Ford Ranger Redesign

I guess you didn't read the latest sales figures for Rangers. They outsell S-10 by about 3 to 1. Don't dig them any graves yet.

I am on my third and one of the things I like about them is that they don't change them too much, just a needed upgrade now and then.

I get close to the same mileage with my 2004 F-150 4x4 with the

5.4L Triton that I got with my 2000 Ranger 4x4 4.0L. I got rid of the Ranger because it just wasn't big enough to safely pull the kind of camping trailer that I wanted. The F-150 is so much better that it isn't even a fair comparison.

Scott,

Yes, I agree. I love my Ford Ranger, and it's a pleasure to drive. I guess my 2002 will be in style for quite a while, but from a marketing concept it's pretty dumb for a major redesign cycle to be 10 or 15 years in the car industry.

How can the Ford Ranger effectively compete when other trucks have new designs on a more regular basis? Yeah, it's a great truck, but 10 or 15 years for a redesign is pushing things a bit.

How many guys are going to get the girls wearing leisure suits?? How many girls are going to get the guys with a Farah Fawcett hairdo?? I'm exaggerating a bit, but it's not cool looking dated.

The Chevrolet Colorado is fairly new, but I think General Motors missed the mark from a styling standpoint. It's just blah to me, and I've seen very, very few on the road. I think the Ford Ranger is a superior truck, even with the older body style.

Value-wise, the Ford Ranger is a great buy, but waiting another five years for a redesign is toooo long.

Mark,

The Ford Ranger doesn't have the towing capacity of a Ford F-150. Of course, the big rigs at tractor pulling contests put a little dust on the Ford-150.

I own a 2x2 extended cab, and its gas mileage is okay as far as trucks are concerned. The Ford F-150 is more technologically advanced, so it's more fuel efficient.

If gas gets to $3.00 dollars a gallon, staying at home is fuel efficient too.

I bought my Ranger last spring. It is a very basic 4 cyl 5 speed. While I could afford much more truck, it is simply overkill for me. I don't tow anything and don't need the extra cab room. I would rather kept my 01 taurus, but I needed to hall materials around for a side business I started. I was put off by the gas mileage of the 3L V6, that has only 7 more HP. I average 27mpg and got 30mpg on 60% freeway driving. I estimate I could do as good as 33 mpg on the freeway.

With the other makers moving to larger "compact" trucks, Ford probably sees the opportunity to leave the Ranger alone for awhile. John

I saw on the news tonight that gas has topped the $3.00 mark in parts of California. Crude oil hit another high today at almost $67 a barrel. Doesn't look good.

My 02 Ranger Edge 3.0 get pretty much the same MPG as my 01 F-150 4.2. Only difference I can tell is it takes about $60.00 to fill up the F-150 right now, where as the Ranger can be filled for about $20.00 LOL.

Still, I only drive my F-150 now to pull my boat, or when I want to throw something other than a bike in the bed.

Yup... love the Rangers. This is my fourth one! Every one that I've sold or traded were still excellent trucks. My last one had over 150k miles and still ran as smoothe as the day I bought it.

Your ranger has a 8 gallon tank?

My 2003 Mustang GT (4.6L V8) and a 89 Escort (1.9L I4) I had got the same gas mileage ~23mpg in similar driving. Not to mention the Mustang is over

1,000 lbs heavier.

Let the record show that Books_Are snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Julian Child) wrote back on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:42:10 -0400 in alt.trucks.ford :

What are they intending to change? The Sheet metal? Oh Bog, save us. I've looked at some of the "new" styling, and all I can say is "I want a hood on which I can spread a map or blueprint upon, and be able to 'gather round Jungen'.

As far as the rest go ... keep the small engine, at least as an option. for the Fuel Economy as much as anything else. Same goes for manual transmissions. I could care less about 4x4, that is just one more set of components to need PM, not to mention the drag on fuel economy. And put a tachometer in as standard with a manual tranny.

And I'm not so sure that "rally gages" as OEM would be a bad idea. I got real used to an Ammeter which was more specific than "charge - discharge". Yeah, most people don't need that much precision, but so what? They don't know, so they don't ask.

I can see a need for radio speakers moved so they are not down by my ankles. That's a serious rant .. :-)

But that is what I want in a light truck - fuel efficient engine, manual tranny, no 4x4 and in just about any color but Red or Black. I'm not hauling bricks to work, or towing a boat to the lake, so a "small" truck is just perfect. Which is what I got.

tschus pyotr

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:04:05 -0500, Charles B. Summers, QOF. rearranged some electrons to form:

Well, that makes no sense at all. If you get the same milage, your fuel cost is the same per mile. You just have to fill the Ranger

3 times as often.

Let the record show that David M snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com wrote back on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:53:59 GMT in alt.trucks.ford :

Try comparing the size tanks.

(Although I would like to know where he's getting gas for less than

2.50 a gallon :-) )

On Mon 15 Aug 2005 04:43:14a, pyotr filipivich assaulted the computer and came up with this:

yeah, no shit...