Ford Ranger Production Extended Through 2011
#1
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Wisconsin / Serbia
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford Ranger Production Extended Through 2011
http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/new...n-to-2011.html
Ford Motor Company has announced that production of the Ranger compact pickup will continue through 2011 at its Twin Cities (Minn.) Assembly Plant, to meet renewed demand for the aged hauler. Production had been expected to halt by the end of 2009.
Ford Motor Company has announced that production of the Ranger compact pickup will continue through 2011 at its Twin Cities (Minn.) Assembly Plant, to meet renewed demand for the aged hauler. Production had been expected to halt by the end of 2009.
#3
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
This is what... the third time I've heard this?
I sure hope they are not kidding.
I went to my local dealer yesterday and they are not accepting orders.
There is one 4x4 on the lot.
They did a dealer locate for me and found 1 a thousand miles from here that was what I wanted.
I sure hope they are not kidding.
I went to my local dealer yesterday and they are not accepting orders.
There is one 4x4 on the lot.
They did a dealer locate for me and found 1 a thousand miles from here that was what I wanted.
#4
Ranger could become a one-engine wonder by the 2011MY. The 3.0L V6 is already out of production, and the 4.0L is getting ready to follow the little Vulcan out the door which would leave just the four cylinder model. This isn't as bad as it could be since the four cylinder is likely the engine most folks want in the Ranger right now, but it has occurred to me that the 4.6L, in either 2-valve or 3-valve trim, could make for an interesting replacement for the 4.0L V6 and would likely still knock down decent fuel economy. (the 3-valve unit would likely equal or better the 4.0L if backed by the Explorers 6-speed auto)
A 4.6L 3-valve Ranger could make for a rather interesting revival of the old 'Ranger GT', and it could potentially offer an avenue to a barely sub 20k, 300hp vehicle if they offered the engine in base, regular cab trim. The two valve units would accomplish much the same at a slightly cheaper price of entry, if with a bit worse fuel economy. Just a thought.
A 4.6L 3-valve Ranger could make for a rather interesting revival of the old 'Ranger GT', and it could potentially offer an avenue to a barely sub 20k, 300hp vehicle if they offered the engine in base, regular cab trim. The two valve units would accomplish much the same at a slightly cheaper price of entry, if with a bit worse fuel economy. Just a thought.
#5
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ranger could become a one-engine wonder by the 2011MY. The 3.0L V6 is already out of production, and the 4.0L is getting ready to follow the little Vulcan out the door which would leave just the four cylinder model. This isn't as bad as it could be since the four cylinder is likely the engine most folks want in the Ranger right now, but it has occurred to me that the 4.6L, in either 2-valve or 3-valve trim, could make for an interesting replacement for the 4.0L V6 and would likely still knock down decent fuel economy. (the 3-valve unit would likely equal or better the 4.0L if backed by the Explorers 6-speed auto)
A 4.6L 3-valve Ranger could make for a rather interesting revival of the old 'Ranger GT', and it could potentially offer an avenue to a barely sub 20k, 300hp vehicle if they offered the engine in base, regular cab trim. The two valve units would accomplish much the same at a slightly cheaper price of entry, if with a bit worse fuel economy. Just a thought.
A 4.6L 3-valve Ranger could make for a rather interesting revival of the old 'Ranger GT', and it could potentially offer an avenue to a barely sub 20k, 300hp vehicle if they offered the engine in base, regular cab trim. The two valve units would accomplish much the same at a slightly cheaper price of entry, if with a bit worse fuel economy. Just a thought.
#7
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
A 4.6L 3-valve Ranger could make for a rather interesting revival of the old 'Ranger GT', and it could potentially offer an avenue to a barely sub 20k, 300hp vehicle if they offered the engine in base, regular cab trim. The two valve units would accomplish much the same at a slightly cheaper price of entry, if with a bit worse fuel economy. Just a thought.
In reality, the 4cyl. reg cab barely weighs 3000 lbs and with no weight in the back the tires bark into 2nd gear.
With twice the HP the V8 reg cab would just be unmanageable for the average driver.
Save it for drag strip conversions with enormous rear tires.
.
As a one engine wonder the 2.3 is perfect. The 3.0 has less than 10 more HP and only a little more torque. It was just a carry over from the days of the old weak 4cyl engines. The 4.0 is terrible for gas mileage and negates the purpose of a small truck.
.
#9
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Wisconsin / Serbia
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#10
Factor in the benefit of having a place to stash all that excess 4.6L V8 production Ford has on hand at the moment, not to mention the potential benefit of being able to axe the 4.0L production line even sooner than had originally been planned (I have no idea why the Explorer hasn't already gone exclusively to the 4.6L) and there could be some noticeable monetary benefit in it for Ford. Assuming a modest production total of 25k units a year over two and a half years if this option allowed Ford to move 25k units of their total Ranger production with 2k dollars less in rebates on each unit then that would save Ford 126 million dollars over the same time span. That is a significant amount of money and was figured on a very conservative set of numbers since, at the moment, most Rangers carry a good bit more than 2k in rebates and 25k units combined per year of the two above options would likely be childs play. I would be willing to bet that V8 options like the above would easily account for half of all Ranger production over the next three years even with relatively high gas prices.
Of course FOrd would never do it..........Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Karman
Fun thought.
In reality, the 4cyl. reg cab barely weighs 3000 lbs and with no weight in the back the tires bark into 2nd gear.
With twice the HP the V8 reg cab would just be unmanageable for the average driver.
Save it for drag strip conversions with enormous rear tires.
.
As a one engine wonder the 2.3 is perfect. The 3.0 has less than 10 more HP and only a little more torque. It was just a carry over from the days of the old weak 4cyl engines. The 4.0 is terrible for gas mileage and negates the purpose of a small truck.
In reality, the 4cyl. reg cab barely weighs 3000 lbs and with no weight in the back the tires bark into 2nd gear.
With twice the HP the V8 reg cab would just be unmanageable for the average driver.
Save it for drag strip conversions with enormous rear tires.
.
As a one engine wonder the 2.3 is perfect. The 3.0 has less than 10 more HP and only a little more torque. It was just a carry over from the days of the old weak 4cyl engines. The 4.0 is terrible for gas mileage and negates the purpose of a small truck.
Last edited by jsaylor; 7/27/08 at 09:16 PM.
#11
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
There is an even better case for making a 2.3 turbo version.
The Mazdaspeed3 with the 2.3 turbo puts out 268 HP.
It would basically be a bolt on to the piping and intake with a different tune.
Adding the turbo to the existing base truck would probably put the price even lower.
The Mazdaspeed3 with the 2.3 turbo puts out 268 HP.
It would basically be a bolt on to the piping and intake with a different tune.
Adding the turbo to the existing base truck would probably put the price even lower.
#15
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Wisconsin / Serbia
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel Ranger could become a reality since Ranger offered in Europe, Asia and Australia does have a diesel engine as an option. And next US Ranger is being developed in Australia ...
#16
There is an even better case for making a 2.3 turbo version.
The Mazdaspeed3 with the 2.3 turbo puts out 268 HP.
It would basically be a bolt on to the piping and intake with a different tune.
Adding the turbo to the existing base truck would probably put the price even lower.
The Mazdaspeed3 with the 2.3 turbo puts out 268 HP.
It would basically be a bolt on to the piping and intake with a different tune.
Adding the turbo to the existing base truck would probably put the price even lower.
In the near term figuring out how to lose less money will be just as important as finding ways to make it for Ford Motor Company. A V8 Ranger could be one of those rare gems that would allow them to do both.
Originally Posted by Red Star
Sport truck is the last thing Ford needs.
I would rather see a small diesel.
I would rather see a small diesel.
If they put on blinders to everything but fuel sipping econo-boxes right now they will simply be finding a new venue for the same kind of poor, one-eyed strategic planning that led them down this road in the first place. I too would like to see a diesel Ranger at some point, but the truth of the matter is this is far from an either or comparison and we wont be getting a diesel Ranger in any form until the new global Ranger hits our shores which is more than a little while off at this point.
The V8 is almost certainly easily doable before the year is out. Would a V8-powered Ranger sell in six figure numbers right now? No. But they could easily move at least 50k per year without rebates and while making good use of a production facility and engine design currently losing large amounts of money due to severe under-utilization with minimal investment. And the overall fuel economy of the Ranger lineup wouldn't get any worse than it was with the 3.0L and 4.0L sixes in the lineup, and might actually improve. Sounds like a winner to me.
Would Ford do such a thing? Of course not. Because for all the worthwhile changes Mulally has made the truth of the matter is that he isn't an 'out of the box' kind of thinker, and this is most assuredly out of the box. And that is unfortunate.
Last edited by jsaylor; 7/28/08 at 07:09 PM.
#17
Again, I agree. But you are talking about the 2011MY at the earliest and, more likely the 2012MY. That is a long way off, and in the two plus years before that truck debuts Ford needs to be thinking about ways to accentuate the positive wherever they can.
#18
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Wisconsin / Serbia
Posts: 12,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing can be changed over night. Ford should've been thinking about this as soon as gas hit $2.00, not wait until it's $4.50.
#19