• WS Posted: 5/19/2008 10:53am PDT

    A smaller, lighter F150 would definitely be beneficial, but not as a Ranger replacement. I think Ford and Toyota are missing the boat here. Both companies enlarged their trucks at a time when gas prices were going through the roof. I think that the Tundra would actually be doing better now if they had stuck with the 3/4 size they had prior to the latest redesign. In the same fashion, the F150 needs to be downsized but they also need an even smaller 4-cyl truck. Otherwise, they will once again be lagging the desires of the market.

  • AC Posted: 5/19/2008 10:58am PDT

    Uh… SportTrac, anyone?

  • David Posted: 5/19/2008 12:36pm PDT

    I firmly believe that trucks are trucks for a reason, however, there are people who need them sparingly. We're missing the boat with onyl two lines.....try three
    1) - Economy / light duty / casual truck
    2) - Mid-Size / medium duty / personal truck
    3) - Full Size / heavy Duty / work truck
    The economy truck is to increase your fuel economy and is made for the casual user, NOT a work truck at all. Small size, good fuel economy. The Mid-Size would be the perfect truck for people who use a truck but don't need the full size features and fuel economy loss, and also for people who like to have a truck as their main vehicle. The third option is a work truck, full sized, not all the bells and whistles of a Cadillac. Keep those relegated to the MidSized models.

  • Gabriel Posted: 5/19/2008 12:59pm PDT

    If they can get fuel economy in the 20's, then they have a winner, otherwise forget it.

  • Greg Posted: 5/19/2008 6:46pm PDT

    I'm glad to hear that Ford is finalling going to do something with the Ranger replacement. Why they could not have taken the current F-150 and cut it down to size to be the next Ranger is anyones' guest. F-100? I'm sure they will keep the Ranger name since they decide to keep the Taurus name.

  • John Stirr Posted: 5/19/2008 7:46pm PDT

    Basing the mid-sized truck on the F-150 chassis sounds like a bad idea. Basing the Frontier on the Titan did not work out all that well for Nissan. The chassis should be sturdy, but probably over-engineered for how it will be used by most owners, and it will probably be another overweight, gas-guzzling pig along the lines the lines of the Dodge Dakota (the lousy gas mileage of a full-size truck, with none of the traditional advantages).
    While mid-sized V-6 powered pickup is probably a good idea, a compact pickup with a 4-cylinder engine along the lines of the old Toyota Hi-Lux is what we really need now.
    And there is nothing "clever" about the cargo-organization space of the Honda Ridgeline, which like Ford Explorer Sport-Trac, has been a sales flop. Heaven help Ford if that's who they think they should emulate.

  • Peter Posted: 5/20/2008 9:11am PDT

    i like the idea of a downsized F150 with a V-6.
    however, not as a Ford Ranger replacement. can't Ford tap Mazda again for an update of their B-Series truck that is sold as the Ranger/Courier around th world as a true Ranger replacement?

  • Ted Schmitt Posted: 5/20/2008 11:05am PDT

    The F-150 is not currently built in Wayne, MI. It is built in Dearborn, MI and Kansas City, MO. The Ford vehicles built in Wayne are the Focus, Expedition, and Lincoln Navigator.

  • Ed Posted: 5/20/2008 12:02pm PDT

    When the dinosaurs went extinct, smaller dinos were not spared.
    SUVs and Light Trucks are on the way to extinction. Gas prices are already over $4 and diesel prices over $4.50, and $5.00 will arrive soon.
    it is ludicrous to need a dollar for every two miles you drive! (which you do, with a 10 mpg StupidUglyVehicle and $5 gas.)

  • NaBUru38 Posted: 5/25/2008 3:57am PDT

    How about South American-sized pickup trucks? 4.50 meters long (175 inches), 600-700 kg payload, 80-100hp engines...

  • Scott Posted: 5/25/2008 4:19pm PDT

    Since owning (& selling) my 6.o litre turbo diesel f250, I am a big believer in the powerful AND efficient "oil burners". Torque ratings matter in trucks, not HP ratings. And... locomotives have proven (for years) the viability of the diesel-electric, why aren't we hearing about this combo in vehicles???

  • Sage Posted: 5/28/2008 4:02pm PDT

    Not everyone needs a big hauler. In these days of $4.00 gas why not bring back the small truck. I can get my rehab supplies back from the hardware store, tow my little boat and grab the plants from the nursery on the weekends. I think the big 3 should go retro and go back to the little trucks from the 80's (just better build quality please)

  • Eric Congiardo Posted: 7/24/2008 6:11am PDT

    Why Oh why are all the auto makers going to bigger trucks with all of the gingrer bread that we don't want and don't want to pay for ? If the UK and Malaysia have a new Diesel Ranger why can't we ? Biodiesel anyone ? We just want an affordable small 4 cyl. truck to pick up after all of the '70s, '80s small trucks are leaving us now that they are at the end of their lifespan. No small wonder so many of the auto makers are hurting. Make more gas hogs and more unsold units will sit on the lots.

  • KEPONTRUKIN Posted: 8/30/2008 8:58pm PDT

    I have a 1988 Ranger Ext 4cyl. 5 speed which is my sweetheart. I'm not rich, but I just keep fixing, maintaining and painting it. I live in slush ridden salty roads Michigan and my ranger has minimal rust. I think Ford is making a mistake DC'ing the ranger. I haul everything from hay to groceries and with petro taking most of my peso's I leave the Jimmy in the drive (which I can't sell or give away) and take my gas sipper, the Ranger. Ford wake up and meet America's needs like Henry did.