Attention guys Ford will build a new Ranger! - Page 4 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #76  
Old 05-15-2007
Bhavesh's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: City, State
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwester04
DOHC in a truck isnt always better, it's easier to get the low end grunt out of an OHV motor as opposed to a DOHC design; thus the reason Ford has been keeping them OUT of trucks.. the 3.0L Duratec was a Ford/Mazda joint operation which evolved from the 2.5L DOHC V6 which was found in early-mid 90's Probes and mid-late 90's Contours, that motor in your moms minivan was used in the Taurus in the mid 90's on.. so it's not that Ford is THAT late with engine technology--speaking of engine technology, anybody think of the early Taurus SHO with a 200hp+ 3.0L/3.2L DOHC V6? how-about that 3.4L DOHC V8 used in the Gen 3 SHO? I could go on and on.. but you get the point lol
No, DOHC isn't always better than an OHV, but Ford replaced the OHV w' SOHC years ago. So it's no an issue of having a pushrod in the ranger...it's already dead.

So in regards to the SOHC, I think it would be better to replace it with a DOHC: the nature of the design of a DOHC makes it more efficient. It's going to make more power and get better gas mileage than any an equivalently designed SOHC because it's more precise in its operation. And while Ford's SOHC 4.0 makes more usable mid-range torque than the 3.0 DOHC duratec, I think a properly designed DOHC can be tweaked to make usable torque in a truck, all the while making more hp and better gas mileage than a SOHC.

I'm not saying that the 3.0 duratec should drop into the ranger from the MPV unchanged, I'm saying the cams, heads, timing, valves should be changed tuning it for more work versus economy/speed application. Doing so would make it better (in power and gas mileage) than the current SOHC.

anyways, that's what makes sense to me...
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-15-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhavesh

So to conclude the last two responses I made: I don't think Ford would bring back a ranger because it's just not profitable for them anymore.
I disagree, what would not be profitable for them would be to back out of the "smaller truck" market. A market that they reigned over for what 17-18 years! The ranger was the number 1 compact selling pick up for all those years until people decided they needed a little more room. Dodge jumped in size, so did Chevrolet. Nissan and Toyota are both mid size as well. I don't see why Ford would back out of a market that I know they would do very well in. After all, Who doesn't love a Ford truck?!?!?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-15-2007
Rockledge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 479
The Sport Trac is not a pickup truck. Call it an SUV or a hybrid, or whatever, but don't call it a pickup truck.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-15-2007
redranger4.0's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockledge
The Sport Trac is not a pickup truck. Call it an SUV or a hybrid, or whatever, but don't call it a pickup truck.
x2 the ford website lists it as a suv
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-15-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fuquay-Varina, NC
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhavesh
even if the explorer has its own chassis, won't a crew-cab ranger take sales away from the sport-trac explorer?
Food for thought...

The Ranger has a muuuch larger market and following than the Sport Tracs. If you set aside the money Ford has spent recently to put the 4.6L into the Sport Trac (from a business standpoint, if Ford were to hypothetically go with a crew cab Ranger and perhaps move away from the Sport Trac, it's not at all uncommon and actually smart to write off past R&D expenses if they choose to go in a different direction), I'd be willing to bet that the crew cab Ranger would be far more profitable for Ford than the Sport Trac. What are some recent sales figures for the Sport Trac? I could be completely wrong, and the Sport Tracs could be a gold mine for Ford, but I see a whole lot of Rangers on a daily basis and not too many Sport Tracs.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 05-16-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by its cheddar baby
Food for thought...

The Ranger has a muuuch larger market and following than the Sport Tracs. If you set aside the money Ford has spent recently to put the 4.6L into the Sport Trac (from a business standpoint, if Ford were to hypothetically go with a crew cab Ranger and perhaps move away from the Sport Trac, it's not at all uncommon and actually smart to write off past R&D expenses if they choose to go in a different direction), I'd be willing to bet that the crew cab Ranger would be far more profitable for Ford than the Sport Trac. What are some recent sales figures for the Sport Trac? I could be completely wrong, and the Sport Tracs could be a gold mine for Ford, but I see a whole lot of Rangers on a daily basis and not too many Sport Tracs.
I agree with you... Ford could even do as chevy did, and use a some what modified frame from the explorer (as chevy did with the trailblazer for the colorado) Then the truck would be a little bigger, have room for V8 and a crew cab configuration, plus it wouldn't be that difficult for them to tweak the rear frame design to handle a solid axle. If they are looking to save money, that would be the perfect way to do it and get into the mid size market.....
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-16-2007
stockranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: garden grove , ca
Posts: 410
hopefully it doesn't go the same way as the colorado that replaced the s-10 . i would hate to see the ranger become a girls truck with a ride like a cadilac!
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-16-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fuquay-Varina, NC
Posts: 506
When all is said and done, Ford will be doing what is best for their main customers of the small pickup: buyers of fleet vehicles.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-17-2007
AeroDoc's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 96
I'm guessing, but expect the 3.5 duratech engine. It's just typical of Ford to make small trucks bigger when gas is doubling in price every 2-3 years.

For sure they pick the selling price first, take the profit and rebates off the top, and then design for what's left over in the budget.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-18-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockranger
hopefully it doesn't go the same way as the colorado that replaced the s-10 . i would hate to see the ranger become a girls truck with a ride like a cadilac!
Yeah, lets hope not... If Chevy could have put the 4.2 inline 6 in the Colorado, they would have one insane midsize, but it wasn't possible.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-18-2007
Green Hornet's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 31
Can't wait!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-16-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: alberta
Posts: 457
i would like to see more engine options, like a v8, my 2006 4L auto truck isn't bad, but on the highway, it's lacking power.

i dont' think they need to be bigger, or much bigger anyway. if you need to fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in your truck everyday, you're a candidate for a fullsize. if you need to haul 5 people comfortably, you're a candidate for a fullsize. if you pull a 3500lb trailer once a week, you guessed it, fullsize. if you do all of the above, buy a fullsize.

a midsize truck is meant to do a little of everything, but nothing particularly well.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-16-2007
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by big-blue-oval
if you need to fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in your truck everyday, you're a candidate for a fullsize.well.
idk about you, but i can fit plywood and drywall in the bed of my truck perfect.
gotta love the 7ft bed
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-16-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: alberta
Posts: 457
a 4x8 sheet of plywood would fit on top my bed rails... not in the bed.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-16-2007
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
.

Last edited by Redneckstone; 07-31-2007 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-16-2007
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
Can we expect better mpg numbers? I would hope so.

3.7 in the Fseries too?
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-16-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
I am sure there will be a mpg increase, or at least it will stay the same with a significant horsepower increase. Heck, the 3.5 in the "taurus" is 260 some odd horsepower....
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-16-2007
Lord Of War's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Thornton, Colorado
Posts: 4,599
If a diesel was put into the rangers what type of numbers could we expect as far as HP/ TQ.

Then what are the numbers once you put after market exhaust and programmer/chip?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-16-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Jake, look back in this thread, or search diesel ranger. There are numbers somewhere, I think the hp was around 160, and the torque was 275??? From a 4 cylinder turbo diesel...
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-17-2007
Bhavesh's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: City, State
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabeard
Can we expect better mpg numbers? I would hope so.
I am doubtful.

1.) many vehicles I've seen haven't become more efficient over decades: My friend had a 1991 chevy cavalier and it got high 20's/low 30's for gas mileage. He also has a 2006 chevy cobalt and it still gets high 20's/low 30's for gas mileage. You can buy a 1978 F150 or a 2008 F150, and they're both going to get ~12-15mpg. The only major differences between the two vehicles are the newer ones are made stronger (drive a 30 year old car 100mph, then drive a current vehicle 100mph...which feels better?), are lighter, are modern styled, and make more power.

2.) the technology is available, but is not utilized for the best gas mileage:
-the corolla/focus/civic/yaris/metro can break into the 40's for gas mileage...do we really need hybrid's to help us on highways and around town driving?
-foreign countries have mandates for cars to get 30+ mpg (need source?)
-you don't need to be a technology whiz to see advancements made in alternative fuels that can be used

3.) the first two points are our reality because gas companies are making so much money on gas, that changes aren't going to be made for awhile

while minor gas mileage gains are possible, they'll be negligible at best

not trying to be a d!ck...I just enjoy talking car politics...
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-17-2007
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
probably not the 3.5L isnt good on fuel...
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-17-2007
99XLTOffroad's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington, PA
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Of War
If a diesel was put into the rangers what type of numbers could we expect as far as HP/ TQ.

Then what are the numbers once you put after market exhaust and programmer/chip?
I'm guessing High 100s or low 200s for HP. Torque would probably be in the Mid to High 300s. But you must remember diesels are meant for their torque for hauling not the HP. But then again i think i forgot about all that a while ago with My F-250. Been moddin ever since lol.

But then you start modding them and
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-17-2007
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
Beginning of this thread, first page, someone mentioned an IRS type of suspension and said nobody made a truck with IRS.. I present to you the Honda Ridgeline. Its a Unibody and a Piece of garbadge as well. Soccermom vehical with no real ' truck ' capabilities contrare to its ratings with the magazines calling it the best new Vehical of the year..

Would ANYONE take a IRS/CV shaft and go offroading with it? On a UNIBODY at that? Some truck. Then again, these magazines are always right, no?

*IF* they continue the Ranger, theres either going to be a total rebuild off an imported design, or ' not much at all '.

Theres a market segment Ford completely owns right now. Real ' compact ' trucks. For what I do, its the perfect size. F150 is too big. Theres no longer a ' small ' truck.

Remember when Ford ' upsized ' the Mustang? The fast little secretary car lost its luster, it became a Behemoth and nobody had any love for it anymore. Its sales plummetted to dismal numbers to where they almost killed the car completely untill they moved to the Fox platform. Anyone ever see pic's of a Late 70's mustang? Their not as common as the late 60's and late 80's models at all, they are ' undesireable ' at best for the common person.

The Ranger has an Identity Crisis.

One group wants 4 doors and a Diesel. Others like whats out there now. Some will hate regardless.

If Ford goes with 4 doors, there wont be a usable bed. If they make this 200inch ( whatever it would need to be ) wheelbase to make up for the cab room, it will be ugly and look like a Pinochio Vehical, long and narrow. Fugly IMO.

The Colorado isn't much bigger then the present Ranger. If Ford dropps the Ranger, GM - Here I come. If ford makes a 4door with no Bedroom.. GM - Here I come.

If they revamp the existing platform and waste profits ( which they cant do ) , I'll get another Ranger. I doubt they will do such as its not what the ' majority ' of folks ' want ' , not NEED.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-17-2007
Bhavesh's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: City, State
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.
*IF* they continue the Ranger, theres either going to be a total rebuild off an imported design, or ' not much at all '.

Theres a market segment Ford completely owns right now. Real ' compact ' trucks. For what I do, its the perfect size. F150 is too big. Theres no longer a ' small ' truck.
The Ranger has an Identity Crisis.

One group wants 4 doors and a Diesel. Others like whats out there now. Some will hate regardless.
I'm too young to know the mustang crisis, but I about the ranger, I agree...it DOES have an identity crisis. So why won't Ford respond with research towards what sells well? Hasn't that what all the other major manufacturers did? The new Tacoma has it all...double cab, single cab, access cab, power, etc. The frontier, dakota, and colorado are also all revamped platforms that (appear to) respond to consumer demand. If Ford's going to the same, they need to make a new ranger, that's bigger, conforms to the current niche, and DUMP the sport-trac explorer.

otherwise, does anyone know anything about the "compact" market? clearly the ranger is the last "compact" pickup available (vs. all other midsize trucks), but is that profitable? is it in demand? is there really a good market for Ford to keep it?
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-17-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 886
The 3.0 Turbo Diesel makes 160hp and 280Tq, I figured it out one day with a conversion calculator. Not to bad Id say, Id love to get some bigger exhaust, intake, tuner, and force some fuel into it!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Well something new has come to my mind attention... TrePaul86 General Ford Ranger Discussion 49 02-13-2009 10:57 AM
Finally the Ranger Got Attention SteveOh Snapshots 32 03-07-2008 11:22 PM
Lesson in paying attention while offroad... must read! rngprerunner General Ford Ranger Discussion 20 01-26-2005 07:29 AM
Attention factory CD6 users! Wowak Audio & Video Tech 34 01-20-2005 01:25 PM
Attention Leo, Box is almost done! Mnemonic Audio & Video Tech 25 12-20-2004 10:48 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:48 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.