Filed under: Trucks/Pickups, Etc., Ford
The Ranger is (nearly) dead, long live the Ranger
And then there was one. All of the Ford Ranger's contemporaries have forsaken the compact segment for the middleweight class. The Ranger is long in the tooth, to say the least, but we love the smaller size and many find it a good blend of truck functionality without the bulk and heft of a full-size. You can buy into a Ranger for $15 grand, which is a reasonable point of entry for a work truck. There used to be F150s outfitted for labor in that price range, but good luck finding a decontented full-sizer now. While the Ranger's platform is now exclusive to the model, it did sire the Explorer, via the Bronco II. Lineage aside, it's typically expensive for an automaker to have a platform that doesn't get shared, but the underpinnings of the Ranger have long been paid for. We suspect that's part of why we're not seeing much action in the trucklet arena from Ford. To engineer a new Ranger would cost money (that's arguably better spent elsewhere right now), and moving the smallest Ford Truck to a new platform raises conflicts with other models.
Gallery: Ford Ranger Photochops
continued after the jump with photochops to illustrate ideas
One potential move for Ford would be to revisit the familial ties between the Explorer and the Ranger. The Sport Trac is already filling a niche for weekend warriors, and likely swiping some Ranger sales. Shortening the Sport Trac's cab to a two door affair and lengthening the bed would get you 99% of the way there. The IRS under the Sport Trac could be replaced by a leaf-sprung live axle to keep costs down, though it'd require an infusion of cash to engineer the retrofit. Following this recipe would give Ford an offering in the mid-size truck segment that everyone else has fled to. This seems to be the way Ford went in Thailand with the 4-Trac concept. The problem with this scheme, we think, is that a truckier Sport Trac would be an F150 competitor. The size gulf isn't wide between the two, and the optional V8 in the Sport Trac is powerful enough to do some real work.
Another tack may be to develop a unibody "suburban duty" compact pickup off a car platform. Think of the Ridgeline – sure, it's not capable of towing houses like other pickups, but it's a far more pleasant driver, which matters for people who use their trucks mainly to commute. It's a more sensible option for people that will use the truck like a car. While its styling is polarizing, the Ridgeline shows that there's more than one way to build a pickup, and not everyone needs body on frame construction. The C1 platform that the Euro Focus rides on would lend itself well to truckination. Alternatively, think of how good the clean lines of the Flex might look with a bed. Ford's got AWD across their platform range now, which would boost pulling prowess. We would hate to see a car-based Ranger be more of a Ranchero-y type thing, so increased ride height is a must. Of course, the car platforms cost more to build than Ranger (well, what doesn't?), and there's only so much capacity.
Alternatively, an Escape with two thirds of the roof lopped off and no rear doors would make a credible entry, too. The availability of hybrid drivetrain sweetens the pot, too. It's not just passenger cars that can maximize their fuel economy. In fact, we see a hybrid system developed with trucks in mind as a great thing. The low-rpm torque characteristics of electric motors lend themselves to truck work, and a series hybrid layout would ensure that the motors never run out of juice, even if you're towing up the Continental Divide. A more conventional hybrid with a larger engine using cylinder deactivation could also reap efficiency benefits. By recalibrating the cylinder shutoff to keep the "extra" cylinders off until the batteries are depleted or max forza is required, even a truck could be a fuel-sipper.
Of course, all of these alternatives to the current Ford policy of riding out the incumbent Ranger until it has fully withered require money. Executed correctly, however, a re-thought Ranger could create demand, imagine that. We hope that the Ranger continues on and keeps its smallish proportions. There were rumors of a new Ranger dropping in 2010, but we're not sure what the state of that program is. If the compact truck segment is fully vacated when this current Ranger is finally taken out and shot, we think it'll be a loss.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Henry 7:29PM (5/13/2007)
A new Ranger has already been engineered and it is being sold in Thailand.
Bring the Thai Ranger to North America and sell it here. It is a damn fine truck that would require minimal changes to be sold in North America.
The Thai Ranger is slightly larger than the current Ranger and with fuel cost only rising in the future there will be increased demand for smaller vehicles.
Reply
nj 7:34PM (5/13/2007)
They should at least keep it small. After the dakota went midsize in 97 all other compact trucks followed except the ranger. Keeping it small keeps it in a class by itself.
Reply
whofan 7:37PM (5/13/2007)
Why change the Ranger anyway? Its still a good truck and in my opinion the best looking small truck. Ford should promote Rangers size and fuel efficentcy more. Now days its hard to find a bare bones standard truck. Ranger fills the bill. I like the Dodge Dakota but when you look at price and mileage why not just go fullsize? Replacement parts for the Ranger should be cheap. I don`t know why Ford bothered with building the sport trac. Rangers` size may be good for Ford if they start to market it as a economy truck. Everyone else got bloated over the years.
Reply
3cubedminus3squared 7:50PM (5/13/2007)
I like y'alls photoshop of the explorer front on the f-f15 body. The others look awkward.
And yeah the current ranger is a decent truck and looks better than the Dakota. If they just advertised it a bit more it could sell more.
Reply
Viv 7:50PM (5/13/2007)
I actually like the Flex version of the Ranger the best.
Reply
Will 8:04PM (5/13/2007)
The thing the ranger needs most is new powerplants/trannys.
Reply
yankee 8:09PM (5/13/2007)
After driving a 1986 RANGER to 180000 and my 1995 to 194000 and still going give me a new RANGER small and dependable
Reply
JayP 8:28PM (5/13/2007)
Mod the current platform, make it a fuel mileage leader. 4 cyl gas, diesel, and for some fun, the 3.5 V6. Something to scoot to the Home Depot and not suck.
Anyone wanting a V8 will get the F150.
Reply
Paul 8:34PM (5/13/2007)
I wish you guys had used the newest Escape for the basis of the Escape Ranger, it would look better. I think that using the Escape as a basis is the best idea, Escape's platform is great and could make a great small pickup. Ford should definitely stick with it - pickups ARE getting bloated and a still-small Ranger could definitely be a major niche vehicle. Go for it.
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 8:55PM (5/13/2007)
I personally think small truck buyers would be happy if the Ranger got a new look, new interior, and a few updated motors.
Reply
Rob Huck 9:08PM (5/13/2007)
Whenever I think of the Ranger, I remember my brief career at the local Ford dealer. There was one guy who would stop by about twice a week and look at the Rangers. He kept telling us he was going to trade in his 2-year-old Focus for a Ranger. He never took a test drive and never came into the dealership building to discuss numbers. He just looked at the Rangers. He never bought. I'm sure his wife wouldn't have let him. I have hated Rangers ever since then.
Reply
cgarison 9:11PM (5/13/2007)
I think the Flex-amino concept is really cool. I just wish it would have a price tag closer to the Ranger than the F150.
Reply
Chris 9:32PM (5/13/2007)
I drove a 2WD 94 Ranger with the 4.0 V6 for 180,000 miles over 7 years. I drove this thing like a 4WD and the only problem I ever had with it was the paint job - and the local dealer repainted it at no charge before the warranty ran out. Excellent truck.
Reply
summazooma 9:34PM (5/13/2007)
I agree that the Ranger isn't as bad a concept as the actual execution dooms it to be... give it a decent (but still straightforward) interior, with the kind of master-planning that allows for a cool "hip" metallic trim and black interior as well as the standard gray and beige work truck look, and you might actually make a dent in the market. (I agree with the previous post about using the 3.5l V6, a diesel and a modern I4... and I'd add the revisiting of an EV Ranger, this time as a plug in HEV.)
While you're at it, update the non-structural sheetmetal with aggressive fender bulges and blunt forms; Though the base model might look slightly like a kid dressed in his parent's clothes, the top models would look butch enough to be credible. This strategy doesn't hurt the last few generations of Toyota small truck (HiLux/Tacoma)...
Seems the biggest issue (besides the return on investment of what we're talking about here) is probably the whole regulatory issue (I doubt the current truck does well in current crash testing, much less future testing... does it even have side airbags?)
Reply
toronado455 9:48PM (5/13/2007)
I agree with #9, the Escape version makes the most sense, and the updated Escape looks more "truck-like", so even better. Add a tad more rear overhang and VOILA!
Reply
far jr 9:49PM (5/13/2007)
I'm with Paul. The compact Escape would be the right size for a Ranger replacement. The front clip on the new one is more truck-like than the outgoing model too. Hybrid powertrain option for those shopping for economy. Most compact truck buyers don't need to haul and tow heavy loads, so the independent rear suspension should be fine for them not to mention a great ride for a truck. Some will complain no matter what Ford decides but smaller is better for the Ranger IMO.
Reply
Bryan 9:55PM (5/13/2007)
This goes along with the Explorer story. Now that we see the market changing, I guess Ford was right to not do anything much with the Ranger. It would be easy to move the ranger to the current Explorer platform. However, with that platform going away, it would not make much sense unless the current Explorer platform is paid off. Then it would make sense. I love the little Ranger, its a great truck that will go forever, just as the Explorer will. However, Ford needs to do something with it. An ex-friend of mine told me he loves Ford but the Ranger was too small and the Sport Trac too expensive. So he bought a Tacoma, which is not only hideous, but completely cheap looking inside. The seat positions are horrid as well. He told me what made the deal was the electrical outlet in the bed. I said..are you kidding me? You spent nearly 30k for this turd because it had a accesory plug in the bed?? I think that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard in my life. Anyways, Ford needs a new Ranger, It would help sales.
Reply
dan 9:56PM (5/13/2007)
2007 Ranger supercab 4x2
126" WB, 3380lbs, 24/29 EPA, $14,7 base invoice.
2007 Colorado extended cab 4x2
126" WB, 3470lbs, 20/26 EPA, $15.4 base invoice
2007 Tacoma access cab 4x2
127" WB, 3460lbs, 23/28 EPA, $16.2 base invoice
The compact truck is alive and well.
Reply
Steve 9:58PM (5/13/2007)
My 99 Ranger saved my life when a truck full of illegals lost control and crossed the center line. I ended up t-boning him at a combine speed of over 110MPH (~50 for me and 63MPH(est) when he lost it). My little bare bones short cab/bed Ranger took it. I ended up with a crushed right foot and broken femur (brake pedal) but it could have been far far worse. I remember the whole thing, even the guys being ejected from the bed of the other truck. Two people died that night, but my Ranger ensured that it wasn't three. A DAMN good truck, I don't care what people say.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/611/2150/1600/100_0186.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/611/2150/1600/100_0193.jpg
(note the windshield in the last one, that is where one of the guys hit)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/611/2150/1600/100_0184.jpg
Reply
Jaymez 10:13PM (5/13/2007)
Having driven many miles in a Ranger and Colorado, I don't see the size difference. The Ranger seemed a tad taller, but, otherwise they seemed to be the same size.
Reply