# Good Bye Ranger. was a great 29 years



## Mackman (Nov 3, 2009)

I think its a shame. I have an 2008 ranger and love it. O well all good things have to end sooner or later.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/62263--it-s-the-end-of-the-road-for-ford-s-ranger-pickup

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57344516/st-paul-ford-plant-sees-final-truck-off-the-line/


----------



## Stik208 (Oct 19, 2004)

I had a 94, 99 and 04 all were great. I think the problem is the 1/2 tons became the same price and fuel economy so why not get more room for the same price.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

Yes, the Ranger was a good little pickup.


----------



## Mackman (Nov 3, 2009)

Stik208;1383736 said:


> I had a 94, 99 and 04 all were great. I think the problem is the 1/2 tons became the same price and fuel economy so why not get more room for the same price.


Thats what they said. The new V6 eco boost gets better MPG in an F-150 then the ranger does.

Thats the only downfall to my ranger is the MPG. Im lucky if i get 14mpg. But other then that i love the little truck.


----------



## Mackman (Nov 3, 2009)

Ford should have somehowed put a small 4cyl diesel in them. They would have got 40mpg or better i would think. 

Im sure there is a reason they never did it. But i would love to know WHY???


----------



## exmark1 (Nov 30, 2005)

They do offer 2 diesel ranger models overseas, and the ranger was sold with a 4 cylinder diesel when they first came out up until 1986 I think.


----------



## ross3031 (Nov 17, 2008)

> Ford should have somehowed put a small 4cyl diesel in them. They would have got 40mpg or better i would think.
> 
> Im sure there is a reason they never did it. But i would love to know WHY???


That would be our lovely government and EPA regulations and the extra cost that comes with them. Rangers are available with a diesel over seas and in Mexico and sell very well...


----------



## grandview (Oct 9, 2005)

I had a 84 Ranger,no power steering ,no power brakes,4 cyl.with a stick,vinyl seats and AM radio.


----------



## icudoucme (Dec 3, 2008)

grandview;1383951 said:


> I had a 84 Ranger,no power steering ,no power brakes,4 cyl.with a stick,vinyl seats and AM radio.


They had radios back then?!


----------



## plow/truck (Feb 7, 2007)

icudoucme;1384013 said:


> They had radios back then?!


They were usually mounted somewhere above the 8 track player!


----------



## Pinky Demon (Jan 6, 2010)

Only party Ford has to blame is themselves. Could have been a good vehicle if they got their head out of their ass and did it right. 

My 02 with the 3.0L only gets 18 MPG if I'm lucky. The motor is an absolute gutless wonder displacing an earth shattering 160 HP and 180 lb. ft. The transmission had work at 60k for a pervasive problem throughout the Ranger and Explorer line. The brake design blows, and was finally rectified by adding rear discs in the later years. Headlights blow and could've been fixed by simply adding a projector lens in the light assembly. And all this is topped off by by no power accessories but it's got leather seats and a sunroof. WTF. 

I think outside the Super Duty, I've had enough of Ford's BS to last me a lifetime. 

Had they continued with the little Perkins diesel option and fixed some of the glaring inconsistencies, it would've been a great vehicle.


----------



## MickiRig1 (Dec 5, 2003)

I had a 84 Bronco II ( Same drive train etc as Ranger ) Turned into a plow truck. Also a 86 Ranger 4X4. I loved them both! Great little driver friendly trucks. 
I also bought an 81 Toyota long bed deluxe DIESEL in 82. I drove it for 100k miles with no problems. It was then getting 30 MPG. I went to trade it in and my Dad wanted it. He bought it off me. It went another 170K. It got 35MPG at the end. Till the body was done and it needed a valve job. A DIESEL engine with a 5 speed and no big time frills may be what Ford needs to do with the Ranger. I would buy one for a daily driver!
I have owned 2 small DIESEL vehicles and I loved them! ( Toyota & Wife's VW Golf )


----------



## Mackman (Nov 3, 2009)

Pinky Demon;1394208 said:


> . The motor is an absolute gutless wonder


Hey it sounds like my 3.0 LMAO.

Overall im happy with my 08. But i wish it had the 4.0 motor in it.


----------



## weekendwrench (Jan 29, 2009)

I had 3 of them myself over the years. My favorite was my 91 reg cab short box with a 5speed and the 4.0. Fun little truck.


----------



## Turf Commando (Dec 16, 2007)

I had a 92 ranger 3.0 was a great truck motor, wasn't power plant but you couldn't kill it..
This is bad idea the ranger could still be great small truck, but if you can get better gas mileage or better out of 1/2 ton then the ranger has lost it's purpose...


----------



## Pinky Demon (Jan 6, 2010)

Turf Commando;1396207 said:


> I had a 92 ranger 3.0 was a great truck motor, wasn't power plant but you couldn't kill it..
> This is bad idea the ranger could still be great small truck, but if you can get better gas mileage or better out of 1/2 ton then the ranger has lost it's purpose...


Exactly. Those new Ecoboost motors are putting out chitloads more power than my 3.0L, in a bigger truck, and they get better gas mileage.

I track all my fuel expenses with the Gas Cubby app for my iPhone. I consistently get 16-17 MPG with varied driving. My ignition system is fully tuned up, with the exception of a replacement ignition coil, (75k on OEM) and this damn thing only makes 150 HP. :realmad:

Never again. Only motor I'd consider anymore is that little 2.3L.


----------

