Zastava_101

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.

GT40 2

Ford should refresh it.

karman

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.

jsaylor

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.

Moosetang

Everything you say is valid, but a 4.6 isn't going to set the Ranger sales on fire, and a lack of same isn't going to hurt it terribly over the next couple years. Ford would rather put the $$$ into getting the F-100 and Ranger II out quicker.

cheech6g

Does anyone know when the F-100 and Ranger II are supposed to be released?

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.
.

GtStang4

I am glad they will continue for a few more years, this is my 5th and my daily driver..

Zastava_101

2011 or 2012 I think.

jsaylor

I dunno Moosetang, I think one or both of the 4.6L V8's as an option could reasonably be expected to account for as many as 40-50 thousand units per year which wouldn't need discounts to move given the relatively low pricing they could likely wear. A 4.0L, 2wd Ranger XLT with decent options sticker for 18,500.....adding the 4.6L 2-valve/SOHC and a suitable suspension, brake upgrade to that mix would likely add very little to the trucks bottom line and should easily sticker for under 20k. That would make Ranger the only sub 20k V8 on the market. Given the sub 22k price of a relatively loaded Extended Cab, 4wd, XLT model a 3-valve powered 4.6L should easily be able to stay under 25k even if you added the Explorer's six speed and awd to the list. Of course, both options could easily be paired with 4wd as well.

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.

I think there is a business case to be made, although I do agree on the 4.0L. And, I even addressed your drive-ability fears for the 300hp version in my impromptu options analysis. Of course, the V8's wouldn't do much better than the 4.0L in terms of fuel economy., but given the power produced they do bring a better excuse to the table.

karman

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.

Zastava_101

Sport truck is the last thing Ford needs.

I would rather see a small diesel.

karman

Well of course you are correct.
Fantasy is fun too.

the procrastinator

I'd take a diesel in a Ranger crew cab like the one Ford sells in Europe. That truck looks a thousand times better than a Sporttrac.

Zastava_101

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 ...

jsaylor

I thought about that. My reasoning with the V8 is that profit and loss in the near term have become a game of chess for Ford. Arguably, it would be cheaper to stuff the 4.6L under the hood than the turbo four even with the greater mods needed for the V8 because Ford has a massive over-capacity for V8 production at the moment. This goes well beyond simply making money by selling trucks since Ford is actually losing money, and a lot of it, because these huge facilities designed to produce V8 engines are under-utilized right now. The more V8 engines Ford can find a good use for right now, and without the need for huge rebates, the better.

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.

Ford and GM aren't aren't in dire straits right now because they didn't respond to trends, rather they are in the financial bind they currently find themselves mired in because they bet the figurative farm on a trend (suv's and large pickups) over-reacting to market whims in the extreme.

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.

jsaylor

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.

Zastava_101

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.

jsaylor

Absolutely, but they didn't. And now they have to go about fixing what shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

Zastava_101

I just hope it won't be too late.

If I'm not mistaken Ford lost over $18 billion in the past 18 months.