2006 Ford Ranger
#5
:shock: Looks more like a Nissan Frontier. I hope those fender flares and plastic side moldings are only an option. Sorry, this just doesn't do it for me and I've been a long time Ranger fan. It looks ugly and cheap. :notnice:
BTW, Arin...I noticed you got a II. Good for you bro. Can't wait till you drop that 351W. It's gonna be one bad ***** on the road
BTW, Arin...I noticed you got a II. Good for you bro. Can't wait till you drop that 351W. It's gonna be one bad ***** on the road
#6
They need a major overhaul of the ranger if they want to keep control of the small pickup market.
I am going to predict this will be a more important market segment as gas prices increase.
I am going to predict this will be a more important market segment as gas prices increase.
#7
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by 03muzzy6@June 6, 2005, 6:47 PM
:shock: Looks more like a Nissan Frontier. I hope those fender flares and plastic side moldings are only an option. Sorry, this just doesn't do it for me and I've been a long time Ranger fan. It looks ugly and cheap. :notnice:
BTW, Arin...I noticed you got a II. Good for you bro. Can't wait till you drop that 351W. It's gonna be one bad ***** on the road
:shock: Looks more like a Nissan Frontier. I hope those fender flares and plastic side moldings are only an option. Sorry, this just doesn't do it for me and I've been a long time Ranger fan. It looks ugly and cheap. :notnice:
BTW, Arin...I noticed you got a II. Good for you bro. Can't wait till you drop that 351W. It's gonna be one bad ***** on the road
im gonna look for a 351W at a junkyard as soon as school gets out. and when i say as soon as school gets out i mean, when the bell reings its off to picknpull lol
#9
they dont need a major overhaul of the ranger. check it out. the explorer (same frame) has a 3valve 5.4 in it. 300 hp. why not put this in the ranger and say bye bye to the hemi's. it wouldn't take much to be a player in the small truck segment. com'n ford
#11
maybe he meant the aviator, i think that ones got the 5.4. But still, i don't think this pick up needs a 5.4 V8, that really goes against what Steve was suggesting. Sure the dakota's got a v8, but that things weird. "LARGEST, MOST POWERFUL COMPACT PICK UP!!" That's like someone getting into the guiness book of records for being the biggest midget.
I think the main problem with the Ranger is styling, but that's just me. I find it really dated, but i'm betting most people who buy this truck are really just looking for something functional. People looking to make a statement usually get something a lot bigger nowadays.
I think the main problem with the Ranger is styling, but that's just me. I find it really dated, but i'm betting most people who buy this truck are really just looking for something functional. People looking to make a statement usually get something a lot bigger nowadays.
#12
Big fan of the Ranger. My first "new" vehicle was a '92 Ranger XLT regular cab, 2wd. I got over 218,000 miles before it finally died. Over 100,000 on the first set of tires, Firestones even! No air or pwd, pwl, but I loved that truck. If I could get another Ranger, I would, but a wife, 2 kids, and a Rotweiler will put a stop to that. Oh well, guess I will have to get a F-150 quad cab.
#13
Originally posted by mustang_sallad@June 13, 2005, 11:41 AM
maybe he meant the aviator, i think that ones got the 5.4. But still, i don't think this pick up needs a 5.4 V8, that really goes against what Steve was suggesting. Sure the dakota's got a v8, but that things weird. "LARGEST, MOST POWERFUL COMPACT PICK UP!!" That's like someone getting into the guiness book of records for being the biggest midget.
I think the main problem with the Ranger is styling, but that's just me. I find it really dated, but i'm betting most people who buy this truck are really just looking for something functional. People looking to make a statement usually get something a lot bigger nowadays.
maybe he meant the aviator, i think that ones got the 5.4. But still, i don't think this pick up needs a 5.4 V8, that really goes against what Steve was suggesting. Sure the dakota's got a v8, but that things weird. "LARGEST, MOST POWERFUL COMPACT PICK UP!!" That's like someone getting into the guiness book of records for being the biggest midget.
I think the main problem with the Ranger is styling, but that's just me. I find it really dated, but i'm betting most people who buy this truck are really just looking for something functional. People looking to make a statement usually get something a lot bigger nowadays.
#14
Originally posted by cobradude@June 20, 2005, 12:09 PM
im pretty sure the aviator uses the 4.6L
im pretty sure the aviator uses the 4.6L
#15
I think the Aviator has the best engine (second best looks) in the entire FoMoCo SUV lineup (right ahead of the Expedition [best looks, second best engine] with the new 5.4L 3Valve). Too bad they didn't give it a low range, otherwise it would be perfect.
#17
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rangers need more power, my dad is in the market for a compact pickup and noted toyota's 2.7L 4cly matched and slightly beat the Ranger 3.0 in hp @ torque, all while being priced lower.
He agrees the Toyota is ugly as sin, but wants function over form. I guess it just put me in a point where I was ashamed at Ford. Still a strong supporter though.
He agrees the Toyota is ugly as sin, but wants function over form. I guess it just put me in a point where I was ashamed at Ford. Still a strong supporter though.
#18
Yes, you are correct about the engine specs but heres some other info I found.
Toyota Tacoma failed the NHTSA rollover test for 2004 and...
Ranger 04 recalls: 0
I did check base pricing on Edmunds and they are almost identical.
Ultimately you're Dad should get what he wants though no matter what it may be, I just thought I would share. Good luck
Toyota Tacoma failed the NHTSA rollover test for 2004 and...
Toyota. From the "Just When We Thought They Were Invincible" File comes news that Toyota - otherwise known as the "Sultans of Swat" and those "Can't Miss Kids" - is recalling 880,000 SUVs and trucks worldwide due to problems with the front suspension. The problem stems from a defective ball joint, which can make the vehicles difficult to steer. The recall includes 2001-2004 model year Tacoma trucks, 2001-2002 4Runners, and 2002-2004 models of the Sequoia and Tundra
I did check base pricing on Edmunds and they are almost identical.
Ultimately you're Dad should get what he wants though no matter what it may be, I just thought I would share. Good luck
#20
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 1999 Black 35th GT@June 21, 2005, 7:54 AM
Yes, you are correct about the engine specs but heres some other info I found.
Toyota Tacoma failed the NHTSA rollover test for 2004 and...
Ranger 04 recalls: 0
I did check base pricing on Edmunds and they are almost identical.
Ultimately you're Dad should get what he wants though no matter what it may be, I just thought I would share. Good luck
Yes, you are correct about the engine specs but heres some other info I found.
Toyota Tacoma failed the NHTSA rollover test for 2004 and...
Ranger 04 recalls: 0
I did check base pricing on Edmunds and they are almost identical.
Ultimately you're Dad should get what he wants though no matter what it may be, I just thought I would share. Good luck