It's (apparently) official: The Ford Ranger is dead come 2009
One little fact buried in the linked piece about Ford's $2 billion UAW savings is this: the Ranger is dead come 2009. It has been known for a while that the Twin Cities Plant in St. Paul, MN that makes the Ranger would close, and the closure date has been pushed back one year, to 2009. The Cleveland plant that casts engine blocks will also close that year. Credit goes to Automotive News for teasing out these new nuggets of info.
We wrote earlier about possible rescue scenarios for the Ranger, but it looks like the Ranger mine has been shut down and sealed off. Mulally has said that Ford will be more forthcoming about its plans at the Detroit show, so anything is still possible. However, after 26 years, it looks like the compact pickup truck thrill is gone. For you Ranger fans out there, the tune you're looking for is "Taps."
[Source: Auto News, sub req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Robert Hudson 2:06PM (3/29/2008)
Ford's illogical decision to stop production of their only compact pickup truck simply indicates a rank insensitivity to market forces. They are apparently out of touch with us, the buyers, many of whom are struggling with increasingly higher gas prices. Where is the spirit of innovation at Ford? If they ever had the common sense to build a compact truck that had improved fuel economy, the public would respond in droves.
Reply
Scott Hughes 1:27AM (8/17/2008)
I shouldn't even go there with my comments but FORD you screwing up again. If I could get Alan Mulally or Mark Fields ( Mark will go into history as a failure to FOMOCO ) to listen for one second, my Ford stock would be looking better then it does now.
How much did you pay for a gallon of gas lately?? The Ford Ranger is a tired old beast of a truck but if I could run Ford For a day, Twin Cities would be cranking out every 4 banger Ranger I could get out of the place. But here is the master plan. Design and tooling cost have long since been paid for so that just leaves cost of material and overhead/labor to build them. BTW that represents about a 90-10 percent split. I would put them on the dealers lot that would be so aggressively priced that no one could afford to look further than Ford for this segment vehicle. Ween the rebate money to $500 or less and sell,sell,sell!
I just bought a 2004 Ranger (used of course) and get a lot of pleasure out of it. So much so that I have parked my 2007 F-150 FX2. I did not buy it for gas mileage. I bought it because I like it.
Maybe love it.
I bleed Ford Blue, I made a living for 15 years at the best plant in Ford's North American Production System (Norfolk Assembly Plant)before it was idled in favor of Dearborn Truck( Nice plant in the bowls of Hell).
I used and sponsored 13 AXZ plans in 2007(all that was available to me for the year). I don't know that this entitles me to anything but an opinion.
So Ford, save a few American jobs, make a little money while people gravitate to some mean between the price of gas vs. choice of transportation, and keep the Ranger alive for a while to fill that need. And Mark, keep your resum'e updated.
Idea: Think Bronco based on a Escape platform with 2 long doors and a removable fiberglass top. Perhaps the Jeep fighter. Flex? Who bought off on that idea? Nice car but geez, you have the Escape, Edge, Explorer, Expedition, Taurus X, and Flex?
Just venting, I will take my Ativan now and go away.
Reply
Richard 4:50AM (10/24/2008)
Ranger is underpowered, overpriced, provides a terrible ride quality, has no payload capacity, and has engine and transmission problems (except the 4.0L combo is better). 3.0L is the worst motor ford has made since the 2.9L which was a complete disaster.
automatic transmissions in the 3.0L are disposable, plan on changing them every 50,000kms.
The ride is horrible, the extended cab shouldn't even have seats in it, it won't hold much more than 2 good size mens lunch cans.
I have nothing good to say about a ford ranger, except it actually was reliable... all break downs at least gave you some notice. Only time it left me walking (luckily was only 10 kms from town) Was when the rear end went the 3rd time.
Reply
Bobby O 12:35PM (12/16/2008)
For Sale: 2000 Ranger, 3.0L Flex Fuel, New HD Clutch, new brake pads, Runs great and looks great. Comes w/ (if you want) 2 styles of beds and 2 toppers and 2 sets of wheels: 15" and 16". 113,000 mi. I have 2 other Rangers. This one goes for $4500.00. Good tires and a Class V hitch onboard. Look see at craigslist Denver under 2000 Ford Ranger. 719-836-1565
Buy it. Fill it with grain alcohol and live the life. Pull Silverados out of the ditch all day long. The little big hoss: Ranger !
-Fairplay, CO.
Reply
dan spalinger 3:08PM (11/20/2007)
A true shame and an opportunity missed by Ford...as the Frontier and Tacoma have gotten bigger and bigger, heavier and heavier and pricier and pricier, the Ranger remained a true compact pickup in terms of size and price...Who will pick up the mantel?? Likely no one...
Reply
Bill 6:43PM (11/20/2007)
Perhaps Mahindra, or some other automaker we don't even know much about.
VP 5:00PM (11/20/2007)
Idiots @ Ford. I am not a ford guy at all but if i was looking for a small truck the Ranger would be my first choice. It gets the job done, simple as that. With everybody from GM to Toyota & Dodge moving upmarket with their compacts Ford could have had the playground to all by itself. Not everybody needs a behemoth like the F-150. Hmmm...maybe next year would be a good time for me to get a great deal on the Ranger.
Tony C 5:43PM (11/20/2007)
Heh. Your kudos to Ford keeping a compact truck a compact truck were purely unintentional on their part. They simply haven't created a new small truck platform since the Ranger was first introduced in 1983. All changes since then have been cosmetic updates or slight modifications to the original chassis.
But Ford shouldn't just concede or give up. They've built the best selling full-size F-series for how many years running now and all of a sudden they've decided they can't succeed in creating and selling a smaller version?
Dean 4:41PM (11/26/2007)
I bought my 1st. Ranger in 1990. I've had 3 total and loved everyone of them. For Ford to discontinue them now, when a small pick-up could replace the F-150 as the best selling pick-up in America is just stupid. I guess that explains why Japan is taking over the auto industry.
mark_welby 3:10PM (11/20/2007)
I'm actually sad the hear of this. No, I never owned one, but a friend of mine had an '01. It seemed like a nice truck. In my opinion the downfall of smaller trucks will be that the gas mileage difference is negligible between them and a full size truck, so people might as well spring for something with a real bed on it. R.I.P. Ranger!
Reply
1337 3:52PM (11/20/2007)
In my opinion, the Ranger is an awful truck. It rides rough, handles poorly, feels flimsy, and can't carry much more weight than a passenger car.
However, its forte is fuel economy. According ot EPA estimates (which I admit are not entirely accurate) an I4 manual Ranger gets 26 mpg on the highway, while the most efficient full-size truck, the Silverado V6 only gets 20 mpg. Even if the EPA numbers are off by a few percent, one of the (few) advantages of a Ranger is its fuel economy.
Shipey 4:54PM (11/20/2007)
1337,
You're entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.
The Ranger is plenty stiff, which is why it rides like it does. Like a truck. Because it is one, which is why it's popular. It's hasn't been car-ized like the F150. You can still abuse it and not ruin a too-pretty interior. It has simple cloth seats and a rubber floor mat.
Mine doesn't carry the same loads as a passenger car... it has actually CARRIED a passenger car. I brought home my T-bucket project car in the bed.
I usually get 19MPG with the 4.0L V6. That's on a 4x4 with the optional 4.11 gearing and with an admittedly heavy right foot. Not great, but definitely not terrible considering the gearing. More importantly, the power is there when I need it.
naggs 5:17PM (11/20/2007)
the best part of a ranger is the fact that you can buy one new for 8k
Reality Check 7:47PM (11/25/2007)
We use them as delivery trucks and they seem to last a very long time (250k) without any major repairs. But they don't drive very nice and they get about 18 city and 27 highway for the 4cyl in either auto or stick. I wouldn't want to sit in one for eight hours a day but then again what would you want to sit in for that long every day?
Igor Holas 3:38PM (11/20/2007)
read again - the Range is not dead.
igor
Reply
_Jon 3:20PM (11/20/2007)
That information 'teased out' may be accurate, but the conclusion may not be accurate.
We are going to build a new, next generation Ranger.
But it will be done in an Asian counry. Yeah, we are going 'global' that way too.
But you didn't read that from me.
And I should come back and delete this comment in an hour.
Reply
Rboyett 4:30PM (11/20/2007)
There will be no Asian produced Ranger sold in the US until the 25% tariff on them is removed. The "chicken tax" has been around since the 1960's and there has been no movement on getting it repealed. This is the exact reason why Japanese (and soon Korean) auto makers build all their small trucks in the US.
We are currently in trade negotiations with Thailand for a free trade agreement. Administration negotiators have expressed interest in removing the chicken tax but there are other issues preventing the removal of the tariff.
IMO, Ford MIGHT be hoping to force the issue by closing down Ranger production. Doing so removes some of the jobs that are protected by the tariff. However Nissan and Toyota have hinted that they would move production of their small trucks if that tariff is repealed.
GA 2:52AM (12/03/2007)
In Asia, Thailand IS DETROIT.
The Fords are built fantastically there.
Perhaps its too small for America, but here in Asia, we'll take 'em, damn good work horses, as well as show pieces!
FOREVER FORD!
Indy 88 10:50PM (11/20/2007)
It is a shame to see the domestic manufacturers concede marketshare in this segment. It may not be soon but I think this will eventually eat away at Ford's full size truck sales as Taco and Frontier buyers look to move upmarket.
Reply
mk 3:23PM (11/20/2007)
Unfortunate.
Built Ford Tough just lost one of it's pieces. The Ranger was a good little truck.
It deserved FAR more support than it received. Not everyone wants or needs a big full-size truck.
Are Ford and GM just giving away the market segment to the imports? The Colorado, et al. seem like underpowered toys, no different than some of the imports. At least the ranger felt substantial, despite being small.
Honda Ridgeline, Tacoma (So freaking UGLY), and Nissan Frontier, or whatever they are calling it now... I guess have no real robust american trucks to compete with.
That is kind of sad, considering how american brands have pretty much defined pickup truck markets until now. They lost the ability to define car markets long ago, now they faltering on compact trucks...
Reply