So according to this article, Ford is going to discontinue the ranger in 2009, but in the fall of 2010 bring out and F-100 to replace the sport trac and compete with the bigger mid size trucks, and also a new Bronco!!! Then in 2012 they will bring back the ranger, will either be the same size or smaller.

Heres the link: AUTOSAVANT: The Ranger is Dead – Long Live the Ranger

 

Interesting times indeed.

 

If they were to advertize the milage that the 4banger gets with todays fuel prices, all this would be unnessary. The big 3 are losing market shares to the imports because of their lack of foresite. To them bigger is always better. Well guess what?
My truck just went through winter with flying colors and turned 180,000mi.
Had to use 4x4 more times than I wished, including true blizzard conditions.
So what does Ford keep advertising?
Hey Ford... I don't want an F-150 or I would own one. Just got rid of my F-250 Ranger and will never look at a full size truck again. I need a 4x4 truck, just not a giant piece of iron, and my signature says why in part.
Gosh... OPEC would love me upsizing, but my wallet won't.

 

Bazzman, I'm with you. After reading the article, I think Ford has just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The F150 is the best selling, yet I won't buy one because they are so large. I remember when I could reach into the bed of a pickup, and now I can barely see over the side. The late 70's F100 size was the most rational to me, for the 'standard' size trucks. I realize growth is a response to competition, but these things aren't trucks any more, they are moving living rooms.
They have again left product to wither, just like the best selling Taurus/Sable pair were left with no refinement for 6-7 years. I am not in the business, but there is something lacking in their strategic plans. Why do they have so many varieties of V6 engines? Why did they ever design and build a 3-speed transmission for the Taurus, it must have cost more in design than they ever sold in numbers.
I have gone to the local Ford dealer, and looked at Rangers, and all they have are tarted up to the $19-20k range. Nothing in the medium-equipped range. I don't understand, but then again, I am not paid to.
tom

 

The japanese don't make a compact truck anymore either, they have gone midsize, the ranger is the last comapct still made. However a comapny from India is going to start importing compact p/u's and the base engine is going to be a 4 cylinder diesel. I believe there is still a market for the small ranger, all people want is a crewcab option, if it had the crewcab, it's sales numbers would be great again.

 

In full page dealer ads in the LA/Orange County area, there are ads every weekend for Ranger XLT Super Cabs with 2.3L engines for $11,995.00.

I searched for two months for one with the 4.0 V6 engine. There wasn't one anywhere in CA, or I woulda bought it.

The three dealers I went to refused to order one without a fat deposit, saying there was no demand.

What year Taurus ever used a 3 speed manual transmission? Ford never made any such thing.

Withering on the vine: The Crown Vic (nee LTD) & Mercury Grand Marquis have had exactly ONE major restyle since 1979.

The Town Car (based on the Vic) has had two since 1980.

 

So Ford is going to let a great truck with a great reputation die. Replace it for 2 years with a slightly larger truck and then replace that truck with redesigned Ranger that is slightly smaller than the current Ranger.
That sounds like such a waste when all they need to do is launch a massive advertising campaign reintroducing the Ranger to everyone who forgot about it.

 

Four years is a long stretch to be absent from the market and then expect to recover the brand. It will be an uphill climb for the T6 to compete outside the Ranger loyalists.

I don't get the Bronco idea. There's no market there or at least anything with significant scale.

 

Come on guy's, it's not that big of deal. Peoples 09 ranger won't even be wore out before there's a new one in 2012. In the mean time we'll get a mid size F-100 and a real off roading bronco and we get the small ranger back, seems like a deal to me. The article said the new ranger would be the same size as the current one if not a tad smaller as the 4 banger will be it's main power plant. Heck yeah, bring back the 4 cylinder 4x4 ranger. Also the 2.3 is going to grow in liters and hp according to ford world. I believe they said to a 2.5 or a 2.6, something like that and be a round 180 hp without forced induction. So it sounds like a turbo could be an option as well on the new 4 bangers. This is pretty exciting news if you ask me. It does confirm what I've been saying all a long about the F-100 and the V-8 option, I love my cyristol ball hee hee.

 

Number, the trans in the T car was an automatic. Not the AXOD, a simple plain jane 3 speed auto. Cast aluminum case, reminds me of the 2 speed fordo in the 1961-62 models trying to be a Powerglide...
I think you could only get it with the 4cyl, but then the only manual trans T was mated to a 4 cylinder also.
tom

 

Wendell, I think that there is a problem. Once you lose your core customers by having nothing in the showroom, they leave for other pastures when they need a new truck. The demand is not based on when you deliver product, but when the transmission fails, the new job comes in, the bonus is set on your desk. If Ford doesn't have something there and then, they lose the sale, possible future sales, and any sort of customer loyalty. They are gone. Just like the people who have been saying 'sold the Ranger, out of here... ' on this site. They may come back to visit, but not like before.
Henry learned this when he stopped making the Model T to replace it, and had no product for two years. People started buying Chevrolet - a six for the price of a four - and he never recovered.
But then again, the competition will be churning out new models while the Rouge burns... rome joke.
tom

 

Taurus 4 cylinder 2.5L's used a modified version of the ATX, which was used in Escort/Tracers, Tempo/Topaz.

Source of info: 1980/89 Ford Passenger Car Parts Catalog / Transmission Application Chart / Section A70 / Page 32.

Ford-O-Matic 2 speeds were used 1951/61 in some full sized Fords, 1960/64 Falcons, 1962/63 midsized Fairlanes, and their Mercury cousins.

Ramblers & Studebakers (1956/66) also used this same 2 speed transmission.

1965/66 Studebakers were a mishmash. Chevrolet 6 or 283 engines, 3 speed BW T-86 overdrive or Flash-O-Matic (Fordomatic 2 speeds), and Spicer 44 rear axles.

Old saying: Slip and slide...with Power Glide

 

If I may retort, they can't replace the ranger with any other compact p/u, because there is no other compact p/u left besides the ranger. So they will have to move up to a mid size and that being the case, that might as well move up to the F-100 if they like ford trucks. When the new ranger comes out and they want a smaller truck, then "BANG", there it is. There's an old saying, 'ABSENCE MAKES THE HEART GROW FONDER". How many people are standing in line to buy a new camero, a lot and it's been gone for a while, same with the new callenger. If the ranger has that kind of following, it will bring even more buyer's. Untill the release of the new ranger, people will still have a ford mid size truck to choose from just like the rest of the auto makers. You folks are worring over nothing. Very few of us on here even have a new ranger, most of us have older ones and there will still be millions of old ones to be had. Is you glass half full or half empty, mines half full. All is right with the world, the ranger still still lives, plus we get a mid size and a bronco, life is good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

 

Numbers: No wonder the 4-banger trans was so pitiful. I had thought that particular ATX was "new" in the T-car. My wife had one that puked multiple times, and was parked in front of the dealership with a big paper-mache lemon on top. Out of service for several months in total in the first year of service, but ... who cares, Ford sure didn't. They sure ate it on rental car costs when she took that 1,000 mile plus vacation...
I had a 62 Galaxie 2-dr with a 2-speed Fordomatic/292. It was not the cast iron from the early 50's, but an aluminum case with integral bell housing if I remember. Paid a whole $125 for that car. The early Ford-O-matics resembled borg-warners, and if you pulled them down into manual "L" they were actually 3-speed transmissions, just like the Cruise-O-matic. Big and heavy cast iron cases that split in the center support and allowed the bands to slip...
I do not remember that the ATX had the 'split-torque' feature of the Escort trans, but that was 20+ years ago anyway. Just sayin' that they should not have spent the $$ to make another transmission that had such low expectation of sales... IMO.
tom

 

i think the ranger has gotton too far from its roots. the basic plain-jane small truck with just the basics is gone and with it the affordable price. my '88 supercab 2wd was 14g new, the '93 s/c 4x4 was 22g new. there just too darned expensive anymore. then there is the crap like abs , side crash test results and other garbage. i dont buy a vehcle based on how well it holds up in a t-bone impact or if it has 16 airbags and traction control. im seriously thinking of looking for a early bronco thats in good condition for a ranger replacement someday. i know, good luck with that. but given what a new ranger costs these days. i think id be ahead. and i could work on the thing without all the diagnostic tools that modern day vehicles require. and even if you do invest some cash on high-tech diagnostic tools, they are usually outdated in a few years. sign of the times i guess.