Inside Info on the NEW Ranger - Page 2 - 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
  #26  
Old 06-12-2007
SteveOh's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ft. Campbell Kentucky
Posts: 4,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernMudSlinger
who says you cant lift an IRS? should be practically the same as the front.
just alot more money to lift..it would be double..that would suck ****..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-12-2007
SouthernMudSlinger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Demorest,Ga
Posts: 1,724
What are the odds of IRS on a ranger? As long as they dont make it a unibody truck, it should have a solid axle.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-12-2007
bwester04's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Round Rock, Tx
Posts: 2,641
the explorer isnt a unibody, neither is the ST, same with the expedition- but they are IRS..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-12-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 730
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...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-12-2007
Morph's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 979
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
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-12-2007
bwester04's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Round Rock, Tx
Posts: 2,641
Lmao
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-12-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 730
Quote:
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
Looks like the wheels aren't round... Won't that hurt the ride quality? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING FORD!!!??!?!?!?!?1111one
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-12-2007
KARPE's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Valrico, Fl 33594
Posts: 4,748
roflcopter
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-12-2007
Morph's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 979
I dont think I like how the fenders are edgy and not round...Doesnt flow well at all.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-13-2007
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
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...
You are ' somewhat ' correct.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-13-2007
HarryTasker's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,491
I think we will see the 3.5L V6 Duratec in a ranger before we see a V8.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryTasker
I think we will see the 3.5L V6 Duratec in a ranger before we see a V8.
Maybe, but that motor isn't really a "truck" motor. the power band really isn't there for towing... I suppose they could re cam it for a more truck like torque and hp curve....

Current specs:

Horsepower (SAE [email protected]) 263 @ 6250 rpm
Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 249 @ 4500 rpm
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
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....
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
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
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
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.....
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-13-2007
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwester04
the explorer isnt a unibody, neither is the ST, same with the expedition- but they are IRS..
the explorer is gonna be unibody here very soon on the redesign... expect it soon
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
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.....
Not in 2003. My Expedition has the same Engine and tranny as a 2002. a 260 HP 2V 5.4 with an auto tranny (4spd). and I contend it doesn't matter if it is more money or not. If IRS is $1000 more expensive than a live axle in a SUV or a Truck, wouldn't the cost go up the same? 20K-21K vs 30K-31K. Now the price between 02-03 went up little to none, with the only reason a 02 was cheaper was a huge rebate at the time to get rid of the old ones.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-13-2007
GrafixGuy's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 8,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryTasker
I think we will see the 3.5L V6 Duratec in a ranger before we see a V8.
yep. its a power plant why not...

from ford...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
^^^^ 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 ftlbf (339 Nm) 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.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-13-2007
Jester983's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: La habra, CA
Posts: 429
What kind of fuel economy is the 3.5L V6 supposed to get?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
In the taurus its 18 city 28 hwy for FWD
17 city 24 hwy for AWD
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-13-2007
klc317's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 950
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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-13-2007
FMD's Avatar
FMD FMD is offline
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Amherst NY
Posts: 3,811
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-13-2007
gasman's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 113
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Quote:
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.
The gauges are different as well.... I agree that they could use a refresh inside, but I like the interior on my truck, even if its 12 years old.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inside Look at the All-New Ford Ranger KLC General Ford Ranger Discussion 41 08-23-2011 09:44 PM
**OFFICIAL 2010 KNOX MEET** - Hotel info inside Redrocket Meets, Greets, & Events 142 08-15-2010 07:07 PM
New Future ranger info edgeoffroad04 General Ford Ranger Discussion 24 04-22-2008 05:22 PM
Heavily considering a new ranger....'97 3.0L 2wd..need info. Fx4wannabe01 General Ford Ranger Discussion 6 10-09-2007 10:41 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 03:15 AM.


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.