The Ford Ranger may have roots that date back to the days of the Regan administration – his first term, no less — but its fuel-sipping ways have allowed the small truck to survive well into the 21st century. In fact, Ford recently gave the Ranger a stay of execution from 2009 to 2011. But despite its staying power, the Ranger isn’t immune to the current economic downturn.
Ford announced on Thursday that it will be idling the Ranger’s St. Paul production plant for four weeks in December. The plant is usually closed for one week in December to observe the Christmas holiday, but three additional weeks of down time were deemed necessary to keep Ranger supply in line with demand.
Through September the Ranger has managed to outperform the overall market, seeing just a 4.6 percent decrease in sales versus the market’s 21 percent nose dive.
The St. Paul plant employs about 1,000 workers.
10/16, 6:10 PM
posted by:
Lariat Luxury Locomotive Liner No.3
Holy crap Batman! To the batmobile Robin we’ve got to save Ford before it’s too late!
10/16, 7:23 PM
posted by:
A4
the ranger is a solid little truck but it certainly isnt the most fuel efficient option in 4.0l V6 form… that engine sucks gas way more than it should
10/16, 8:07 PM
posted by:
Madcapp
That plant wouldn’t be idle if it produced something relevant.
10/16, 8:27 PM
posted by:
TomF
What the hell is the “Regan” administration, LLN? You mean, the little girl in The Exorcist? She dates from about 1973.
10/16, 9:02 PM
posted by:
johnnycanuck
Every day that plant is idled I’m going to get stinking drunk then stand naked on my front porch with a Karaoke machine performing ‘Sister Christian’ by Night Ranger until the police arrive.
10/17, 12:48 AM
posted by:
cereal
@johnnycanuck – If I were your neighbors, I’d go on Christmas vacation early then.
10/17, 3:46 AM
posted by:
TOZO
The Ranger 4.0L isn’t much of a fuel-sipper at all!
10/17, 8:44 AM
posted by:
ricky_b
Kind of weird when you think about it. The Ranger and the Explorer shared a platform when the Explorer was introduced in 1991. During that time, the Explorer went through major transformations every 4-5 years. Ranger went through a few nips & tucks but nothing major. Ford also went through major transformation on the F Series and even introduced Expedition and Excursion, all the while neglecting cars in America in favor of trucks. So if their focus was mostly on trucks, why did they ignore the Ranger the way they did?
10/17, 9:31 AM
posted by:
inline6
Because the Ranger was selling as much as 450,000 units a year, even until 1999. Today, they’re struggling to hit 70,000, and most of those are still fleet models.
The Ranger was WAY past its sell-by date 5 years ago. It’s incredibly stale now. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t still have its uses.
The 4.0L V6 is underpowered and thirsty because it’s an ancient engine, still based on the old “Cologne V6″ from the late ’60s.
But this segment is bound to grow as people continue to bail out of their big trucks and SUVs. Ford needs to replace the Ranger with something modern, compact, capable, and fuel-efficient. And if Toyota, Nissan, GM, and Chrysler are smart, they’ll downsize their offerings. They’d be idiotic for leaving the segment they used to rule just because no one put 2 and 2 together to import the European model, or design the next one to meet American safety/emissions standards.
10/17, 4:08 PM
posted by:
PW
The Ford Ranger took its current form for model year 1993, which would have been the actual year 1992. That was also the year I started kindergarten.
Today, it’s almost 2009, and the Ford Ranger has only changed from its early 90s form by a few nips and tucks. I’ll be graduating college at the end of 2009, but the 1993 Ford Ranger will soldier on.
10/17, 10:16 PM
posted by:
wbent
The point is still missed by most media and persons as to why the Ranger was unchanged including here. Despite its age it still is 2nd in annual sales and still has one the highest owner loyalty bases. While virtually every other manufacture went to the mid size format at enormous R&D, retooling and training costs the Ranger just kept on selling. Whats more it is more profitable and fuel efficient than all of the “mordern” compact trucks. When a “Mid Size” truck costs nearly as much as a full size truck and only returns 2mpg combined economy whats the point. Whats wrong with having a product that small business and fleets will buy? The Ranger has had much more than nip and tucks since 1993, vast frame improvements, 5-speed automatic, 3 different 4cyl engines, 4 different V6’s, 3 different interiors……so the cab, doors and bed have not changed much…..still a good looking true “compact truck” the last one. BTW as the article states over the last 6 months it has shown 4 months of sales increases and 2 months of decreases at far less than all competitors.
10/18, 12:36 PM
posted by:
inline6
PW, the Ranger was only reskinned for the ‘93 model year. Underneath the sheetmetal, it was still basically identical to the new-for-’83 Ranger.