WHY WOULD ANYBODY...

same reason you would use prodigy.net.....TROLL

Because the person buying the Ranger is infinitely smarter than someone posting such a dumb question.

And yet, no one has had the courage (or the intelligence) to offer a good reason for the purchase of a vehicle which is relatively few dollars cheaper than it's full-sized counterpart and yet can do only a fraction of the work.

It must be an emotional thing.

Jack

The Honorable Troll refuses to be insulted by the likes of a Jane Fonda Cable Co. subscriber.

But, back to the question at hand: why would a "consumer", who has a broad range of choices in the pickup truck world -- even among compact pickups and "mid-size" pickups -- choose the truck that has been derided for so many years as a "half truck", "toy truck", "kid's truck", etc.? I mean, it's not like having the very limited choice of broadband Internet providers in a particular geographic area, is it, NoSpam. There is Toyota, Chevy, Dodge, et al to show that a truck doesn't have to rust out prematurely, or be styled like a top-heavy bread van, or confine its American users within miniature foreign physical dimensions.

But still they come....

Despite the fact a Ranger would fit so unobtrusively in the garage, what could fit inside the Ranger that wasn't, like the truck itself, miniaturized and shrunken into insignificance? The smallest bed dimensions in its class? Surely Ford is making a joke at our expense.

Jack

How about simply because they like the ranger? Or maybe the size of it fits the truck needs they have. If its weekend gardener who needs to haul a bit of fill once in awhile or mulch for personal use, or may pulls a small trailer once in awhile or any number of other reasons why they need a bit more than a car or mini van on a regular basis but not a full sized truck. Looking at bed specs Ranger has 2 bed options, 72 inches or 84 inches. Dodge Dakota, 64 inches or 78 inches. The GMC/Chevy 61 inches or 73 inches. Mitsi only gets 64 inches, Mazda 72 inches Toy Tacoma 60 inches, or a long bed of 73 inches Gee whiz look at that, in its class the Ranger has the longest bed

Me thinks the other responders were correct, your a Troll that doesn't like Fords

Whitelightning

Nah, people buy them 'cause they want to and can. Just think, if they didn't you would have nothing to write about.

Why not?

White,

I love some Fords, I do. I'm in my second Explorer, third Ford (first was a new '65 Mustang Fastback 2+2), and will have another Ford of some type before long, probably.

The bed specs I reviewed came from Ford's own website, but they did apply specifically to the "2007 FORD RANGER SUPER CAB 4X4 126-in. WB XLT Styleside 4 Door" -- the only model with an interior the average American male could find accommodating, as far as I can see -- and certainly the most practical cab style.

Check the Ranger Comparison page here:

.

Near the bottom of the page, in the "Towing" section, you will find Bed Specs. The one line of the section in which the Ranger excels is "Payload", by 57 lbs over the Chevy Colorado and by 210 lbs over the Toyota Tacoma.

Ok Jack. I'll take a bite at your bait. I purchased a 2002 Ranger Edge Super Cab new in February 2002 because I was an outside sales rep. Part of my job was to transport and erect displays in the dealers I called on. The box that the display came in was 4'X6'X8" and fit perfectly in the bed of my Ranger. Originally, I wanted an F-150 Super Cab but the salesman asked me if I would possibly be interested in the Ranger as they had a $2500.00 rebate. So...I looked at the Ranger. After test driving one, I felt that it would suffice my needs. I'm not a big man and didn't need the room of an F-150 so I purchased the Ranger. Plus, I wouldn't have to be as choosey as to parking spaces with a Ranger as opposed to an F-150 due to the smaller size of the Ranger. It has been a reasonably decent vehicle in the 90,000 + miles I've put on it. Other than having the master and slave cylinders of the clutch system replaced, (everything else was the usual that one would ultimately replace on /ANY/ vehicle i.e. tires, brakes, shocks, oil and filter) it has been relatively low maintenance. As time has progressed, in some ways I wish I had indeed bought an F-150 Super Cab as the Ranger seats are quite uncomfortable on my 52 year old body. My Ranger gets around 23+ mpg on the highway with a 3.0 liter engine,

5 speed manual trans, 3.73 axle ratio and soft tonneau cover on the bed. On the other hand, the F-150 would have given me around 20 mpg on the highway, had been more comfortable and look at the truck I would have had! I'm not knocking my Ranger but next time will be an F-150, purely for comfort reasons.

Dan Edwards

Leather F$%&en seats, its a bloody truck.

Whitelightning

Hell, you know this new breed of truck drivers, if it doesn't have an top-end sound system, cruise control, soft cushion seats, a marshmallow suspension, navigation system, etc., then they look down their upturned noses at it.

DaveD

>

Dan, I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Jack seems to think that what you learned is elemental, and should have been intuitive -- he thinks you should have bought the F150 in the first place, and for essentially the same reasons. I think your purchase made perfect sense to you when you made it, but the 20/20 hindsight glasses makes you wonder if your initial purchase decision would have worked out better for you in the long run.

Having said that, I see no reason to NOT buy a Ranger ... I'd buy the F150, but I've got a 53-year old back and stuff to cart around. I'll pay 3 MPG for the added comfort and space ...

Why a Ranger? I have a 2000 Ranger/XLT and live in a town of less than 8K. I bought it used for my highschool age son. We live 1.2 miles from the HS. A tank of gas lasts him a month. But the real reason is: Auto Insurance. Do you want to know how much less my auto insurance is with the 4cyl Ranger rather than a 6-8cyl bigger truck? I can only speak of auto insurance in Texas....and a 4cyc Ranger is saving me big bucks.

Thank you, Dan.

I think comfort is a big reason why the Ranger wouldn't satisfy me either, nor a lot of mature American males. It does seem adequate for a number of the young skinny ones, judging by the numbers on the road. If it works for them, fine. Last time I drove one, many years ago -- and they looked the same then as they do now -- I couldn't imagine how anybody with a job requiring a truck would be content inside of one. I could unlock the passenger-side door easily while belted into the driver's seat. And without any stretching. Now that is not a large comfortable space.

It's time for a exterior restyle, too, FMC.

I'm off to the Toyota dealer Monday morning. Not that I'm hot for a Toyota, but more of a no-stone-unturned sort, when it comes to car/truck-shopping. Ford, Chevy, Toy -- one or another should do. Lest you think I am anti-Ranger for the sake of being anti-Ranger, I have no intention of looking at a pre-'05 Tacoma, either. I know the Tundra will do: tried one already.

Those Tacos sure do hold their resale value. Ford could take a look at why that is, too.

Jack

A good reason, Juanalong. And I bet the kid loves the truck, too. I knew there had to be some good reasons -- that's why I asked.

I lived in Texas for a few years (Big Spring) and found the folks there were real fine people. Also learned that what a first bicycle is to a boy in Ohio, that first pickup truck is to the boy in Texas. I felt the same way about mine, even though I didn't get it 'til I was 37 yrs old, and a more than a few years out of Texas.

Jack

[It was a blue & white '81 Chevy flare side -- just like the one on the sales brochure that year. It rusted out all too soon from all those clay dirt roads in MI.]

If you need bigger seats than are in a Ranger, you'll want bigger seats than are in a Taco. Rangers are to F150s as Tacos are to Tundras. the same differences apply relative to basic size and proportion. Obvious difference that are between Ford and Toyots exist as well.

"Jack" wrote in message

For me, that's an easy question to answer. Since I don't haul much heavy stuff around or make my living with this truck, my 2001 Ranger is a perfect solution for my needs. I've owned a variety of Ford trucks over the last 25 years, including a few F-150 pickups, I did the 4x4 thing for ten years with my 78 Bronco, and I am now driving my third Ranger since I bought my 2001 a few months ago. Although I enjoyed owning and driving each one of them, I think my latest Ranger has proven to be the best fit for my general needs and the places I tend to take it. When I'm not using it to drive to work, I use it for camping and fishing trips in remote locations that require lots of ground clearance and an ability to travel through very rough terrrain. Since I'm often using it out in the bush, I find a shorter/lighter truck is much preferable for turning my boat trailer around in tight quarters between trees and rocks and other obstacles than an F-150 would be. The shorter wheelbase also prevents me from bottoming out on rocks and things that would ground out a longer truck, which is a benefit that I have exploited many times over in my travels in these rugged areas. I also love the bullet-proof interior with the rubber floor mats, cleaning it out after we've been in there with muddy boots and dirty clothes is no big deal. Experience has taught me that a weekend out in the mud is much more enjoyable when I don't have to mull over the damage I might have caused to carpeting and other fluffy interior details that I really have no use for.

Why would anybody want to buy a Ranger? I think it's a reasonable comprimise for anyone who hates driving cars but doesn't require the capabilities or expenses of a full sized pickup or 4x4. It works well for me, so I like my 2001 Ranger for the versatility it offers me at this time.

Cheers, Ken

Useful, very readable reply, kenb.

Thanks,

Jack

All except for the "hates driving cars." Not sure I get it.