Comments on: Ford to idle St. Paul truck plant

By: inline6

inline6 — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:36:30 +0000

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.

By: wbent

wbent — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:16:52 +0000

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.

By: PW

PW — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:08:58 +0000

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.

By: inline6

inline6 — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:31:29 +0000

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.

By: ricky_b

ricky_b — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:44:16 +0000

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?

By: TOZO

TOZO — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:46:46 +0000

The Ranger 4.0L isn’t much of a fuel-sipper at all!

By: cereal

cereal — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:48:43 +0000

@johnnycanuck – If I were your neighbors, I’d go on Christmas vacation early then.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:02:13 +0000

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.

By: TomF

TomF — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:27:53 +0000

What the hell is the “Regan” administration, LLN? You mean, the little girl in The Exorcist? She dates from about 1973.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:07:28 +0000

That plant wouldn’t be idle if it produced something relevant.

By: A4

A4 — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:23:30 +0000

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

By: Lariat Luxury Locomotive Liner No.3

Lariat Luxury Locomotive Liner No.3 — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:10:41 +0000

Holy crap Batman! To the batmobile Robin we’ve got to save Ford before it’s too late!