Inside Info on the NEW Ranger
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,585
Likes: 0
From: Ft. Campbell Kentucky
Originally Posted by SouthernMudSlinger
who says you cant lift an IRS? should be practically the same as the front.
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
I kinda doubt that it will be IRS, just because its based on the T2 doesn't mean that it wont/can't have a solid rear end... And I'm sure a v8 is a strong possibility, the sport trac has one. Remember, the new Ranger will more that likely be a "Mid-size" truck... Bye bye compact...
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Someone near and dear to me sent me this Computer rendering of the 2010 Ranger. Looks like IRS is in... :( Note this is still in design phase, so it may change.
http://home.comcast.net/~frizl/2010ranger.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~frizl/2010ranger.JPG
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Originally Posted by Morph
Someone near and dear to me sent me this Computer rendering of the 2010 Ranger. Looks like IRS is in... :( Note this is still in design phase, so it may change.
http://home.comcast.net/~frizl/2010ranger.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~frizl/2010ranger.JPG
Unregistered User
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
fuel economy....the ranger isn't the style of truck to get a v8 and have good fuel economy.........and we ALL know that fuel economy is the name of the game now...
The EPA had some hand in the mix but theres a lot in all of it.
With the Auto-Industry recieving different ' breaks ' from our Government, they had to agree to a bunch of ' rules '.
An ' Average of fleet ' or total output had to be achieved. In the year 2000, Ford had how many ' small ' cars? Contour, Festiva, Focus, Escort.. Plus all the ' flex fuel ' entities. They had to sell a certian number of smaller cars to ballance out their F-Series line of trucks ( Which were the best trucks, unquestioned , at that time ) in MPG.
Something simular has been carried over into the years.
***IF*** they are going to eliminate their small truck line, putting it on a bigger platform ( as someone mentioned ) , how are you going to power an explorer with a 4 banger? The bloody Boat would weigh over 4000LBS! Is ford going to drop their total MPG balance and put a v8 in a ranger where presently they enjoy breaks from offering a ' flex fuel ' and a 4cyl? Pricey as well for that vehical! Cost of operation? Yep, more per year then whats out there.
I honestly see the ' ranger ' as we know it to run the rest of its lifes expectency ' as is '. I do NOT see them crossing platforms for these ' small ' trucks to make them comparable to the F150 Market. Thats their bread and butter, they won't screw with it at all.
Heres a Perspective for all to ponder..
We all know the 3.0 is a gutless motor when compared to the SOHC. The difference in MFGR costs can't be all that much as BOTH engines have been in production ( IE: The mills have been tooled/paid for. The SOHC is almost 10 years old already.. ). Why Does Ford Keep 2 V6 engines in the lineup? Certianly, from posts on here, theres not much of a MPG difference.. there IS a power difference.. Not much of a cost difference from the building standpoint.. Why Keep the 3.slow around?
Because its presently ' Dual Fuel ' and they get a break for it.
What I COULD see Ford doing..
A newer designed head/cams as the same engine is now in the Mustang. A power bump up a couple ponies/lb-ft AND putting the dual-fuel systems from the Exploders SOHC dual fuel setup.. then dumping the 3.0 and offering a 2.5L I4 Diesel.
Total engine packages.. 4banger econo types, v6 power types and Diesel fans will all have their happiness to fondle in the crib that night.
Food for thought. A V8 isn't happening without a toarch and your time.
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 1
From: SE Michigan
As I said in my post a while back, the Ranger in its current form will run to the end of production (2008) then disappear. From what I understand, there will be a 2010 ranger (maybe not the same name) out in late 2009.
It also doesn't make sense for them to put IRS on a ranger or any truck for that matter becase the ride height isn't there and it cost more money, intern raising the price of the vehicle. They wont do that, no one would buy them. Aside from that, people who buy a truck expect it to ride and haul like one. Not to mention that leaf springs are better for hauling 1000 pounds of gravel or whatever....
Motors I know nothing about, my information is simply based on what my company gets in the way of building new assembly lines, and the ranger (or whatever the small/midsize truck will be called) is a go as of now.
As far as being built on the explorer chasis, that made sence, they can use those frames just as chevy did with the colorado and trailblazer. The colorado has a leaf spring setup while the SUV has coils for a more car like ride. It isn't that hard people, they can put a standard solid axle with leaf springs on the explorer platform for a pickup truck.
It also doesn't make sense for them to put IRS on a ranger or any truck for that matter becase the ride height isn't there and it cost more money, intern raising the price of the vehicle. They wont do that, no one would buy them. Aside from that, people who buy a truck expect it to ride and haul like one. Not to mention that leaf springs are better for hauling 1000 pounds of gravel or whatever....
Motors I know nothing about, my information is simply based on what my company gets in the way of building new assembly lines, and the ranger (or whatever the small/midsize truck will be called) is a go as of now.
As far as being built on the explorer chasis, that made sence, they can use those frames just as chevy did with the colorado and trailblazer. The colorado has a leaf spring setup while the SUV has coils for a more car like ride. It isn't that hard people, they can put a standard solid axle with leaf springs on the explorer platform for a pickup truck.
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 1
From: SE Michigan
Originally Posted by HarryTasker
I think we will see the 3.5L V6 Duratec in a ranger before we see a V8.
Current specs:
Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 263 @ 6250 rpm
Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 249 @ 4500 rpm
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
From: Wyoming MN
Originally Posted by greygooseranger
It also doesn't make sense for them to put IRS on a ranger or any truck for that matter becase the ride height isn't there and it cost more money, intern raising the price of the vehicle. They wont do that, no one would buy them. Aside from that, people who buy a truck expect it to ride and haul like one. Not to mention that leaf springs are better for hauling 1000 pounds of gravel or whatever....
I have nothing reallyu against IRS, I just want to warn you though, if it happens the only lift for a ranger will be a body lift, as the axle shafts actually pass through the frame on the Expedition. No possibility of a Suspension lift.
~HJ
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 1
From: SE Michigan
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
They did it to the Explorer and the expedition without raising the price astronomically. I can see them doing it, plus if they were concerned about ride height they wouldn't have made the expedition so low that it hits the bumper on the ground when I go down farmers roads. Also the tow and payload rating actually went up in 03 VS 02 which had a solid rear axle. and you got to remember we are in the minority, Car like ride and handling is the name of the game in selling trucks today. That is just a fact of life.
I have nothing reallyu against IRS, I just want to warn you though, if it happens the only lift for a ranger will be a body lift, as the axle shafts actually pass through the frame on the Expedition. No possibility of a Suspension lift.
~HJ
I have nothing reallyu against IRS, I just want to warn you though, if it happens the only lift for a ranger will be a body lift, as the axle shafts actually pass through the frame on the Expedition. No possibility of a Suspension lift.
~HJ
I agree, if it is IRS. Body lift is all you will have.....
Originally Posted by bwester04
the explorer isnt a unibody, neither is the ST, same with the expedition- but they are IRS..
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
From: Wyoming MN
Originally Posted by greygooseranger
SUv's in general are more money anyway. I think MORE people want a car like ride with an SUV because allot (not all) are soccer moms who wont drive a minivan. I know the tow rating went up from the old body style to the new one, so did the HP and the trans in the new ones is a 6 speed not a 4. All of those factors make a big difference in a vehicles towing capacity....
I agree, if it is IRS. Body lift is all you will have.....
I agree, if it is IRS. Body lift is all you will have.....
~HJ
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 1
From: SE Michigan
^^^^ That seems to be a good motor (read below) but I still don't think it will make it into the truck....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Duratec 35 was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2007.
The new heads relocate all accessory drives to the front of the engine with a flush chain drive, saving space. The new combustion chambers are reshaped as well. A dual-stage variable length intake manifold, centrally-located sparkplugs, and a 10.3:1 compression ratio are other features. The Duratec 35 is ULEV-II compliant and is said to be capable of meeting the PZEV requirement as well. The dual-stage intake manifold was part of the Duratec 30.
Engine output will eventually exceed 300 hp (224 kW), but will be 265 hp (198 kW) and 250 ft·lbf (339 N·m) at launch, a substantial upgrade in power from the Duratec 30.
The engine is the same exterior size as the Duratec 30, and should be usable in all vehicles currently using that engine and its derivatives. The company expects the engine to be used in one fifth of all Ford products by the end of the decade.
The Duratec 35 will replace the Duratec 30 in some applications (notably the Ford Taurus) by the end of that year, but the Duratec 30 will continue in production.
The Duratec 35 is unique in that it will deliver its 265 hp (198 kW) rating on regular (87 octane) gasoline, giving it at an advantage when compared against its Japanese competitors of similar displacement and power levels. There is a 3.7L version with 275hp/270tq, slated to go in a fwd passenger car around 2008-2009.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Duratec 35 was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2007.
The new heads relocate all accessory drives to the front of the engine with a flush chain drive, saving space. The new combustion chambers are reshaped as well. A dual-stage variable length intake manifold, centrally-located sparkplugs, and a 10.3:1 compression ratio are other features. The Duratec 35 is ULEV-II compliant and is said to be capable of meeting the PZEV requirement as well. The dual-stage intake manifold was part of the Duratec 30.
Engine output will eventually exceed 300 hp (224 kW), but will be 265 hp (198 kW) and 250 ft·lbf (339 N·m) at launch, a substantial upgrade in power from the Duratec 30.
The engine is the same exterior size as the Duratec 30, and should be usable in all vehicles currently using that engine and its derivatives. The company expects the engine to be used in one fifth of all Ford products by the end of the decade.
The Duratec 35 will replace the Duratec 30 in some applications (notably the Ford Taurus) by the end of that year, but the Duratec 30 will continue in production.
The Duratec 35 is unique in that it will deliver its 265 hp (198 kW) rating on regular (87 octane) gasoline, giving it at an advantage when compared against its Japanese competitors of similar displacement and power levels. There is a 3.7L version with 275hp/270tq, slated to go in a fwd passenger car around 2008-2009.
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Likes: 7
From: Cincinnati, OH
I can see how Ford may base it loosely off the Explorer/Sport Trac platform for cheaper production although it will most likely kill off the Sport Trac in lieu of a crew-cab Ranger. Ford is really in need of some newer engine choices on the Ranger as the ones offered now are, in reality, stone age in technology. I don't have a problem with that, but I can see at least a new I4, a fresh V6, and pleeezzzeee lets see a small diesel in it's future.
personally, i think the ranger would be alot more comfortable, and alot more stable on the road, if it was 1 inch wider than it is right now.
I also think they can do more with the interior as far as aestetics since the interior is quite bland. If you look at the difference between a base line F150 and a loaded F150, there is a HUGE difference in over all look and feel of the interior. I think theyd earn mondo brownie points with the customer if they modernized/updated the interiors alone.
I also think they can do more with the interior as far as aestetics since the interior is quite bland. If you look at the difference between a base line F150 and a loaded F150, there is a HUGE difference in over all look and feel of the interior. I think theyd earn mondo brownie points with the customer if they modernized/updated the interiors alone.
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
Originally Posted by FMD
I also think they can do more with the interior as far as aestetics since the interior is quite bland. If you look at the difference between a base line F150 and a loaded F150, there is a HUGE difference in over all look and feel of the interior. I think theyd earn mondo brownie points with the customer if they modernized/updated the interiors alone.
plus the fact that other then the airbag covers, and steering wheel. the interior of the Ranger has remained unchanged since 1995. only the seats got a major upgrade. they made interiors alot different 12 years ago then today.
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 1
From: SE Michigan
Originally Posted by gasman
plus the fact that other then the airbag covers, and steering wheel. the interior of the Ranger has remained unchanged since 1995. only the seats got a major upgrade. they made interiors alot different 12 years ago then today.
