2008 Ford Ranger

Comments (1 total):

1. Mr.

   By Garypaul | Posted: 4/6/2008

   Will Ford Destroy More of it's Heritage--the Ranger? The fact is that decades of operating worldwide as a disconnected set of fiefdoms has lost Ford huge good-will and worldwide recognition for many models including the compact Ranger P/U here in USA. Ford knows this now & eventually should offer a compact P/U to replace the Ranger and for heaven's sake should keep the "RANGER" nameplate, which FORD built up, & then neglected (have you seen an advertisement for the Ford Ranger lately?) with the hand of the bean counters all over it. But I don't really blame the accountants all the time. After all they were told to make money for Ford while relying on an absurd business plan that did not utilize the resources of Ford worldwide. For example, this truck could be achieving more power AND more mpg, if it was managed as part of a global operation to use engines and parts from Ford Rangers overseas, and was part of a FOMOCO that is re-energized with an emphasis on engineering, innovation, and style. Want more example of Ford's poor management of the Ranger? OK. Because Ford did not operate as a global organization, it could not make much $$ on the Ranger, and thus attempted to force good customers into buying the fuel thirsty V-6 Ranger models over the 4-cylinder (where profits were a bit higher). For example, from the 1998-2006 model years (9 years!) Ford refused to offer the long-bed Ranger 2 wheel-drive with a 4 cylinder --a combination that maximizes mpg and value for the man who wants maximum cargo hauling--and which was offered for the first 15 years when the engine was relatively anemic compared to today's much more powerful 4-banger. Well, with the fuel prices rising, Ford has finally decided to bring back the 4-cylinder/long bed combo for 07 and 08 & probably through 09. This illustrates Ford's past tendency to respond only when the competition forces change and not because a clear business plan to compete guides the company! There are many examples of this. Want more? ...Ford has kept the vehicle with basically the same IP (instrument panel) since fall of 1994, and even removed a few gauges to cheapen it up! Isn't it time for new IP? Want more? Lets take weight. As I was driving my Ranger one day, I noticed a loud clunking from the undercarriage & discovered the balancer had come loose. This thing wraps around the driveshaft and weighs about 8 pounds or so. I thought it was critical but I removed it and took the truck to 80 mph without a peep or any vibration and am still driving the vehicle today, 40,000 miles later. Upon further investigation the Ford dealer said that they just fall off every so often and they were using them as door stops! He said he did not know what they were for since the vehicle usually operates fine with out this chunk of iron! I thought we were into the age of mpg and efficiency?** The Ranger nonsense illustrates yet another dusty cobweb-filled corner of Ford that needs attention. I am driving my 5th Ford Ranger and for good reason--they've been a good trucks that meet my needs--but what could it have been if Ford functioned as it should--as a competitive global company guided by a business plan to compete? Hopefully Ford will bring over a fine and UPDATED Ranger from Ford of Asia. As Mulally will force Ford to be a global company lets hope he can gain traction before its too late for Ford... Comments on today's 08 Ranger. Here are a few added comments: Ë The 2.3 liter engine really provides sufficient power for this vehicle yet could be upgraded to 160 or more hp as in other Ford products, like the Escape. Apparently concerns over manual transmission durability held Ford back. But who's fault is it if the trans is too weak? Ë The combination of the long bed (over 7') with the 4 cylinder and manual transmission makes a particularly satisfying truck for the homeowner or light business, yet is rarely seen even though now available for 07-08. The standard cab, which is the only one available with the long bed, was lengthened 3 inches for 1998 and later models making the Ranger acceptably roomy for guys that are not too tall. I often use the bed to transport my 1150 pound garden tractor which just fits with the tailgate closed--but could not fit in the Colorado or most other compact pickups. Ë Unfortunately the Ranger 4x4 is not available with the 4 cylinder and it should be! These types of combinations are available on small trucks all over the world and on competitors like the Chevy Colorado. Not everyone wants or needs extra power combined with a 4x4. No it would not have sold well in an age of sub $2 gas but a properly global Ford should have been able to deliver that vehicle to US buyers. Ford would have thus had a more balanced lineup and been prepared for a gas price rise. Ë The limited slip axle has not available on 4-cylinder Rangers for many years and should be, as it is, again, on the Chevy Colorado! Ë The 4.0 liter V-6 just slurps too much gas. Its time for a fine running 3.5 L V6 cranking 220 hp or so and considerably over the 14/17 mpg rating it now achieves with 4x4, which is POOR for a compact pickup. In no way should this truck be offered with a V8 even if gas was $2 a gallon, when a fine running V-6 or turbo charged 6 or 4-cylinder can do a terrific job. [**Over the last couple decades Ford has come up with numerous vehicles that are overweight reflecting a sloppy engineering program. The 1989 T-Bird for example was a vehicle that had decent quality but came in way too heavy and Ford employees were chewed out by for developing this leviathan. But did Ford learn? No! The Recent 2004 F-150 was criticized inside Ford for its weight but again all was forgiven as gas was only $2 a gallon. There is no reason why a concerted effort could not have knocked 300-400 ponds off this leviathan, a respectable truck, but too fat!]

Post a comment: