Ford undecided on Ranger replacement? - Page 6 - 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
  #126  
Old 02-01-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lehi, Utah
Posts: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
The turbo's are so incredibly small. Driving it you can't feel any effect from them. The boost level is so low that the wastegate lines don't even come clipped onto the actuators from the factory.


GTFO. Now.


If you're gonna make such a dumbfounded remark as "The boost level is so low that the wastegate lines don't even come clipped onto the actuators from the factory" then back it up with proof, other wise you sound like an idiot.

You've owned "nice" cars, but I generally think you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to turbo's and performance; a ricer.

You apparently have no clue what the Ecoboost engines are about. They are about small turbo's. They are about "not feeling the effects". They aren't designed so once you floor it and wait for the boost lag that you're then thrown back into your seat. The Ecoboost engine is designed to be a small displacement engine for fuel economy couple with forced induction to up the power output so you can have the V8 power with the gas sipping advantages of low displacement.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-01-2010
--weezl--'s Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary AB, Canada
Posts: 3,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by D94R View Post
GTFO. Now.


If you're gonna make such a dumbfounded remark as "The boost level is so low that the wastegate lines don't even come clipped onto the actuators from the factory" then back it up with proof, other wise you sound like an idiot.

You've owned "nice" cars, but I generally think you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to turbo's and performance; a ricer.

You apparently have no clue what the Ecoboost engines are about. They are about small turbo's. They are about "not feeling the effects". They aren't designed so once you floor it and wait for the boost lag that you're then thrown back into your seat. The Ecoboost engine is designed to be a small displacement engine for fuel economy couple with forced induction to up the power output so you can have the V8 power with the gas sipping advantages of low displacement.
woah, i can appreciate your passion, but we are all friends here... no need for calling someone out because the posted, what you believe to be false information... he made his post in good faith, about the information contained therein...

i don't fully agree with what you said either, while i am not familiar with the ecoboost engines, i highly doubt they were built to compete with the v8's... the rest of what you said, about it not having turbo lag because of the small turbo, and having the small turbo so it doesn't have turbo lag, i agree fully with... i more think that they put a smaller engine in and added the turbo to compete with larger motors of the same style (ie small v6 turbo to compete with a large v6) the only time i believe ford has produced a motor, with a turbo, intended to compete with a N/A motor of a significant size difference was the SVO mustangs, which were actually faster than the 5.0 LX mustangs of the same year (i use LX because the LX 5.0's were actually faster than the GT, due to not having the ground effects package, and being able to get the LX in a coupe, rather than the hatch back, which weighed approx 200lbs more)
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-01-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by --weezl-- View Post
i agree with you on the aspect of weight vs wind, however, weight in a collision is all relitive... your vehicle's weight doesn't mean ****, without something to compare it to... now the most obvious, and accurate thing would be what it is hitting, if you have a 2000lb truck hitting a 2000lb car (net weight, inc gas cargo and passengers), both vehicles will absorb the same amount of energy, now you take the exact same colision, but you drop them down to 700lb cars, like a smart car, for instance... 700lbs is a large motorcycle... mine weighs almost that, regardless though, it's for demonstration purposes only... if it hits another vehicle that is 700 lbs, each vehicle is going to absorb an equal amount of the energy, again... so the fact that a lighter weight vehicle is not as safe, is not necissairly true, in a collision aspect...

back to the wind issue, this is only an issue comparitvely to surface area, AND aero dynamics... however, aerodynamics generally don't take into consideration cross winds... this would be a factor that the engineers would look at, if building a light weight vehicle though... and aerodynamics was already mentioned that it would be improved

so really the only time that these smaller vehicles would become an issue for safety is in the transition period of going from the large heavy vehicles we have now, to the smaller lighter ones... and the simple solution to that is the average weight of a vehicle drop by 30-40 lbs each year, across the board, all manufactures... in 10 years time, the average vehicle will be 350 lbs lighter, which is equal to an extra 35 hp (roughly) and thus a savings of probably 10-20% in fuel, with the same motors, not taking into consideration the aerodynamics... as this transition takes place, the older, heavier vehicles will naturally depreciate and end up in junk yards, as is the life cycle of a vehicle...

so 20 years from now (provided these events i mentioned, were set in motion today) we would be looking at an average vehicle weight of roughly 700 lbs less than what we have today... and in the advances of technology, it would be significant!

however, i can now bring up the case of oil companies being the largest corparations world wide, and controlling most other industries, and the case that every time a revolutionary new design or idea, which would drasticly reduce fuel consumption, the oil companies buy the patent and bury the design, this can be seen in severl examples. first was a revolutionary design of a motor using 2 combustion chambers in an internal combustion motor, i believe it was designed by honda, the top chamber would contain a rich fuel mixture, ignited by a spark, this would then ignite the lower, and larger combustion chamber, containing next to no fuel, much too low for a spark plug to ignite, however, open flame (upper combustion chamber) can ignite it... the design was patented and before release on any vehicles, was purchased by an unsurmountable amount of money, by the oil and gas industry, and was never heard of again...

more recently, within the past 5-7 years, there was an inventor, i believe from canada. who designed a welding system (arc type) which ran on water, ordinary tap water, it was cold to the touch, it projected a small cold water vapour stream, and when it contacted metal (to which i assume the machine was grounded) it would cause a very hot flame or arc, not entirely sure, and thus welding was created, the man had a patent on it, and this was being shown on the tv show "daily planet" which is seen on discovery channel. The man went on to explain that he had converted his car, which i think was a taurus, to run on water, showing a quick shot of the motor, which was completely different than stock (i assume ground up home made motor) and explaining that he had been in contact with several of the major car manufactures, who were anxious to see the design and put it into production... i have heard nothing from this since... when i talked to my dad about it, shortly after seeing it, he even agreed that it would disappear, due to oil and gas companies...

now i'm not trying to say that exxon and the other majors are in control of the entire world, all i am saying is they want what they need...

even if one of the above ideas did survive, and cars were more fuel efficent than ever, what do you think would happen? do you think that the gas price, right now, is higher than it ever has been before, because of the recession? doesn't that sound a little bit counter productive? the gas prices are high because newer models are more fuel efficent than ever before, which means the oil and gas companies aren't making as much... they have to charge more, they want the average person to be shelling out a certain percentage of their yearly income to gas... if the average fuel economy goes up, the gas price will follow suit... so in a way, it's these people driving hibrids and smart cars that are making us die with prices... the only real benifet to having cars that do 50mpg and up, is the change of our environmental impact... we are doing the world a solid, but i doubt that even at our peak of emissions, this giant mass of rock and water would really care how much polution comes off of it... after all if in the grand scheme of things, we were not ment to burn gas, dead dinosours would not turn into gas...

sorry for the ridiculiously long post, but i have a lot of time on my hands at work here...

water car seen here:
Water Powered Car | Free Technology Videos - Watch Technology Videos Online | Veoh
I agree with some of what you said but not all. The gas and oil companies control the auto and transportation industries completely. The dependance of foreign oil and our addiction to it is indeed off the page. The other thing I disagree with is your senarios concerning collisions I mentioned in my earlier post. That's if they hit a vehicle the same size and weight but what are the odds of that happening? Slim to none. lets say that a smart car was sitting at a traffic light and a SUV wasn't paying attention and nails that smart car. Chances are the SUV will probably be able to drive off (although it's unlikely). The smart car basicly becomes a death trap in that senario. If the situation was reversed the outcome would most likely be just about the same due to the fact that an SUV weighs 10 times more than a smart car. Now do you get what I'm saying? It's really a matter of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY and on how well the vehicle is constructed. The best way to construct a vehicle is to look at the chassis that NASCAR and Factory Five Racing manufactures on a consistant basis. The big 3 are just out to make a profit. The federal government mandates the safety aspect of their products. David Smith (president of Factory 5 Racing) said it best and I quote: "this is where we are completely different from any auto maker. We all understand that a soul travels in our cars and if the big 3 took that approach the cars and trucks they produce would be alot more reliable and safer than they are today". That was a quote from their new video which is free by the way and you can request their literature from their website. here's what's kind of strange. Their products are at least 20 % cheaper than a brand new midsized sedan off the lot.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-01-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Baiscly I think we all can agree on one thing. Ford, GM and Chrysler need to listen to the public more often and take a good long hard look at the Hotrodding Industry for some input on how they can redesign some of the popular models and se what changes they can make for the better. GM royally screwed up when they got rid of the S10's, Cavaliers, The Buick grand nationals and we can add Oldsmoblie, Saturn, and Pontiac to that list. Oldsmobile has been gone for years now. GM is now in the process of "phasing out" Saturn and Pontiac. Pontiac I really could care less about because they really haven't made a decent car in years. The only thing that they really produced that may have been worth buying is the GTO, but they fouled it up when they didn't go with the old body styles. They're really about to get rid of the only brand that seems to do pretty decent and that's Saturn. I consider that a huge mistake that they'll regret later on down the road in a big way. Ford has pretty much stayed with their truck lines for many years and come up with some new designs for the fullsized F150. The only thing that Ford has that I would buy that I can afford would be either a Focus or the Fusion. The taurus is pretty kool but I really can't afford that model of car unless it's used. Chrysler is pretty much DEAD. Fiatt bought them out and they're still struggling to get ahead. They should've kept the neon and redesigned it. The new chargers are a terd and doesn't even look right to me. The new challenger looks good but who can afford the damn thing. The only brand that chrysler seems to sell is their Jeep line and the fullsize trucks. Ford also still has the Ranger which is pretty decently priced but it's OUT OF DATE. I want the Ranger to survive but with some changes and different engine and drivetrain options like AWD with limited slip diffs. All you really have is 2 engine choices and 4WD and that's really just about it. Not many choices in that area. Now you still have quite a few trim choices (XL,XLT, FX4 etc.) but it's not enough.

Last edited by knightmare1015; 02-01-2010 at 02:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-01-2010
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
I see Challengers all over the place in NC, so obviously a lot of people can. Look at the price of full size trucks now and look how many of those you see all over the place. Just because you can't afford a certain car doesn't mean the majority of the public can't.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 02-01-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04blackedge View Post
I see Challengers all over the place in NC, so obviously a lot of people can. Look at the price of full size trucks now and look how many of those you see all over the place. Just because you can't afford a certain car doesn't mean the majority of the public can't.
No but I was talking about my area. Here in VA it's a different story. This area has been hit pretty hard. We lost TRW who made the suspension systems for Chrysler. our unemployment rate is over 10 %. Alot of people around here just can't afford the new challengers. It might be a different story in NC yes, but not here. Chrysler and GM are just too expensive comapred to Ford. which would you pay? $25,000 plus for a car or truck that doesn't have a radio or CD player or about the same price for a Ford that's damn near fully loaded. That was the senario that I encountered when I bought my current ranger. get what I'm saying? they're too greedy (GM and Chrysler that is).

Last edited by knightmare1015; 02-01-2010 at 02:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-01-2010
OneTireFire's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PBG, FL
Posts: 206
i have an idear lets all just drive fiestas and smart cars and be d-bags ford better keep the ranger or im going to manufacture my own small truck and call it the mike or something of all awsomeness like that
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 02-01-2010
--weezl--'s Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary AB, Canada
Posts: 3,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneTireFire View Post
i have an idear lets all just drive fiestas and smart cars and be d-bags ford better keep the ranger or im going to manufacture my own small truck and call it the mike or something of all awsomeness like that
FAIL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightmare1015 View Post
I agree with some of what you said but not all. The gas and oil companies control the auto and transportation industries completely. The dependance of foreign oil and our addiction to it is indeed off the page. The other thing I disagree with is your senarios concerning collisions I mentioned in my earlier post. That's if they hit a vehicle the same size and weight but what are the odds of that happening? Slim to none. lets say that a smart car was sitting at a traffic light and a SUV wasn't paying attention and nails that smart car. Chances are the SUV will probably be able to drive off (although it's unlikely). The smart car basicly becomes a death trap in that senario. If the situation was reversed the outcome would most likely be just about the same due to the fact that an SUV weighs 10 times more than a smart car. Now do you get what I'm saying? It's really a matter of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY and on how well the vehicle is constructed. The best way to construct a vehicle is to look at the chassis that NASCAR and Factory Five Racing manufactures on a consistant basis. The big 3 are just out to make a profit. The federal government mandates the safety aspect of their products. David Smith (president of Factory 5 Racing) said it best and I quote: "this is where we are completely different from any auto maker. We all understand that a soul travels in our cars and if the big 3 took that approach the cars and trucks they produce would be alot more reliable and safer than they are today". That was a quote from their new video which is free by the way and you can request their literature from their website. here's what's kind of strange. Their products are at least 20 % cheaper than a brand new midsized sedan off the lot.
no, i don't think you fully understood what i was saying about the weight thing, you need a slow transition to smaller vehicles... the average vehicle needs to get smaller, progressively over a long period of time... this will allow the smaller vehicle, 20 years from now to be much safer, as it is closer to the top of the food chain than it is right now... most of the 09 models and 2010 models, won't be on the road in 2030, i mean lets face it, how often do you see an 87-92 average vehicle on the road? most of them have met their demise...
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-01-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lehi, Utah
Posts: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by --weezl-- View Post
woah, i can appreciate your passion, but we are all friends here... no need for calling someone out because the posted, what you believe to be false information... he made his post in good faith, about the information contained therein...

i don't fully agree with what you said either, while i am not familiar with the ecoboost engines, i highly doubt they were built to compete with the v8's... the rest of what you said, about it not having turbo lag because of the small turbo, and having the small turbo so it doesn't have turbo lag, i agree fully with... i more think that they put a smaller engine in and added the turbo to compete with larger motors of the same style (ie small v6 turbo to compete with a large v6) the only time i believe ford has produced a motor, with a turbo, intended to compete with a N/A motor of a significant size difference was the SVO mustangs, which were actually faster than the 5.0 LX mustangs of the same year (i use LX because the LX 5.0's were actually faster than the GT, due to not having the ground effects package, and being able to get the LX in a coupe, rather than the hatch back, which weighed approx 200lbs more)
I couldn't stand to read anymore of his posts in this thread, they contained a lot of nothing, just BS posting.

The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 02-02-2010
--weezl--'s Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary AB, Canada
Posts: 3,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by D94R View Post
I couldn't stand to read anymore of his posts in this thread, they contained a lot of nothing, just BS posting.

The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
i wasn't referring to the huge 6.8L v8's or anything like that, take a small v8, the smallest ford v8 ever made, that i know of, was a 221cui v8, windsor small block, which was made for only 1 model year, 1962, and it put out 145hp and 215 torque and was offered on the faralane, which was not a sports car, in any respect, and the 221, was offered as a mid line motor, comperable to our truck's 3.0L... as for power, the ecoboost motor is competing, torque wise, (keep in mind, this is a motor used in 2010) competing with motore built in 62, bone stock, from the factory
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 02-06-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by --weezl-- View Post
FAIL!



no, i don't think you fully understood what i was saying about the weight thing, you need a slow transition to smaller vehicles... the average vehicle needs to get smaller, progressively over a long period of time... this will allow the smaller vehicle, 20 years from now to be much safer, as it is closer to the top of the food chain than it is right now... most of the 09 models and 2010 models, won't be on the road in 2030, i mean lets face it, how often do you see an 87-92 average vehicle on the road? most of them have met their demise...
I do understand better than you know. And to answer your question, I see alot of older vehicles on the road pretty frequently now adays. Mainly because people in my area really can't afford to buy a new vehicle in my area. But you are correct about a slower transistion to a smaller vehicle. I wouldn't own a smaller vehicle unless it had V8 stuffed in it then maybe just maybe. And I'm not talking about the scale of the vehicle either. I'm talking about the overall weight of the vehicle. Your typical Ranger weight is around 4,500 lbs (depending on which model such as the super cab etc.). I want to keep it the same size that it is only around 1,900 lbs. That's virtually no weight. You combine that with a small block american V8 and you'll have something that will flat out scream when you want or need it to and because of the low overall weight the engine will get excellent fuel economy to boot. The V6 is decent but it's "pushing" too much weight and putting a real strain on the engine because of it. Now do you get what I'm saying?
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 02-06-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by D94R View Post
I couldn't stand to read anymore of his posts in this thread, they contained a lot of nothing, just BS posting.

The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
well said. Take that same engine the 2.3 Duratec, and place it in a vehicle that weighs pratically nothing then you'll see a huge change in performance. That engine is pushing 4,500+ lbs. and yet still gets great mpg's. What if you had the same exact scale and size of the ranger but it only weighed in at 1,900 lbs with a full tank of fuel versus what it normally weighs when it rolls off the assembly line? and he just doesn't understand about engine efficientcy either. The 3.5 eco boost engine is pretty kool. Mom got to test drive one yesterday and I was in the jump seat. That engine is pretty damn mean to say the least especially considering the fact that she's been driving a neon for the past 7 years with a worn out engine for most of those years. when she romped down on the accelerator I swear I thought the front wheels were going to come off the ground.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 02-06-2010
--weezl--'s Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary AB, Canada
Posts: 3,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightmare1015 View Post
I do understand better than you know. And to answer your question, I see alot of older vehicles on the road pretty frequently now adays. Mainly because people in my area really can't afford to buy a new vehicle in my area. But you are correct about a slower transistion to a smaller vehicle. I wouldn't own a smaller vehicle unless it had V8 stuffed in it then maybe just maybe. And I'm not talking about the scale of the vehicle either. I'm talking about the overall weight of the vehicle. Your typical Ranger weight is around 4,500 lbs (depending on which model such as the super cab etc.). I want to keep it the same size that it is only around 1,900 lbs. That's virtually no weight. You combine that with a small block american V8 and you'll have something that will flat out scream when you want or need it to and because of the low overall weight the engine will get excellent fuel economy to boot. The V6 is decent but it's "pushing" too much weight and putting a real strain on the engine because of it. Now do you get what I'm saying?
BINGO, i wasn't priticularly meaning that they should stay the same size, but that wouldn't cause any problems, other than surface area causing wind resistance, and reducing aero dynamics... but we are totally on the same page! some of the lincoln cars had a 4.0L v8 in them in the early 2000's, and apparenly they were just AWESOME! i don't see why they can't use them now...
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 02-06-2010
Sixt9coug's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norwalk, CA
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by --weezl-- View Post
BINGO, i wasn't priticularly meaning that they should stay the same size, but that wouldn't cause any problems, other than surface area causing wind resistance, and reducing aero dynamics... but we are totally on the same page! some of the lincoln cars had a 4.0L v8 in them in the early 2000's, and apparenly they were just AWESOME! i don't see why they can't use them now...
That was a Jag sourced engine and it was rather troublesome and EXPENSIVE to produce. Good engine though overall, but it just is not economically feasable with the options available now.

The Ecoboost engines are primarily meant to give the power of a premium engine offering in a line, while giving the fuel economy of a V6, 4 banger or whatever. The SHO 3.5 is a 'replacement' for the need of a V8 in that car while still giving V6 MPGs. IIRC, the SHO engine gets the same fuel milage as the comprable NA model (AWD 3.5 Taurus) but it delivers another 100hp and a ton more torque. The 3.5L of course puts out 355hp in its current 'weakest' iteration, and it has a ridiculously flat torque curve. It is basically flat from 1500rpm to 5000 or so. An NA V8 can't even do that.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 02-06-2010
deathbypsi's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Temperance Mi
Posts: 676
* I only skimmed through the last 8 pages so I havent read everything in this post*

That said I figured I would just share some info with everyone. I work for Ford at the Saline Plastics plant building F-150 dashboards. A few days ago I was talking with a Ford Process Engineer that was trying figure out a way for our operation to increase produtcion 50,000 units per year. When I asked why he said because Fords is almost certain they are dumping the Ranger and will be adding a stripped down Ecoboost 4cyl to the F-150 lineup as a replacement.
There must be some truth to this because we have had Ford engineers up our asses for two weeks now tryin to figure out how to change our floor plans and our essembly process.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 02-06-2010
Sixt9coug's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norwalk, CA
Posts: 1,034
I hope they don't do that. I know they said they wanted to stop production on the Ranger and puch buyers into an F150 instead but damn... F150's are HUGE. It wouldn't fit in my garage. Hell, my Ranger barely fits in my garage (when its not occupied by the Cougar).
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 02-06-2010
WillInThe04Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
Wow such a heatred discussion! Before this thread I remember reading the new ranger would get the 4 door cab and a 3.5L 255HP Engine ..... I was happy with the 250+ HP Number lol
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 02-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
A new direction...

Well guys it seems that Ford Motor Co. is indeed going to get rid of the Ranger. It's not a question of if but when. There's also a new engine in the works as well. I forget where I saw it listed but apparently Ford has a new version of the 2.3 I4 getting ready to be released. A twin turboed ecoboost I4. I think I heard about it while watching the Arca Remax series races at Daytona. I also heard someone say that the mustang is running in Nascar this year for a selected number of races too. I say it's about time for the mustang to enter Nascar considering that paticular car has been around for over 40 years in many different versions. they're also getting rid of the "wing" and going back to the spoiler they've had for many years. But other than employees at assembly plants Nascar will have a heads up as to what's going on to an extent.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 02-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by --weezl-- View Post
BINGO, i wasn't priticularly meaning that they should stay the same size, but that wouldn't cause any problems, other than surface area causing wind resistance, and reducing aero dynamics... but we are totally on the same page! some of the lincoln cars had a 4.0L v8 in them in the early 2000's, and apparenly they were just AWESOME! i don't see why they can't use them now...
Exactly! That is what they need to do with 95% of their vehicles. you cut the weight by well over half and improve areodynamics and you'll be guarunteed results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixt9coug View Post
That was a Jag sourced engine and it was rather troublesome and EXPENSIVE to produce. Good engine though overall, but it just is not economically feasable with the options available now.

Yeah but Ford "outsources" their engines now. On the new Ranger in the driver's side window you'll find a parts of origin sticker. The negine is from Germany and the transmission is from Japan. If I ever get a chance i'll sneak on the lot and snap a photo for proof.

The Ecoboost engines are primarily meant to give the power of a premium engine offering in a line, while giving the fuel economy of a V6, 4 banger or whatever. The SHO 3.5 is a 'replacement' for the need of a V8 in that car while still giving V6 MPGs. IIRC, the SHO engine gets the same fuel milage as the comprable NA model (AWD 3.5 Taurus) but it delivers another 100hp and a ton more torque. The 3.5L of course puts out 355hp in its current 'weakest' iteration, and it has a ridiculously flat torque curve. It is basically flat from 1500rpm to 5000 or so. An NA V8 can't even do that.
Yep. The only true way to get mpg's with a V8 would be having an MDS system where 1/2 of the cylinders shut off but that can lead to major repair issues down the road. Chrysler almost had it but they failed and ended up with alot of warranty repairs or just flat out losing customers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deathbypsi View Post
* I only skimmed through the last 8 pages so I havent read everything in this post*

That said I figured I would just share some info with everyone. I work for Ford at the Saline Plastics plant building F-150 dashboards. A few days ago I was talking with a Ford Process Engineer that was trying figure out a way for our operation to increase produtcion 50,000 units per year. When I asked why he said because Fords is almost certain they are dumping the Ranger and will be adding a stripped down Ecoboost 4cyl to the F-150 lineup as a replacement.
There must be some truth to this because we have had Ford engineers up our asses for two weeks now tryin to figure out how to change our floor plans and our essembly process.
Thanks man. Any info you can give us from where you work will be greatly appreciated because they tend to only let part of the cat out of the bag.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixt9coug View Post
I hope they don't do that. I know they said they wanted to stop production on the Ranger and puch buyers into an F150 instead but damn... F150's are HUGE. It wouldn't fit in my garage. Hell, my Ranger barely fits in my garage (when its not occupied by the Cougar).
I'm lucky because I have enough room for an F150 but I don't need that size of a truck in terms of hauling firewood, trash, parts etc. I only need a little but not the size of the F150.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillInThe04Ranger View Post
Wow such a heatred discussion! Before this thread I remember reading the new ranger would get the 4 door cab and a 3.5L 255HP Engine ..... I was happy with the 250+ HP Number lol
Nope. No hatred just exchanging opinions and ideas as to what can be done with the Ranger and the direction of where Ford can go instead of where they are.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 02-09-2010
WillInThe04Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
I see what I did there, stupid R, haha I meant Heated!
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 02-10-2010
ranger_1999's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: spindale, NC
Posts: 1,444
I was talking to a FORD dealer yesterday about the ranger....He said basically they've "was gonna kill it for 2 years now"....but he thinks they are going to fuse the sport trac and Ranger together he said....I mean basically the sport trac is a 4-door ranger.....He was saying the sport tracs are too high compared to rangers and arn't selling well.....

He's heard of the T6, and has high hopes as well... We'll see
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 02-12-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger_1999 View Post
I was talking to a FORD dealer yesterday about the ranger....He said basically they've "was gonna kill it for 2 years now"....but he thinks they are going to fuse the sport trac and Ranger together he said....I mean basically the sport trac is a 4-door ranger.....He was saying the sport tracs are too high compared to rangers and arn't selling well.....

He's heard of the T6, and has high hopes as well... We'll see
Nope. I'm sorry dude but both are pretty much on the chopping block as we speak. The explorers is what killed the sport tracs now the only difference between the explorer and ranger is engine choices and an availible AWD on certain models. That's why just about all of the parts from an explorer will literally bolt right on to a Ranger with an exception of a few things. They've been talking about killing off the ranger for many years now. The best years for the ranger have been 2002 to 2004 with many different model choices and drivetrain options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillInThe04Ranger View Post
I see what I did there, stupid R, haha I meant Heated!
It's alright we all have mistyped or misread info at one time or another.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-11-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: River Falls, WI
Posts: 55
The market is saturated and very competitive. It amazes me how many options we have when buying a vehicle. Has to be expensive to make so many different vehicles. I can understand why Ford would want to eliminate some models. Would like to see them put a 6 speed under the Ranger in the future. Would hate to see uni-body construction. Rust eats though them fast where I live. I use my 94 Ranger for work. Does well to tow small loads. Much easier to maneuver in tight spots than a full size. I could care less about styling or amenities. I just need something simple, functional, and easy to work on. The Ranger has it all in that regard. Can't stand the thought of it being axed.

Last edited by Rob K; 04-11-2010 at 12:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-11-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: unknown
Posts: 890
Redesign it....

I think that Ford needs to redesign the ranger in a bad way. Offer more options and engine choices and you're looking at the Ranger dominating the midsize and mini truck markets. The Canyon, Colorado are GM's replacement for the old S10's. I drove one of each and the first one didn't have enough power to amount **** and the other basicly fell apart (interior wise) even on a smooth road. The Dakota from chrysler offers a V8 but has been known to have alot of electrical problems and really isn't that reliable to me anyways. The Ranger is in my book a smarter investment, and much more economical to operate on a daily basis than the others. Plus I really don't need the size of an F150. The F100 would be the size I'd go with that's a touch bigger than the Ranger.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-16-2010
WillInThe04Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightmare1015 View Post
I think that Ford needs to redesign the ranger in a bad way. Offer more options and engine choices and you're looking at the Ranger dominating the midsize and mini truck markets. The Canyon, Colorado are GM's replacement for the old S10's. I drove one of each and the first one didn't have enough power to amount **** and the other basicly fell apart (interior wise) even on a smooth road. The Dakota from chrysler offers a V8 but has been known to have alot of electrical problems and really isn't that reliable to me anyways. The Ranger is in my book a smarter investment, and much more economical to operate on a daily basis than the others. Plus I really don't need the size of an F150. The F100 would be the size I'd go with that's a touch bigger than the Ranger.
I read that there has been talk of discontinuing the Colorado/Canyon's. I'm not sure why they would want to leave the mid-size truck market like that. I mean don't get me wrong i love my ranger, but a little competition is always healthy. On another note if they combined the sport-trac with the ranger I think that'd be a fun truck, IMO it needs a little bit of a larger bed. But i'll be honest I don't plan on buying a new vehicle for a while.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pre key mod but undecided about the back FX42008 Suspension Tech 17 01-26-2012 08:25 PM
undecided... fourliter dan Wheels & Tires Semi-Tech 23 07-22-2010 06:53 PM
Front buffer replacement. (Shock replacement.) Hawklore Suspension Tech 4 01-19-2010 12:03 PM
old bushing replacement (1996 ford ranger) fletch12518 General Ford Ranger Discussion 19 01-04-2007 02:42 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 09:51 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.