Full-size truck sales have tanked this year thanks to the high gas prices. So Ford may extend the life of its very old compact Ranger truck another two years.
Ford originally planned on killing the Ranger at the end of 2009, but under this new plan the small truck would stay in production until 2011, when a new global version will be ready. The new truck will be produced overseas.
This would be good news for the workers at Ford's Twin Cities Assembly Plant in St. Paul, Minn. since the factory was scheduled to be closed at the same time that the Ranger production is scheduled to end.
Full Story: Detroit News
Related Stories:
Ford Kills Plans for a 6.2L V8 in the All-New F-150
Ford Delays the Launch of the All-New 2009 F-150
Comments (23)
Should read "Ford May be Kept on Life Support Until 2011".
Posted by Tommy Boy | June 25, 2008 7:54 AM
Posted on June 25, 2008 07:54
How about invest some of your freakin money and redesign the freakin thing? Shortsight mofo.
Posted by Topper | June 25, 2008 9:01 AM
Posted on June 25, 2008 09:01
Obviously the are redesigning it. That's why a new version is comming out in 2011.
Ranger sales have been up recently due to the gas prices. Sometimes smaller is better.
Posted by Insipient calabash | June 25, 2008 10:13 AM
Posted on June 25, 2008 10:13
i honestly think that the ranger looks better than almost all other pickup trucks on the market. At least the one pictured here does. For someone who needs the utility of a pickup and maybe wants to do a little off roading but wants decent fuel economy this is a great choice. 20+ mpg in the city and hwy. This thing is probably one of fords better models.
Posted by Ryan | June 25, 2008 10:46 AM
Posted on June 25, 2008 10:46
If I'm not mistaken, the Ranger and Chevy/GMC Colorado/Canyon are the last two trucks that can be considered "compact". And the GM twins only just.
I think this category of truck is going to have a bit of a renaissance if gas price stay as they are or go higher.
Ford would be smart NOT to increase the size of the Ranger when the re-design comes in 2011. Otherwise they'd like kill the reason for getting one in the first place.
Posted by AutoBot | June 25, 2008 11:02 AM
Posted on June 25, 2008 11:02
What ever happened to small trucks? I still see a lot of S10s and similar sized trucks from the late 80s early 90s being driven today.
Posted by gm0n3y | June 25, 2008 11:52 AM
Posted on June 25, 2008 11:52
i dont care for the ranger, i like the nissan frontier or the toyota tacoma, did you guys ever see the episode of top gear when the guys drove a desil tacoma to the north pole... thats a versitile and tough little truck, also on top gear the baby toyota pickuptruck was in a competition to see how much stress it would take before it fell apart and it kept on going they sunk it they trhew it of a 50 story high rise and with the help of a mechanic but no spare parts where able to get her up and runnning everytime, this ford will just break down without anyone messing with it...
Posted by dennisil | June 25, 2008 12:17 PM
Posted on June 25, 2008 12:17
3 more years of rednecks talk'n bout their "danger ranger"
Posted by akkadain | June 25, 2008 1:19 PM
Posted on June 25, 2008 13:19
The Ranger is good little truck that has been severely neglected by Ford. I have a 2003 that I bought new, with a V6 and an auto I get 25mpg highway out of it.
To dennisil:
I have over 100k miles on my Ranger and it still runs like brand new. I've never had a problem with it other than replacing the IAC valve ($30). If you have been keeping up on your auto news you have seen the Toyota buyback on the Tacomas where they were rusting THROUGH the frame after only a few years. Japanese != automatic quality.
Posted by Jake | June 25, 2008 1:36 PM
Posted on June 25, 2008 13:36
I am surprised that it took Ford so long to come to this conclusion. It seemed like a poor idea to phase out production of a a smaller/more efficient truck right as fuel prices in the States skyrocketed. It amazes me how many true compact trucks from the late 80's -early 90's are still on the road. (Fanger, S10, Frontier, Tacoma) .
Posted by longdxcommuter | June 25, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted on June 25, 2008 13:50
what 's tis?
An american Unimog?
Are they really trying to sell this, or is it a freebee with a lawnmovers or so?
Posted by waldorf and statler | June 25, 2008 6:04 PM
Posted on June 25, 2008 18:04
waldorf and statler:
what 's tis?
An american Unimog?
Are they really trying to sell this, or is it a freebee with a lawnmovers or so?
are you on drugs? an american unimog? the ranger is a COMPACT truck. ok i understand if you dont live here in the states, but all over this whole article it clearly states its a small truck. and well the rest of your comment i dont even understand.
Posted by Charlie | June 25, 2008 8:49 PM
Posted on June 25, 2008 20:49
@charlie
last time i checked, an unimog stood at little over 16 ft. Looks and sounds like a small truck. Unless you are on drugs ofcourse which i s likely since you dont understand the rest of my comment.
Posted by waldorf and statler | June 26, 2008 4:25 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 04:25
waldork at it again. what a lame @ss.
Posted by Sandman | June 26, 2008 6:12 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 06:12
While tempting, I can never justify the purchase of a small truck like this in my head. A friend of mine bought a toyota tacoma (4 cyl, 4x4, single cab) with the thought of being able to get good truck capability and good gas mileage. Turns out he gets about 21 mpg average. People regularly get ~18 mpg in a 1500 class full size so it is hard to justify buying the less capable truck for a paltry 3-5 mpg increase. I think you are better off just driving a small car with ~35 mpg and then keeping around a beater full size truck for the times when you need it. If automakers wanted to make the small truck argument really interesting they'd produce a small truck with maybe 120 hp that gets more like 30 mpg. Then you would only have to buy one vehicle that would both get good gas mileage and do the service of a truck.
Posted by Alysandra | June 26, 2008 6:56 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 06:56
@sandwichman
thanks, buddy. Go to sleep.
Posted by waldorf and statler | June 26, 2008 7:01 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 07:01
@alysandra
very very tru!
And by the way, you dont need 'a beater full size truck for the times when you need it', because you can rent one. Or find a 'johnny' that has one.
Posted by waldorf and statler | June 26, 2008 7:06 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 07:06
The Ranger and Canyon/Colorado would be awesome with a 4-cyl turbo diesel.
Posted by Sabby | June 26, 2008 7:09 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 07:09
Bravo, the Ranger is one of the few things Ford has done right over the years. They have long since paid for their tooling, and reliability is very high. 160K+ on my '97 and still going.
Posted by WS | June 26, 2008 7:12 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 07:12
@Alysandra
The thing is, a small truck doesn't just get 3MPG (I'm surprised that's its that little of a difference, most larger trucks have V8s) better fuel economy, its also significantly cheaper than a full size. Not to mention that some people (me included) just like smaller trucks in general. I don't want to have to drive some giant hulking monstrosity around the city. Parking is hard enough to find with a car. For people that just want a truck to haul the odd appliance / furniture around and don't have a boat / trailer to tow, these small trucks make a lot of sense.
Posted by gm0n3y | June 26, 2008 3:37 PM
Posted on June 26, 2008 15:37
waldork, do you make any other noise than that horrid sucking sound? If you pull it out of your @ss it wont do that. I keep telling you this.
Posted by Sandman | June 26, 2008 9:28 PM
Posted on June 26, 2008 21:28
As a former owner of a 2002 Ranger that I miss terribly. I say if it aint broke, don't fix it. Yes it does not have the power that it competitors has and the basic chassis is based on the first generation Explorer. But they do get great gas mileage, are fairly comfortable, are built like rocks (Especially with 3.0 Vulcan). And they were ahead of their time (First Compact Pick-Up to have a 5-speed AUTOMATIC transmission, GM still does not have one)
and to Alysandra, They do make a pick-up like that, It is the Ford Ranger with the 2.3l 4-banger. It does make 143hp but it gets close to 29mpg on the highway with the 5-Speed Manual Transmission.
Posted by Mark | June 27, 2008 6:12 PM
Posted on June 27, 2008 18:12
As the humble owner of a "96 Mazda B3000 (nee Ranger) I would like to tell all you young @ss wind bags that I just turned 230K miles and get 20mpg. Except for tires and brakes I have spent less than $1500 on non regular maintenance since I bought it used in '99 when I was only 62. Ranger is probably the best thing Ford builds if you just want to get somewhere ( like annual round trips VA to TX) and not be a juvenile showoff. I hope the replacement has a 4cyl 2liter turbo desiel. I might be ready to trade,
Posted by R.D.M. | August 16, 2008 12:55 PM
Posted on August 16, 2008 12:55