Ford to debut safer 2010 Ranger

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
Ðavïd wrote:

I'm waiting for the nerf foam body to buy. Four or five feet of foam all around the body should be sufficient.
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

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
Jack wrote:

The bigger question is, why would anybody make a 4 cyl mustang ;P
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently, lots of folks wanted a four-cylinder Mustang. But, please, when buying a four-cylinder Mustang, one should expect nothing more than ... well, a four-cylinder Mustang. If I'm not mistaken, Picasso's underpowered 1989 model probably had the same four cylinders that powered the Escort, but in a bulkier, heavier body.
I bought my daughter a 1988 convertible, four-cylinder/stick, and I bought it precisely because I knew it didn't have the power to get her into trouble. Little did I know that that little pig was going to become my spare. I sold it off for the first $1,000 that came my way and bought myself a '93 GT convertible to take its place.
I can't tell you how many people have talked to me about "the car that got away," the one they still wish they had. I don't have that problem, since I've owned a series of disappointments up to 1993.
dwight www.tfrog.com
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dwight wrote:

oh there is not enough power to get you in trouble thats for sure.
And nothing to rave about on fuel economy either... I should have kept the 1985 crown vic with the 302... it was delivering comparable city mileage and better highway mileage than the rustang...
Oh yes, mine had the notorious rusty trunk lid ;)
But the 1984 mustang GT would be my car that got away...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dwight wrote:

haha, I don't blame ford for that one ;P i only kept that one summer and a month in to the school year... it was cool to have a car... but as soon as any one got close to the mustang and saw the 4 banger the coolness went away... ;P
The crown vic 2 door was a real machine though... grey, black vinyl top, with the spoke hubcaps... MAN :P
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

///snipped///
My first Crown was 1956. Had a big, wide chrome strip that ran up over the top. Had a 292 (IIRC) been too many years. Then I defected to MOPAR until the USAF sent me to Germany and England for a spell. Then it was a 1978 F150 with a 429PI to replace the 400. Now a 1994 F250 7.3L IDI Diesel and a 2004 F350 6.0L Diesel. The only complaint I had with Ford was the Cortina I had while in England. I spent more time under it than in it...
DaveD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave D wrote:

I will look up the European model.
I actually have a 1956 ford mainline that was inherited.
272 3 speed column shift. All original now, needs a bit of interior work... as its coming apart at the seams...
nice driving car though.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

sounds like what is already in the Escape.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.