End of the Line for Ranger Pickup

Ford leaves it to the F150 to pick up, no pun intended, the remaining
sales. But is that a good idea? In the link below, I agree this is
where the Ranger needed to go.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...-fill-the-void

Patrick

On 2011-12-12, > wrote:
> Ford leaves it to the F150 to pick up, no pun intended, the remaining
> sales. But is that a good idea? In the link below, I agree this is
> where the Ranger needed to go.
>
> http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...-fill-the-void

ranger is still being sold overseas.

The Ranger can't make the new CAFE requirement. If it can't make the
new CAFE requirement it has to have lots of margin (read: profit), as a
small pickup it probably doesn't. Good bye ranger.

On Dec 13, 1:23*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-12-12, > wrote:
>
> > Ford leaves it to the F150 to pick up, no pun intended, the remaining
> > sales. *But is that a good idea? *In the link below, I agree this is
> > where the Ranger needed to go.
>
> >http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...0332/1148/auto...
>
> ranger is still being sold overseas.
>
> The Ranger can't make the new CAFE requirement. If it can't make the
> new CAFE requirement it has to have lots of margin (read: profit), as a
> small pickup it probably doesn't. Good bye ranger.

I think the guy in the link I provided is right. They tried to make
it slightly smaller F150. They should have made it more car sized so
it could fit in a garage, if needed. And the [much] smaller size
would enable it to get noticeably better mileage than the F150 too.
But instead they overbuilt it to handle big loads when most people
buying a "mini" truck only need a small/moderate payload.

Patrick

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Dec 13, 1:23*am, Brent > wrote:
> > On 2011-12-12, > wrote:
> >
> > > Ford leaves it to the F150 to pick up, no pun intended, the remaining
> > > sales. *But is that a good idea? *In the link below, I agree this is
> > > where the Ranger needed to go.
> >
> > >http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...0332/1148/auto...
> >
> > ranger is still being sold overseas.
> >
> > The Ranger can't make the new CAFE requirement. If it can't make the
> > new CAFE requirement it has to have lots of margin (read: profit), as a
> > small pickup it probably doesn't. Good bye ranger.
>
> I think the guy in the link I provided is right. They tried to make
> it slightly smaller F150. They should have made it more car sized so
> it could fit in a garage, if needed. And the [much] smaller size
> would enable it to get noticeably better mileage than the F150 too.
> But instead they overbuilt it to handle big loads when most people
> buying a "mini" truck only need a small/moderate payload.
>
> Patrick

A new Ranchero based on the mustang with NO mustang features AT ALL.
Just mustang drive train, suspension, and whatever makes all that work.
Think of all the muscle rancheros there would be in no time.

I may have had one glass of wine too many...
My gf keeps filling my glass.

--
For all you know this message was...
Sent via an exclusive network, on a snobby portable computing device.

On Dec 13, 11:28*pm, twk > wrote:
> In article
> >,

> > > > Ford leaves it to the F150 to pick up, no pun intended, the remaining
> > > > sales. *But is that a good idea? *In the link below, I agree this is
> > > > where the Ranger needed to go.
>
> > > >http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...0332/1148/auto...
>
> > > ranger is still being sold overseas.
>
> > > The Ranger can't make the new CAFE requirement. If it can't make the
> > > new CAFE requirement it has to have lots of margin (read: profit), as a
> > > small pickup it probably doesn't. Good bye ranger.
>
> > I think the guy in the link I provided is right. *They tried to make
> > it slightly smaller F150. *They should have made it more car sized so
> > it could fit in a garage, if needed. *And the [much] smaller size
> > would enable it to get noticeably better mileage than the F150 too.
> > But instead they overbuilt it to handle big loads when most people
> > buying a "mini" truck only need a small/moderate payload.

> A new Ranchero based on the mustang with NO mustang features AT ALL.
> Just mustang drive train, suspension, and whatever makes all that work.
> Think of all the muscle rancheros there would be in no time.

By "features" you mean 'resemblance to?'

I agree a modern-day Ranchero would work.

But this writer I think is more right. A car-based, FWD, very small,
4-cylinder pickup, with an optional diesel motor. Something good for
about 500 lbs of payload and a bed able to handle a sheet of plywood
and have maybe a retractable tonneau cover -- everything based on
practicality.

> I may have had one glass of wine too many...
> My gf keeps filling my glass.

You're a wine drinker?

Patrick

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Dec 13, 11:28*pm, twk > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > > > > Ford leaves it to the F150 to pick up, no pun intended, the remaining
> > > > > sales. *But is that a good idea? *In the link below, I agree this is
> > > > > where the Ranger needed to go.
> >
> > > > >http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...0332/1148/auto..
> > > > >.
> >
> > > > ranger is still being sold overseas.
> >
> > > > The Ranger can't make the new CAFE requirement. If it can't make the
> > > > new CAFE requirement it has to have lots of margin (read: profit), as a
> > > > small pickup it probably doesn't. Good bye ranger.
> >
> > > I think the guy in the link I provided is right. *They tried to make
> > > it slightly smaller F150. *They should have made it more car sized so
> > > it could fit in a garage, if needed. *And the [much] smaller size
> > > would enable it to get noticeably better mileage than the F150 too.
> > > But instead they overbuilt it to handle big loads when most people
> > > buying a "mini" truck only need a small/moderate payload.
>
> > A new Ranchero based on the mustang with NO mustang features AT ALL.
> > Just mustang drive train, suspension, and whatever makes all that work.
> > Think of all the muscle rancheros there would be in no time.
>
> By "features" you mean 'resemblance to?'

Yes. We don't need a mustang truck.

>
> I agree a modern-day Ranchero would work.
>
> But this writer I think is more right. A car-based, FWD, very small,
> 4-cylinder pickup, with an optional diesel motor. Something good for
> about 500 lbs of payload and a bed able to handle a sheet of plywood
> and have maybe a retractable tonneau cover -- everything based on
> practicality.

Yep, that would work too. Simple, strong, and inexpensive.
Just to be clear, FWD = Four Wheel Drive?
Front Wheel Drive without rear wheel drive is not for me.
Just My Opinion. I'm not a front drive fan.

> > I may have had one glass of wine too many...
> > My gf keeps filling my glass.
>
> You're a wine drinker?

Sometimes. Especially if my glass keeps filling up on it's own.

--
For all you know this message was...
Sent via an exclusive network, on a snobby portable computing device.

" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 13, 11:28 pm, twk > wrote:

> But this writer I think is more right. A car-based, FWD, very small,
> 4-cylinder pickup, with an optional diesel motor. Something good for
> about 500 lbs of payload and a bed able to handle a sheet of plywood
> and have maybe a retractable tonneau cover -- everything based on
> practicality.

OK, Ford can tell people it is only good for 500lbs of payload, but unless
the Ford police follow the owners around, how long will it be before they
are loaded with 1500 lb (or a lot more) of crap? And if Ford truly tries to
hold down cost by designing the components of the truck so they are only
good enough for 2 times the rating, how long before Ford will be sued for
selling a truck that was unsafe for use as a truck? And if they make it safe
enough for any forseeable misuse, then will it truly be cheap?

Ed

In article >,
twk > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> " > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 11:28*pm, twk > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> >
> > > > > > Ford leaves it to the F150 to pick up, no pun intended, the
> > > > > > remaining
> > > > > > sales. *But is that a good idea? *In the link below, I agree this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > where the Ranger needed to go.
> > >
> > > > > >http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...0332/1148/auto
> > > > > >..
> > > > > >.
> > >
> > > > > ranger is still being sold overseas.
> > >
> > > > > The Ranger can't make the new CAFE requirement. If it can't make the
> > > > > new CAFE requirement it has to have lots of margin (read: profit), as
> > > > > a
> > > > > small pickup it probably doesn't. Good bye ranger.
> > >
> > > > I think the guy in the link I provided is right. *They tried to make
> > > > it slightly smaller F150. *They should have made it more car sized so
> > > > it could fit in a garage, if needed. *And the [much] smaller size
> > > > would enable it to get noticeably better mileage than the F150 too.
> > > > But instead they overbuilt it to handle big loads when most people
> > > > buying a "mini" truck only need a small/moderate payload.
> >
> > > A new Ranchero based on the mustang with NO mustang features AT ALL.
> > > Just mustang drive train, suspension, and whatever makes all that work.
> > > Think of all the muscle rancheros there would be in no time.
> >
> > By "features" you mean 'resemblance to?'
>
> Yes. We don't need a mustang truck.
>
> >
> > I agree a modern-day Ranchero would work.
> >
> > But this writer I think is more right. A car-based, FWD, very small,
> > 4-cylinder pickup, with an optional diesel motor. Something good for
> > about 500 lbs of payload and a bed able to handle a sheet of plywood
> > and have maybe a retractable tonneau cover -- everything based on
> > practicality.
>
> Yep, that would work too. Simple, strong, and inexpensive.
> Just to be clear, FWD = Four Wheel Drive?

Arg! I meant Front. Otherwise it's "4WD" of course.

> Front Wheel Drive without rear wheel drive is not for me.
> Just My Opinion. I'm not a front drive fan.
>
> > > I may have had one glass of wine too many...
> > > My gf keeps filling my glass.
> >
> > You're a wine drinker?
>
> Sometimes. Especially if my glass keeps filling up on it's own.

--
For all you know this message was...
Sent via an exclusive network, on a snobby portable computing device.

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ...
> On Dec 13, 11:28 pm, twk > wrote:
>
>> But this writer I think is more right. A car-based, FWD, very small,
>> 4-cylinder pickup, with an optional diesel motor. Something good for
>> about 500 lbs of payload and a bed able to handle a sheet of plywood
>> and have maybe a retractable tonneau cover -- everything based on
>> practicality.
>
> OK, Ford can tell people it is only good for 500lbs of payload, but unless
> the Ford police follow the owners around, how long will it be before they
> are loaded with 1500 lb (or a lot more) of crap? And if Ford truly tries
> to hold down cost by designing the components of the truck so they are
> only good enough for 2 times the rating, how long before Ford will be
> sued for selling a truck that was unsafe for use as a truck? And if they
> make it safe enough for any forseeable misuse, then will it truly be
> cheap?
>
> Ed
> >

You cant regulate stupid. How would this be any different than dumbasses who
overload 1/2 ton trucks? Dumbasses who stack 10 sheets of plywood on a ford
fiesta? If Ford declares a certain payload and you exceed it then Ford is
not at fault. There have been little car/trucks before, Subaru for one.