suitable for the US market.? The steering wheel is on the wrong side.? ? :lol: ;)
It's the mail man version.
Quote from: etypeJohn on March 30, 2007, 10:54:35 AM
Wouldn't be suitable for the US market. The steering wheel is on the wrong side. :lol: ;)
(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6302/lrggalrc14074nvyb9.jpg)
There...I "Americanized" it.
That's a very good chop.
Quote from: ro51092 on March 31, 2007, 09:15:27 PM
That's a very good chop.
Don't tell anyone....its called "flipping"...it's under "rotate image".
I'm pretty sure he just reversed that picture. ;)
I'm impressed, maybe it's because I've never used Photoshop before?
Quote from: ro51092 on March 31, 2007, 11:11:14 PM
I'm impressed, maybe it's because I've never used Photoshop before?
You can do it in Paint too. :ohyeah:
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 27, 2007, 07:22:51 AM
It seems that people are forgetting that Ford already competes in the mid-size crew cab pickup segment.
Yeah, I immediately thought of the Explorer.