What price would it take for you to buy a new Ford Ranger?

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Wheels are a popular accessory for trucks nowadays. Greatly improves their versatility too.

Click to expand...

What can alloy 18s do that steel 15s cant?

Dustin, I think you missed the 'no wheels' joke there.

rusty ol ranger said:

What can alloy 18s do that steel 15s cant?

Click to expand...

They'll be in about the right price range (used) in about 20 years. Won't be buying anything new or close to new anymore, done went down that money pit twice will not do it again.

Given that I have not yet seen any photos of a 6 foot bed or a V6 option, I would venture that I will not replace my 1997 Ranger with a new Ranger.

It looks like they are targetting the yuppie high tech lifestyle crowd and not a person who wants off-road and beach sand power, as well as hauling capacity.

BillinVA said:

Given that I have not yet seen any photos of a 6 foot bed or a V6 option, I would venture that I will not replace my 1997 Ranger with a new Ranger.

It looks like they are targetting the yuppie high tech lifestyle crowd and not a person who wants off-road and beach sand power, as well as hauling capacity.

Click to expand...

Aren't all the bed offerings right at 6 feet? I can't remember specifically, but they're close to it.
The 4 cylinder makes 50% more power than the SOHC 4.0. I wouldn't complain about an even bigger option, but it's certainly adequate.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

fastpakr said:

Aren't all the bed offerings right at 6 feet? I can't remember specifically, but they're close to it.
The 4 cylinder makes 50% more power than the SOHC 4.0. I wouldn't complain about an even bigger option, but it's certainly adequate.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

All the pictures I have seen so far have been high-optioned, which means crew cabs. Since the overall dimensions are somewhere between a 150 and a Sport Trac that means the 4-door likely has a 5.5 ft bed.

But that doesn't mean there won't be a standard or extended cab with a 6 or 7 ft bed.

As for the power, more power from less engine is good, but I have found that more cylinders means easier launches.

Back when we started dating my wife was driving an S-10 with a 2.2L. Due to wear, tear, tech power to weight ratios, and gear the 2.2 was putting a little bit more to the ground than my 2.9 was. It was still easier to stall it.

With a manual, you mean? I certainly agree that getting a load rolling with a manual and less off idle torque is harder than a larger engine with a heavier flywheel and more air moving. Less of an issue with an automatic, and the giant flat torque curve of the direct injection turbo engine helps too.

Isn't 5.5 the same length as the previous ranger extended cab beds?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

So, the new Rangers are nothing more than a Ford Explorer Sport Trac with 1/2 an engine and triple the price.

Someone else already said what I was thinking...catering to the yuppie crowd...yep, that's what all automakers are doing...they cater towards people who spend the day at Walmart, the mall, and those types of places where "offroading" was hitting the curb in the parking lot in the middle of summer...and given today's vehicles if their front tires happened to jump that curb they'd end up high centered and the AWD system would do nothing for them, and would require a high priced tow bill from a first generation stock 2WD Ranger to get them off the curb

Is there any specific fact that makes you believe this is less capable, or did you just fantasize that out of thin air?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

fastpakr said:

With a manual, you mean? I certainly agree that getting a load rolling with a manual and less off idle torque is harder than a larger engine with a heavier flywheel and more air moving. Less of an issue with an automatic, and the giant flat torque curve of the direct injection turbo engine helps too.

Isn't 5.5 the same length as the previous ranger extended cab beds?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Screw is 5’, scab is 6’, same length as a scab of old.

adsm08 said:

All the pictures I have seen so far have been high-optioned, which means crew cabs. Since the overall dimensions are somewhere between a 150 and a Sport Trac that means the 4-door likely has a 5.5 ft bed.

But that doesn't mean there won't be a standard or extended cab with a 6 or 7 ft bed.

As for the power, more power from less engine is good, but I have found that more cylinders means easier launches.

Back when we started dating my wife was driving an S-10 with a 2.2L. Due to wear, tear, tech power to weight ratios, and gear the 2.2 was putting a little bit more to the ground than my 2.9 was. It was still easier to stall it.

Click to expand...

My buddy's grandma has a 96 s10 with the 2.2 in an automatic. His grandpa always said you better have 2 miles clear if you wanted to pass someone. The standard transferred the power way better in those trucks.

If the North American Ranger is anything like what they have in Australia, it should be pretty impressive offroad.

I can't tell the New Ranger apart from a new Toyota Tacoma, or new Chevy Colorado, so I guess its a good thing that's the competition, nobody can say " you're truck is uglier than mine"
who styled these things. I don't need an aerodynamic truck designed in a wind tunnel. all that R&D is what jacks up the price. Ford - "We spent Millions (Dr. Evil voice) on the research to see how wind & water flows over the hood and cab and then put a box behind the cab to catch ALL that wind and ruin any mpg numbers that could be given, if this was a CAR (we don't do cars) the mpg's would be great."

Ranger850 said:

I can't tell the New Ranger apart from a new Toyota Tacoma, or new Chevy Colorado, so I guess its a good thing that's the competition, nobody can say " you're truck is uglier than mine"
who styled these things. I don't need an aerodynamic truck designed in a wind tunnel. all that R&D is what jacks up the price. Ford - "We spent Millions (Dr. Evil voice) on the research to see how wind & water flows over the hood and cab and then put a box behind the cab to catch ALL that wind and ruin any mpg numbers that could be given, if this was a CAR (we don't do cars) the mpg's would be great."

Click to expand...

The box is part of the mileage and is why they are all shaped the same. Ever wonder why water drops are all shaped the same? Air shapes them all the same.