Ford to debut safer 2010 Ranger

Page 1 of 2  
Additional standard features on small pickup to include roll stability control, side air bags.
The 2010 Ford Ranger will arrive this summer with a slew of new safety
features, Ford Motor Co. is expected to announce today.
The Ranger will include roll stability control as part of the small pickup's electronic stability control, known as Advance Trac. The system uses a gyroscopic roll sensor to measure the body roll angle, and, if necessary, it employs counter measures such as reducing the engine's power and applying the brakes to one or two wheels to right the vehicle.
"The 2010 Ranger's Roll Stability Control and combination side air bag technologies will help occupants stay out of harm's way," said Steve Kozak, chief engineer of safety systems at Ford, in a news release.
Ford will also add head-and-chest side impact airbags to the new Ranger.
The new system could help prevent head injuries in side impacts.
All of the safety equipment will be standard on the Ranger.
When equipped with Ford's 2.3-liter I-4 engine, the Ranger is the most fuel efficient pickup on the road. According to EPA estimates, it hits 21 miles per gallon in the city and 26 mpg on the highway.
Davïd Greenville, NC
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/AUTO01/902060335
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Re Ford to debut safer 2010 Ranger:

I wonder how much cost is added to the vehicle do to the added "safety" features. Just another reason not to buy.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ford is making SC standard on the 2010 Mustang GT and several other cars as well. When an item is made standard across a line the added cost is less than when it was an option, but it still ups the gross. I.E When passenger SRS was optional it was an $800 option. When it became standard the order Code increase was $550.
I do not like to be forced to buy any option that I would not normally order even the "safety options" for dummies like SC and ABS. Even the side SRS is a joke. You are far more likely to be hit by lighting on a sunny day than be saved from serious injury by the SRS in a side impact.
Ford is taking a page from Toyotas sales book. The are forcing buyers to buy more option than they would normally buy, by making one move up to a higher priced series to get particular preferred options. Look at how much more one needs to spend just to get a V6 in a basic Camry. No wonder eight out of ten Camrys sold in the US have the wimpy 4cy engine.
A 2010 Mustang GT convertible, equipped like my '09 is priced around $3,500 more. The reason is to get a leather gut one must move up to the Premium model, from the Deluxe. The Premium adds a cloth roof, the Microsoft package and a premium sound system and some other kid stuff that I would not buy. To get only what I want I will order the Deluxe, save the $3,500 and have a custom shop do the leather gut for around $450.
As for our, used import car buying friend Caesar Romano, the subject of new FORD pricing is moot. LOL
wrote

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

About 3700 deaths a year could be prevented with side impact bags. And about 100 people are killed by lightening.
So side impact bags are more likely to save one from serious injury (if one assumes that death is a form of serious injury) than get hit by lightening.
When making comments about safety, please get your facts right.
Jeff
http://www.wral.com/5onyourside/story/1055529 /
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0052833/m0052833.asp
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

About 3700 deaths a year could be prevented with side impact bags. And about 100 people are killed by lightening.
So side impact bags are more likely to save one from serious injury (if one assumes that death is a form of serious injury) than get hit by lightening.
When making comments about safety, please get your facts right.
Jeff
http://www.wral.com/5onyourside/story/1055529 /
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0052833/m0052833.asp
What about comparing a study done in 1995 with another study done in 2004, eh Jeff??? If that isn't apples vs. oranges I don't know what is!!!! If you are going to make comments about safety, please make sure your facts are comparable and relevant.
DaveD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The WRAL article you cited seemed to claim only around 2000 deaths could be prevented with side air bags.

The real question is, "What is the value of a life?" Lets say side air bags cost $300 per vehicle (probably low). And lets say we will sell 10 million vehicles a year (was a low volume until now...). That means people in the US would spend nearly $3 Billion a year on side air bags to save 2000 lives a year, or around $1.5 million per life saved? Is it worth it? Don't you think we might actually save more lives if that $3 billion a year was spent on other safety measures (improved roads, add guard rails, better tires, etc.). And don't you suppose that the added cost of many of the marginal safety devices (ABS, air bags, traction control) may be pushing up the costs of cars so much that people are hanging on to older, less safe cars for a longer period of time? Suppose instead of blowing thousands on marginal safety devices, people spent the money on maintiaing cars better and replacing worn tires sooner? And do you really believe the projected figures for lives potentially saved by side air bags? ABS has never saved anywhere near the number of lives claimed for it in early projections. Front air bags have very little value in most cases if you are wearing your seat belts, yet all cars now have them. ESC is a bad joke. Bureacrats have no problem spending other people's money. Car companies have little incentive to fight against these marginal safety devices as long as everyone has to add them - they just increase the potential revenue per car.

I think you need to consider the cost/benefit equation for all these marginal safety devices. If you turly believe they are worth it, then you probably feel we should eliminate private vehicles altogether.
Ed
http://www.wral.com/5onyourside/story/1055529 /
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0052833/m0052833.asp
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Get real! When making comments about safety, please get the facts before you look stupid, again.
What part of, saved from serious injury by the SRS in a side impact, did you not understand? A serious intrusion, as in the average terminal speed of 35 MPH, side impact is far more likely to kill the occupant(s.)
Searching statistics does not make one an expert on this subject. I spent 15 years of my thirty years as a vehicle design engineer working with crumple zone design, and the forces of a collision.
ANY collision in which the terminals speed is above a certain speed will kill even properly belted passengers in a vehicle with SRS, that if of sufficient size in which to develop proper crumple zones, will result in death from the "third" collision, when one organs strike their skeleton.
wrote:

About 3700 deaths a year could be prevented with side impact bags. And about 100 people are killed by lightening.
So side impact bags are more likely to save one from serious injury (if one assumes that death is a form of serious injury) than get hit by lightening.
When making comments about safety, please get your facts right.
Jeff
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yet, it is clear from your posts you don't have a clue. I was able to show that with 2 minutes of searching.

And, an engineer would know that the SRS acts as the 3rd crumple zone preventing the organs from impacting on the skeleton.
Jeff

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gee and you just told us you were a doctor then you make a stupid statement like that, dummy. Perhaps you have a "bag" between your organs and your skeleton? LOL
wrote:

Yet, it is clear from your posts you don't have a clue. I was able to show that with 2 minutes of searching.

And, an engineer would know that the SRS acts as the 3rd crumple zone preventing the organs from impacting on the skeleton.
Jeff
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Name calling? Back to 1st grade again?
When the body decelerates more slowly, as it does when it hits an air bag rather than something harder, like the side of a car or the windshield, the organs are less likely impact the skeleton.
Jeff

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ya' right
wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wonder who designed it. Apparently, ford gas two rangers, one for north america and for the rest of the world. The one for the rest of the world. The one for the rest of the world was designed by Mazda.
Jeff
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'll listen when ford debuts a quality ranger.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you dislike Ford so very much, why are you here???? You sound like you've got your head screwed on like a figure in one of your namesake's paintings.
DaveD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave D wrote:

No... i've driven ford for the 15 years i've been driving.
I've had a 1985 Crown Vic, 1989 Ford Mustang 4pot, 1987 F150, 1995 F150, 1992 Grand Marquis, 1993 Crown Vic, 1996 Crown vic, 2003 Grand marquis, 2002 ranger, and a 2008 F150.
For someone who hates ford, i've had a few of them.
Just been bit in the ass by a couple... the mustang and the ranger. No real reliability issues on the mustang, didn't have it long for other 4 pot reasons.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wait... wait...
You had a 4-cylinder Mustang, and you didn't like it?
Yeah. Blame Ford.
:()
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dwight wrote:

He said it was a 4 pot, some kind of stove or something. Maybe he thought there is a safer 2010 Range.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My bad. I thought we were discussing cars.
Well, then, if it's stoves, I can happily recommend gas over electric. The hybrids are untested, and the support infrastructure isn't quite there yet.
dwight
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dwight wrote:

Wait a minute!
You are saying anybody would want a 4-cyl. Mustang?
My '65 Fast Back with the 289 V8 was one of my three favorites in 50 years' worth of cars--wish I still had it. But a 4-cyl? I never saw anyone but young secretary-types driving one. Were they that economical?
Jack
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.