3.0L unavailable for 09 Ranger
#51
12-23-2008
#52
12-24-2008
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#53
12-24-2008
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Antonio, tx
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#55
12-26-2008
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#56
12-26-2008
#58
12-28-2008
#59
12-28-2008
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#60
12-28-2008
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love bread!
But really back on topic, the 3.0 isn't terrible. I didn't buy a truck to go fast. It has enough acceleration to work well on the highway and around town. I have 4.10 gears so that helps and it has plenty of torque to get the tires spinning off road.
It works. It moves the truck decent and that's what matters to me.
But really back on topic, the 3.0 isn't terrible. I didn't buy a truck to go fast. It has enough acceleration to work well on the highway and around town. I have 4.10 gears so that helps and it has plenty of torque to get the tires spinning off road.
It works. It moves the truck decent and that's what matters to me.
#61
12-28-2008
#62
12-28-2008
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love bread!
But really back on topic, the 3.0 isn't terrible. I didn't buy a truck to go fast. It has enough acceleration to work well on the highway and around town. I have 4.10 gears so that helps and it has plenty of torque to get the tires spinning off road.
It works. It moves the truck decent and that's what matters to me.
But really back on topic, the 3.0 isn't terrible. I didn't buy a truck to go fast. It has enough acceleration to work well on the highway and around town. I have 4.10 gears so that helps and it has plenty of torque to get the tires spinning off road.
It works. It moves the truck decent and that's what matters to me.
#63
05-22-2009
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah its sad to see it go but its a really old workhorse... its really simple pushrod engine... Im glad that Ford finally did away with it Im not being negative about it but it just needs to be put out of its misery. I love my 3.0 its a great engine and it can really take a beating.... it may have the gas mileage of a v8 but the horsepower of a honda but it is really reliable and there are plenty of parts out there to repair them if something were to go wrong... I love mine I wish I had more torque but this engine surprises me everyday
#64
06-01-2009
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincy, OH
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article pretty much sums it up.
They're replacing the Ranger.
Ford chose to invest improvements in the Ford Explorer SUV which was branched to a more advanced platform than the Ranger, letting Ranger's sales decline. A similar strategy was applied to the Ford Taurus, another former best seller which was replaced by two new nameplates rather than redesigned. However as a result of the drastic shift toward smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles in North America, Ford has said it will continue to produce the Ford Ranger through 2011 at its Twin Cities, Minn. plant, which was scheduled to close in 2009.[7]
Since then, all of its competitors from the Dodge Dakota to the Toyota Tacoma have been redesigned and enlarged towards the mid-size market (with the Dakota offering a V8 engine) and leaving the Ranger and its twin, the Mazda B-Series, the only compact trucks on the market. For example, the 2005 Nissan Frontier offered up to 28% more power than a Ranger (265 vs. 207), and the entry level model was over a foot longer.[8] Since 2004, Toyota Tacoma has taken a commanding lead (93% higher sales than the Ranger in 2006) in the segment. In January 2007, Ford sold 4,652 Rangers, a decline of 25% from the previous year, one-tenth the number of F-Series trucks, and about half as many as the Explorer.
Contrary to rumors of its demise, MotorTrend confirms that "Ford is working on two new, smaller-than-F-150 pickup trucks, one based on the F-Series and the other a replacement for the aged Ranger compact, which is unchanged, save for facelifts, since the 1998 model year.
The smaller F-150 is codenamed P525 and may be badged F-100, the name of Ford's lightest duty pickups until 1982. At one point, P525 and the Ranger replacement were competing proposals, but with growing need for higher-fuel-mileage trucks, both projects will become reality in 2010 or 2011.[9] The P525 is rumored to have the V-6 EcoBoost (gas direct injection and turbocharging) engine as its primary engine, with fuel economy and torque optimized for interim Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards expected to kick in for the 2011 model year. The second engine which may not be available at release is a new small modular 5.0 liter V-8 featuring Ford's version of displacement on demand.
The Ranger replacement, codenamed T6, is being designed and developed by Ford Australia [10] and was originally intended only for world markets other than the U.S. Some news sources of indicated that Dearborn has reconsidered that plan, and that Ford thinks high gas prices are definitely here to stay.
The plan for F-100 was put on hold, instead the company decided to offer EcoBoost engines for F-150.[11] The new truck was to have been built at the Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, but Ford has decided to retool that plant to produce small cars. It could still build the F-100 at one of its other truck plants if it later determines there is a need for the product. Since the '09 F-150 isn't offered in V6 or manual transmission, the "F-100" will come optional with both.
They're replacing the Ranger.
Ford chose to invest improvements in the Ford Explorer SUV which was branched to a more advanced platform than the Ranger, letting Ranger's sales decline. A similar strategy was applied to the Ford Taurus, another former best seller which was replaced by two new nameplates rather than redesigned. However as a result of the drastic shift toward smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles in North America, Ford has said it will continue to produce the Ford Ranger through 2011 at its Twin Cities, Minn. plant, which was scheduled to close in 2009.[7]
Since then, all of its competitors from the Dodge Dakota to the Toyota Tacoma have been redesigned and enlarged towards the mid-size market (with the Dakota offering a V8 engine) and leaving the Ranger and its twin, the Mazda B-Series, the only compact trucks on the market. For example, the 2005 Nissan Frontier offered up to 28% more power than a Ranger (265 vs. 207), and the entry level model was over a foot longer.[8] Since 2004, Toyota Tacoma has taken a commanding lead (93% higher sales than the Ranger in 2006) in the segment. In January 2007, Ford sold 4,652 Rangers, a decline of 25% from the previous year, one-tenth the number of F-Series trucks, and about half as many as the Explorer.
Contrary to rumors of its demise, MotorTrend confirms that "Ford is working on two new, smaller-than-F-150 pickup trucks, one based on the F-Series and the other a replacement for the aged Ranger compact, which is unchanged, save for facelifts, since the 1998 model year.
The smaller F-150 is codenamed P525 and may be badged F-100, the name of Ford's lightest duty pickups until 1982. At one point, P525 and the Ranger replacement were competing proposals, but with growing need for higher-fuel-mileage trucks, both projects will become reality in 2010 or 2011.[9] The P525 is rumored to have the V-6 EcoBoost (gas direct injection and turbocharging) engine as its primary engine, with fuel economy and torque optimized for interim Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards expected to kick in for the 2011 model year. The second engine which may not be available at release is a new small modular 5.0 liter V-8 featuring Ford's version of displacement on demand.
The Ranger replacement, codenamed T6, is being designed and developed by Ford Australia [10] and was originally intended only for world markets other than the U.S. Some news sources of indicated that Dearborn has reconsidered that plan, and that Ford thinks high gas prices are definitely here to stay.
The plan for F-100 was put on hold, instead the company decided to offer EcoBoost engines for F-150.[11] The new truck was to have been built at the Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, but Ford has decided to retool that plant to produce small cars. It could still build the F-100 at one of its other truck plants if it later determines there is a need for the product. Since the '09 F-150 isn't offered in V6 or manual transmission, the "F-100" will come optional with both.
#65
06-01-2009
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#66
06-03-2009
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im not gonna get rid of my ranger for a slightly bigger truck its fine for me and what i do. the 3.0L of mine has plenty of power and has plans to be boosted. so i don't need a new motor. whenever my motor goes ill just mate the 3.5L duratec transmission that is supposed to be in the f-150 to a 3.0L duratec. then turbo that motor. (since all the duratecs have the same bolt pattern from what i remember)
#68
06-04-2009
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#72
06-13-2009
#74
06-14-2009
