Another Era ends...

[Earl B.]

What the end of the Ford Ranger says about working in America | Motoramic - Yahoo! Autos

[Bleach]

There go another 800 US manufacturing jobs. :mad:

[Guest South_paw]

The Econoline van is a goner too. It will be replaced by a larger transit style van.

Ford is moving their large truck plant from Mexico to Ohio. At least that is some good news.

[1937hd45]

I'll never be a NEW vehicle owner, but I wouldn't mind having a good used Ranger.

[Bleach]

I've driven a recent model Ranger and I found it was too cramped for my 6'-2 frame. It was a regular cab with a stick. My knees frequently hit the wheel while pushing the clutch pedal or getting in/out of the cab. Maybe an extra cab would have been better. The driving position of my 94 F150 regular cab isn't that great either but the leg room is a little better. I can certainly haul more with it than I could with the Ranger, which always saved at least one trip vs two trips with the smaller truck.

[John_Maine]

Bleach, my son had a regular cab Ranger and now has an Extended cab. I'm much more comfortable in the Extended cab. Ford has discontinued the Ranger and Dodge has discontued the Dakota. Both trucks are rated the same mpg or in some cases less than the F-150 and Ram. Since that's the case and with the increase in CAFE requirements, it doesn't make sense for either Ford or Chrysler to put tons of money into updating them. Personally, I think it is a mistake to abandon that market segment. I often think that I'd like a truck but I don't need a big honkin' one all the time.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

The Econoline van is a goner too. It will be replaced by a larger transit style van.

Ford is moving their large truck plant from Mexico to Ohio. At least that is some good news.

Good news if 1000 workers from Mexico don't move to Ohio with the truck production! Of course some nit-wit politician will claim some number of new jobs were created in Ohio because of the move while conveniently forgetting about the 800 in Minnesota being laid off.

[Fleek]

I have a 91 Ranger standard cab, 4 cyl, 5 speed with a ton of miles on it. I do not use it much, just household and dump hauling but it has been a very dependable truck. It is small and not very comfortable, but for short runs it gets the job done. And I consider it fun to drive. I am glad to have it and plan to keep it around for a long time.

[Guest billybird]

Speaking of Rangers; my mother has a 1997 with less than 30,000 miles on it. She bought the truck new and just never drove it much. It's black, flairside rear fenders, chrome wheels and the original tires { white letters }. The truck has been in a garage or under a carport it's entire life. I told her; only 11 more years and you got an AACA vehicle there. {she don't care though }.

[Bleach]

It's a great truck for those who don't want to hassle with parking and find it's payload adequate.

John, I would have considered an extra cab Ranger but found my F150 for less than a comparably aged Ranger. I guess resale values are going to remain high, especially now.

[Dave@Moon]

I guess resale values are going to remain high, especially now.

I've been following the prices on Rangers lately. Around here they seem to consistently sell above Kelley Blue Book prices, which have barely changed for my truck (1996 ext. cab XLT 2wd 4 cyl. 5 speed well equipped 75k miles) over the last few years.

[John_Maine]

Used car values have gone up the last few years. The NADA retail on my son's '04 Ranger now with 85K on the clock is just about what he paid for it 4 years ago with 44K on it. I'm a loan officer and finance vehicles all the time and it's amazing what people are paying. I'm financing 4-5 year old trucks with 100K on them and they're still retailing for $20K or more. Same can be said for other vehicles as well.

[Dave@Moon]

Used car values have gone up the last few years. The NADA retail on my son's '04 Ranger now with 85K on the clock is just about what he paid for it 4 years ago with 44K on it. I'm a loan officer and finance vehicles all the time and it's amazing what people are paying. I'm financing 4-5 year old trucks with 100K on them and they're still retailing for $20K or more. Same can be said for other vehicles as well.

I believe a lot of this is being driven by the housing bubble and subsequent recession. The percentage of the buying public that now have no hope of new car financing has increased dramatically, and the pressure on the used car market (especially the low-end cars) from them is withering.

(The Ranger prices are a lot closer to book value than many other cars. Buying a used Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla is virtually a masochistic enterprise these days.)

I was forced to shop for a used car for my son 2 months ago. (I wound up buying & rebuilding a '96 Pontiac Grand Am from the Goodwill Auto Auction.) It was a nightmare. Anything listed on Craigslist or AutoTrader in this area for anything close to book value was gone in a matter of hours, or less. Most cars were priced well over book, and selling for that! The only exceptions were SUVs and other gas guzzlers (pickups, vans, V8 sedans).

I shudder to think what I would need to do if I got an insurance check for one of my hybrid cars. There's NO WAY I could replace either one for anything close to book value. The "new" one (2010) I could likely sell at a profit if I wanted to.

[Dave@Moon]

Anything listed on Craigslist or AutoTrader in this area for anything close to book value was gone in a matter of hours, or less.

In one case I found a 12 year old Honda Civic that was listed on Craigslist @ 2:00 AM, and was SOLD by 6:30 AM the same day! It was listed for exact book value, no less.

Who buys cars between those hours of the day?:confused:

[ted sweet]

too small to b a decent truck and makes a crapy daily driver

[Reattatude]

Era of the Ranger? Bah.

Gimme a fullsize Ford pick-up with 3-on-the-tree anyday! Now that was an era I enjoyed!

[Bleach]

Era of the Ranger? Bah.

Gimme a fullsize Ford pick-up with 3-on-the-tree anyday! Now that was an era I enjoyed!

The last one was available on the '86 F150's.

[Dave@Moon]

I think the era that is being missed is the era when a company the size of Ford Motor Co. could viably compete in every market. The dropping of the Ranger is basically a capitulation that Toyota beat them. (Toyota's the last major player left in this {admittedly shrinking} market segment that still comprised 263,513 vehicle sales in a bad 2009 sales year, roughly 112,000 of them Tacomas and 55,000 of them Rangers).

(Only the Ranger & Tacoma matter. The remaining mid-size trucks {even the continuing Nissan Frontier} sell in small fractions of the Ranger/Tacoma numbers.)

It has been 30 years since any major segment of the car market was deliberately left to manufacturers outside of the traditional "Big 3", and tellingly that segment was the mid-size truck (not counting the brief run of the captive imports Courier, Ram50, & LUV). If you think about it, it's a pretty momentous occasion that the U.S. automotive industry has deliberately abandoned a segment it so recently dominated. Momentous, and sad.

Latest sales figures for minivans and small trucks: GOOD CAR BAD CAR: Truck Sales

[Guest rsd9699]

I thought the Chevy HHR would have made a great comeback car for the El Camino but what do I know?

Ron

[NTX5467]

If y'all will venture down to Barnes&Noble, you'll find a current "truck" magazine with a picture of the NEW Ranger on it. Only thing is the NEW Ranger will not be available for sale in the USA, but probably everywhere else in the world. The Ranger's not dead, just not being sold in the USA. Future fuel economy issues???

It was noted that one reason that Ford suddenly broke onto the scene with better fuel economy in the F-series was to get former Ranger owners to consider a larger truck and keep them buying Ford trucks.

It would be interesting to see how many of the last Rangers were actually sold to invididuals rather than fleets (as O'Reilly auto parts and others) who wanted a less expensive, smaller truck and didn't necessarily need the larger F-series trucks in the first place.

The next Chevy Trailblazer will share the platform with the next-gen Chevy S-truck. It's already been shown overseas.

Considering how TALL current 1/2 ton trucks are, the smaller trucks make sense for many people who like the same lift-over height as a '69 Chevy C-10 2wd model had. Or trucks that don't need step bars/running boards as assists to just crawl into them!

For many years, light truck operatives have sold us on the "bigger is better . . . and more macho" orientation of light duty trucks. The Chevy Z-71 was originally a 4wd model only, but as many people liked the look and not the 4wd status, that option became a "looks like 4wd" situation. IF the smaller trucks didn't have a place, Toyota or Nissan would not be in that market.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[padgett]

Finally sold my Fiero but was not driving it anyway, too many SUV drivers just could not see when alongside. Reatta is getting into the small category now for some people. Maybe people realize that this is the last gasp of the blimpmobile and want to get theirs while they can.

Do think we are seeing a ripple effect in some areas (mainly the rust belt) where cars/trucks must be replaced periodically, few new ones have been sold since "cash for clunkers" went away, which also means few are coming off lease or being sold into the used market.

At the same time $20k for a 2010 is not bad when a 2012 is $35k. Inflation in action.

[poci1957]

the NEW Ranger will not be available for sale in the USA, but probably everywhere else in the world.

It would be interesting to see how many of the last Rangers were actually sold to invididuals rather than fleets (as O'Reilly auto parts and others) who wanted a less expensive, smaller truck and didn't necessarily need the larger F-series trucks in the first place.

The next Chevy Trailblazer will share the platform with the next-gen Chevy S-truck. It's already been shown overseas.

NTX5467 makes some very good observations here.

The key problem with the current Ranger is that it is outdated and would need a modern redesign and that would cost too much compared to just pushing Ranger people to just buy an F150. It is the classic Detroit solution--try to sell people the bigger vehicle that the company would rather they buy anyway.

BUT (as a Ford dealer sales manager) I still contend there are lots of people and businesses that really would like a compact pickup. And the automakers apparently forget that in the 1990s they sold compact trucks by the zillions to people who bought them rather than a compact car. In the early 1990s you could buy a regular cab Ranger or S10 in our market with the upgraded trim, nice wheels and stereo, and 5speed with Air and a 4cyl (or sometimes a small V6) for about $10,000. The same thing in an extended cab was about $12,000 as I recall, and so these were nice entry level transportation for about the price of a compact car. But you had to take a stick shift to save the money--by the time you bought a V6 automatic you were approaching the price of a full size half ton, just like today.

I say Ford could have built a modern Ranger off the current Escape unitbody platform (shared platforms as NTX said of GM). It would have decent front seat room, the unitbody should be acceptable for a compact truck, and there was a 2.5 litre 4cyl and a 3.0 V6 that both get good mileage. If such a truck were available with a 4cyl stick for about $15,990 it would have been huge IMO. AWD would be optional, just like the Escape, itself a huge hit for Ford BTW as a small SUV at a reasonable price. Could have been huge, what do you think? Todd C

[1912Staver]

I occasionally drive my Wife's 2007 Ranger. She loves it, I find it one of the least comfortable vehicles I have driven. She is a fairly average female build , I am on the tallish side at just short of 6 ft. 1and a bit. I find my prime sight line is smack dab thru the rear view mirror. If I significantly recline the seat my forward vision improves but my side vision lines up with the expanse of door frame. The seat seems to be mounted very high in the cab and has no height adjustment, fine if you are 5 ft. 8 but absurd otherwise. I have driven everything from Bug Eye Sprites, a Lotus Europa {for about a year} , mid ,and full size U.S. cars 1/2 ton and bigger trucks... you name it and this is one machine that I simpley wouldn't thank you for. I find my Volvo 240 wagon has a better carrying capacity {measured in quantity of trash to the dump} and beats it hands down in pretty much every other category. Like I say, my wife loves it, but clearly you must be of the correct size and build to make it work. And not realy expect it to be a "truck" in the normal use of the word.

Greg in Canada

Edited December 20, 2011 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Sweepspear]

I ocaisionaly drive my Wife's 2007 Ranger. She loves it, I find it one of the least comfortable vehicles I have driven. She is a fairly average female build , I am on the tallish side at just short of 6 ft. 1and a bit. I find my prime sight line is smack dab thru the rear view mirror. If I signifigantly recline the seat my forward vision improves but my side vision lines up with the expance of door frame. The seat seems to be mounted very high in the cab and has no hight adjustment, fine if you are 5 ft. 8 but absurd otherwise. I have driven everything from Bug Eye Sprites, a Lotus Europa {for about a year} , mid ,and full size U.S. cars 1/2 ton and bigger trucks... you name it and this is one machine that I simpley woulden,t thank you for. I find my Volvo 240 wagon has a better carying capacity {measured in quantity of trash to the dump} and beats it hands down in pretty much every other catagory. Like I say, my wife loves it, but clearly you must be of the correct size and build to make it work. And not realy expect it to be a "truck" in the normal use of the word.

Greg in Canada

Really?

I'm 6'-2" with a large frame, and find it to be a very comfortable truck even for long distances. The mirror is well above my line of vision, but I always push those mirrors up as high as they can go in every vehicle I drive.

I have hauled many heavy things with ease.

I currently own my 2nd Ranger, and in 5 years or so when I want another vehicle, I will buy another Ranger!

Sad to see.

Ford is delusional if they think someone looking to buy a Ranger will want an F-150. The Ranger was never famous for great gas mileage. It has a reputation as being a reasonably sized and reliable truck.

I can't say enough good things about them.

Even Orkin Pest Control said in a news article that the F-150 is not a viable replacement for their fleet.

[Bleach]

The mirror in 94 F150 is right in my line of sight and I find it very annoying. Also the brake and clutch pedals are mounted too high. It seems you would need some really big feet to make them positioned right. The best truck I ever owned was a '93 Silverado extra cab. The driving position was perfect, the brake pedal was at the perfect height and the rear view mirror never blocked any view. I still regret that I ever sold it. I'd trade the F150 for one in a heartbeat.

[Guest Caribou]

I'll never be a NEW vehicle owner, but I wouldn't mind having a good used Ranger.

I picked up a 94, for free no less. It's ugly as sin but a great little truck for short commutes, taking stuff to the dump and moving things you don't want in the cab of your car. Tiny little engine and great on gas.

I've got a 250 that doesn't see half the road time the Ranger does, not with that kind of mileage and bulk.

The big trucks are less fun to drive anyway, it feels like they're using every ounce of power they've got just to drag themselves sluggishly around.

The scene that article describes is pretty sad.

[Bleach]

Perhaps if the trucks were equipped with the base engines. Every full sized truck I've owned, except for an 85 F150, had one of the more or most powerful V8's that were available. They had more than enough power available than I usually needed. They were anything but sluggish.

The base powered Ranger I had the opportunity to drive for a month needed every ounce of power it could produce to keep up with freeway driving and it was fresh off the lot. And that was without any real load in the bed.

[caddyshack]

We bought our son a new Ranger in '92 while he was in high school and was also used for the first few years of college. Good starter vehicle, but I have to agree with others that it is not built for 6'-2", 220 lb. people. The "end of an era" is sad to see because the Ford Plant that is shutting down is in my back yard (St. Paul, MN) and it will affect many employees. The plant opened in 1925/6 and has had a long history of providing quality jobs and a variety of cars, trucks, and also war machinery during WWII. The facility had its own power plant, glass making plant, and full assembly lines. What a shame to see it close. Good luck to the skilled workers that gave it their all.

[1912Staver]

Hi Dale, the mirror I am talking about is the one glued to the inside of the windshield. Perhaps I haven't examined it closely but I don't think it has an adjustment. The payload is fine but the box is quite small, it's a extra cab with the shorter box. No problem if your cargo is a core engine from a swap meet, but pretty small for general "truck" stuff. {or a load to the dump, we live in a rural area without weekly garbage PU.} I think the main problem for me is that the seat is a good 4 inches too high. Otherwise I have to agree that within it's design limitations its a fairly good vehicle. I have owned / driven many varied vehicles in 40 odd years of my own use plus several years as a mechanic, and the Ranger is one of the few that I haven't found a way to adapt to my body type/ preferred driving position. If someone gave me one I would either sell it, or modify the seat mount. I have a 1969 GS 400 that I would drive everywhere if it wern't for the cost of fuel.

Greg in Canada

Edited December 20, 2011 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

The payload is fine but the box is quite small, it's a extra cab with the shorter box. No problem if your cargo is a core engine from a swap meet, but pretty small for general "truck" stuff.

Rangers have all had 6' beds regardless of cab type since the beginning, except for a few very rare 7' beds that were optional for a while on non-extended cab models. (The seven footers used extended cab frames.)

I'm 5'11", and the Ranger driving position is almost ideal for me. I've never had any problems with it in 16 years of both of us aging.

My '96 is a dog, as are all 4 cylinder trucks. Actually my '89 Mitsubishi was even slower (2.0L). It bothers me every once and a while, then I pass a gas station!

When I bought my Mitsubishi (also a stripper/base model) it stickered for $7900 w/ a/c, which at the time was less than the cost of a new Escort (base) with a/c. Rangers were essentially priced the same. Today a Ranger costs MUCH more than a Focus (to say nothing of a Fiesta). I priced a 2012 Ranger 2 months ago. The base price was $18.2 for an utter stripper of a truck. The 2012 equivalent of my well-equipped '96 Ranger (sticker $15,200) would sticker around $24,000.

With incentives F150s are often outright cheaper than Rangers, which is absurd! It almost has to be deliberate.

Despite recent downturns Ford sells more Rangers than Mustangs, Tauruses, Explorers, and Transits. They've sold over 75,000 Rangers so far in calendar year 2011. The argument that a redesign wouldn't be cost effect just doesn't hold water.

[poci1957]

When I bought my Mitsubishi (also a stripper/base model) it stickered for $7900 w/ a/c, which at the time was less than the cost of a new Escort (base) with a/c. Rangers were essentially priced the same. Today a Ranger costs MUCH more than a Focus (to say nothing of a Fiesta). I priced a 2012 Ranger 2 months ago. The base price was $18.2 for an utter stripper of a truck. The 2012 equivalent of my well-equipped '96 Ranger (sticker $15,200) would sticker around $24,000.

With incentives F150s are often outright cheaper than Rangers, which is absurd! It almost has to be deliberate.

Dave, you are correct once again and absurd is the right word. Sticker price on a 2wd XL (Base) Ext Cab with a 4cyl, Auto & Air is about $21,500, and at that price markup and rebates are both slim. No wonder no one wants one, I sure would not at that price.

Fleet sales are priced differently, so Orkin and auto parts stores continued buying lots of them and the public would too IMO if they had realistic pricing and updated design. Todd C

PS--in 1991 we advertised a new S10 Regular Cab 2wd w/2.8 V6, 5spd and Air for $9995 and they sold like hotcakes. 1991 Rangers were available with a similar deal, and both included cloth interiors in an upgrade trim level, nice wheels, tape deck, and other upgrades, a real value as long as you could drive a stick. Ford and Chevy both sold over 200,000 each.

Edited December 20, 2011 by poci1957 (see edit history)

[Bleach]

Even in 1985 when I bought my "new" F150, there were better incentives toward buying the F150 over the Ranger. Even though the base Ranger was $1000 less than than a base F150, I was able to get twice as much ($500 vs $1000) for my trade in, a POS worn out 76 Courier if I bought the F150.

[Guest Skyking]

Ford is delusional if they think someone looking to buy a Ranger will want an F-150.

Sounds a little like what Chrysler said when discontinuing the Plymouth. "They'll buy Dodges". Didn't happen.

[John_Maine]

The only complaint I have about my son's Ranger is that without the tilt wheel, the top of the steering wheel blocks my view of the speedo.