Sometimes an era ends and nobody is there to record it.That’s not the case here today at CC. It was old, outmoded and way past its prime, but when the last Ford Ranger pickup rolled off the line last week in Ford’s Twin Cities Assembly plant, a page of history turned. After 28 years and almost seven million units, Ford finally put the Ranger to pasture and has no plans to replace it any time soon. With it went a lot of memories-first car, first truck, economy transportation. The Ranger had fulfilled a lot of missions for its owners in three decades. Let’s take a long last look before we say goodbye.
The history of the homegrown small truck in America has some remarkable similarities to the domestic small car market. In the beginning, Ford and GM resisted clean sheet efforts to build a compact truck in the U.S. This was largely due to the fact that until the first couple of years of the 1960’s, Detroit had the entire truck market to itself.
A “light duty” truck was more often than not a half and half like the Ranchero from Ford or Chevy’s El Camino. Indeed, both companies downsized their utility vehicles in these years by moving them to smaller car platforms, but these were not seen as true “trucks” in the conventional sense.
Thus, enterprising Japanese manufacturers saw a niche that had been ignored by Detroit and by the early/mid 1960’s had begun to exploit it. The industry heavyweights took a page out of their passenger car playbook and turned to captive imports to fill this giant hole in their lineups.
Nissan marketed its little 60 horsepower 320 pickup in the states (mainly on the west coast at first) while Toyota had cracked the market with its Stout / Hilux models. Sales were growing nicely when Ford and GM decided that the threat from Asia could no longer be ignored.
In late 1971, Ford and Chevrolet jumped into this growing market with the Courier and LUV respectively. The LUV was built by GM partner Isuzu and Toyo Kogyo (Mazda) did the deed for FoMoCo. Both vehicles were shipped as a two part kit, with bed separate from the cab and chassis to avoid a ruinous 25% tariff on a finished truck. The beds were attached upon arrival just to make things nice and legal and both vehicles found ready acceptance due to large dealer networks and rising fuel prices. Although designed and engineered for other markets, the diminutive pickups appealed to an entirely different type of customer than the traditional full size truck buyer. Because American trucks brand equity was paramount, Ford gave the little B series Mazda enough of a facelift that it bore at least a passing resemblance to the full size F-150.
The engine was a capable 1.8L overhead cam that put out 75 Hp. With a few minor changes over the next decade, the Courier fought the good fight with the LUV and an uneasy détente was established with GM. Chrysler finally jumped into the race in 1979 with its own line of mini trucks, built by erstwhile partner Mitsubishi. MoPar even slapped a Plymouth badge on its Arrow pickup, the first use of the brand on a truck since the early forties.
The 1982 model year saw the game change in a big way for small trucks. The economics of the captive imports had never thrilled the bean counters in the executive suite at General Motors or Ford. When importation and shipping costs were tallied up, splitting an already thin profit with partner Isuzu or Mazda looked less attractive than building the vehicle domestically. Throw in the uncertainty of currency fluctuations and shifting trade policy,and there were just too many variables for managers to concern themselves with. Thus the S series twins made their debut for 1982. With more room, generally good build quality and a marketing blitz that stressed their American heritage, the S 10 was a smash.
Even though it had been in development since 1976, the Ranger was not quite ready for market when the GM twins hit the showrooms for ’82. Ford squeezed one more (short) season out of the Courier before the Ranger debuted in March 1982 for a long 1983 model year. The Ranger (and S Twins) offered their makers several advantages over their captive import predecessors. First , both vehicles had been engineered from their conception to accommodate a small V-6 engine that could provide a high margin option that many buyers would happily pay extra to get. Ford’s 2.8 Cologne V-6 joined a 2.0 and 2.3 liter four cylinder mill in that debut year. Mazda also supplied a diesel four pot for buyers so inclined.
Another huge selling point for the domestics vis-à-vis the small imports was the availability of club or crew cab configurations that could easily add $1500- $2500 to the selling price for very little additional assembly expense. Chevy had an extended cab on the market for 1983 and Ford followed belatedly with its Super Cab for the 1986 model. But the Ranger also gave Ford the flexibility in the market that the Courier never could. Options packages, special editions and special paint and interiors could make the basic truck more profitable for almost no new investment. Another option that could make the cash register ring in Dearborn was available four wheel drive. As sales built for all small trucks, and self styled “mid sized” offerings hit the market, the Ranger began to overtake the S twins and by 1987, it had become the number one selling compact pickup.
Models came and went; Ford offered a stripper “S” model (above) for cheap and well heeled buyers could even load up a Ranger with an XLT package that put the price within a few hundred dollars of a base F-150. The Ranger also provided the basis for the successful (but ill fated) Bronco II of 1984. Ford had found a gold mine.
The models first major refresh came with the 1989 model year. Flush headlamps and a new interior updated the same basic vehicle that was selling well. The big news the next year was the availability of Ford’s 4.0 L V-6 in the 4X4 for much better pick up and towing ability.This generation Ranger would last until 1993,when the front end, interior and trim packages were shuffled to make the vehicle look more like the then current (and wildly successful) Explorer.
In 1994,the circle was squared when Mazda took the Ranger and re badged it as a B-series. Trim, paint and minor details were the only difference in the Ford and Mazda product except the price. The debt that Ford owed to Toyo Kogyo had been repaid in good coin. The B series would continue as a re-named Ranger until the 2009 models.
One more restyle/refresh would happen in 1999, and amazingly, the Ranger would see its peak sales in this year, with just over 348,000 units sold at retail. This was astonishing for a model that had not seen fundamental change in a decade and a half.
The Ranger would soldier on mostly unchanged for another decade before Ford started to rethink its truck strategy. While Ford planned for the natural end to the Rangers production life, the competition from GM started dying off. Chevy dropped the S10 after 2004 and replaced its small truck with the Colorado/Canyon twins. Even then, after being in production during at least parts of four decades, the Ranger was still selling over 50,000 copies annually when Ford finally put it to bed just before Christmas .Demand remained strong enough for the Ranger that it got several reprieves before the ax finally fell. The company will put its marketing weight behind its 3.5L direct injection V-6 for F-150 buyers that have fuel economy on their shopping checklist.
Thus a page of car history has been turned this month.The final truck, (above) will probably end up in a fleet buyers stable ,unappreciated for what it represents. By any measure, the Ranger was a wildly successful model for Ford. It stayed popular long after its time had passed and became a milestone model for the blue oval. Weekend handymen, small businesses, teenagers driving for the first time; the Ranger served every one of them and made money for its maker. Not bad for a vehicle designed during the malaise era.
So here we are again. There is a hole big enough in the market…to drive a truck through. Ford, Chevy and all of the Japanese nameplates have evacuated the small truck space and moved up a size with their entry level pickups. Does this mean that there is another niche for, say, the Korean makes to exploit ? Will some hungry competitor that has nothing to lose step in and try to fill the space at the bottom of the pickup market? (Suzuki, perhaps?)
Welcome to my big, angry automotive bitch of 2011. Over the past twenty years I’ve owned four pickup trucks in succession. A 1991 Dakota (4 cylinder, 5 speed), a ’94 Dakota (ran a re-enactment sutlery business out of it), a ’96 S-10 (the wife wanted something smaller, I had no complaints about the Dodges), and my current 2003 Ranger (wasn’t crazy about the Colorado, and the S-10 was gone).
Hey Ford, notice something in that listing? THERE ARE NO FULL-SIZED PICKUPS ANYWHERE! Over the last 20 years, there have been no full-sized pickups in consideration of any of my buying plans.
My ‘small’ pickups have no problem hauling my Triumph or Harley when needed, do OK on gas consumption, are comfortable enough by my standards, and have always done the job I’ve called on them to do. To go and make a public pronouncement that I should be happy with the fuel efficiency of a V-6 F-150 conveniently ignores one point: I have no desire to drive one of the bloated, over-sized monsters that the modern full-size pickup has become. Or, in other words, my d**k works just fine, thank you. I don’t need to over-compensate with what I drive.
Fortunately, my current Ranger (61k on the clock) is used seldom enough that I can probably get another 15 years out of it, given that I don’t drive it unless I actually have a load to haul. Which means it’s probably my last pickup. And the Detroit 3 have lost a customer, at least in this category.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly! I fully agree with your assessment of the current problem!
Hear Hear!
The powers that be are only looking at the fuel economy and their bottom line. “We kill Ranger and give them a really, really efficient F150”.. They’re forgetting that as much as mileage matters size does too.
It wouldn’t be so bad if full size trucks still had a reasonable footprint.
Agreed! My 83 ranger 4×4 longbed, dual tank equipped, with swapped in 302 V8 C4 and 9 in rear axle and 4 wheel disc brakes is all the truck I need, and outperforms most half ton full size trucks. Ford really screwed the pooch by not offering a V8 in these, hell they coulda put the 255 V8 in these and they would have sold well; I actually considered doing the 255 swap until I couldn’t locate one to rebuild! And yes women, there’s a reason I drive a small truck!
That setup would be nearly as powerful as a turbo diesel but with less torque and 3 times the fuel consumption
You have to keep in mind that things are a little different in the US, fact is modern diesel trucks don’t get that much better MPG than their gas counterparts. When you add in the fact that in many parts of our country diesel is more expensive than gas, any cost savings associated with diesel power is often wiped out. In Fact Ford has introduced a gas engine option for 2012 in their F650 and F750 trucks for those that are looking for overall economy of operation.
Gotta chime in with the choir here Bryce; Diesel fuel is about $0.25-$0.40 more per (U.S. gallon) than regular unleaded gasoline; that and the diesel options are on average $3-5K more than gasoline versions. Only advantage is the torque.
Boy that is cheap compared to around here $0.60 per gallon is on the low end currently and I’ve seen at least once station where it was $0.80 per gallon more than regular. Granted that large of a spread is due to it being winter with gas demand down and diesel (home heating oil) demand up. However last summer it was still $0.40 to $0.50 per gallon more than gas.
Remember – in the Aloha State there are NO heaters! In parts of Alaska and the high western state mountains, there is heating oil; most western U.S. climes use natural gas or all-electric.
Trucks/buses and a smattering of full size pickups and late model VW’s and Blue Tec Benzes are diesel here in the islands, hence the lower price spread ‘twixt gasoline and diesel. No “winter blends”, obviously; Hawaii gasoline prices are already America’s most expensive (California a close second).
“Fortunately, my current Ranger (61k on the clock) is used seldom enough that I can probably get another 15 years out of it, given that I don’t drive it unless I actually have a load to haul. Which means it’s probably my last pickup. And the Detroit 3 have lost a customer, at least in this category.”
Well said…all of it. But…how many customers share your views? Seriously. YOU don’t need to compensate; and I don’t; but apparently we’re in a minority.
Two stories: One was of a filing girl who worked in my ex’s office. After passing her probation, she went out and bought a decked-out F-150. Which she needed like a hole in the head.
The other…was of a mechanic that worked at a garage where I ran a tow truck. Damn nice guy, and a good mechanic. He stood at an even five feet; and his girl was even shorter. And HE had an F-250 4×4, and this in the early 1980s when those things stood up tippy-toe. Had big mudders on it, too, to make it even taller.
Watching the two of them get into that truck…they both needed step-stools; he kept them in the bed behind the back window. It was laughable…like a clown-car display.
I think to a lesser extent, that is what many-to-most truck buyers today are all about. Fer what it’s worth.
+1
…that and running 85+ MPH down the Interstate scaring the living H E Double Toothpick out of any one wanting to drive a safe speed.
More compensating for the lack of something else?
I had a Nissan frontier w/ 4 cylinder 5 speed stnd.loved it but couldn’t pull a 21 ft. Bennington. This is the only reason I traded it for a gmc sierra 1500.
Syke-add me to the list of your sympathizers.
I never owned a Ranger, but spent plenty of time in my FIL’s and BIL’s numerous Rangers over the last 30 years. When it came time for me to get a pickemup, I went for the Dakota, the first gens were the best.
As a side note, my BIL’s last Ranger died a couple of months ago, as a Christmas present to his wife, he presented her with a brand new… Tacoma.
I have just been comparing the vehicle sizes of the current Frontier, Colorado, Canyon and Tacoma and I see that these vehicles are pretty much the SAME OVERALL SIZE of full-sized pickups of the ’60s.
Hmmm
While a nearly 30-year-old base vehicle has long passed its ‘sell by’ date, it is unfortunate there won’t be an updated Ranger to take its place. Some folks, myself included, prefer small-to-midsize vehicles, not full size.
Would have been interesting to see if Mahindra could have made a go of it.
“Would have been interesting to see if Mahindra could have made a go of it.”
I thought that until a couple of years ago. But now, I wouldn’t trust those guys as far as I could throw one of their trucks.Their U.S. efforts have been strictly amateur hour. They screwed their distributor here pretty hard and that’s a major flashing master alarm to me about customer service.
I was once mildly interested in a Mahindra,not now.
GV USA also screwed the dealers they set up, so some of M&M’s reluctance and delays may have been caused by that. They also failed to secure a location and make proper preparations to assemble the CKD kits in the US to avoid the chicken tax, a key point in the original agreement.
I think the bigger issue is that no one involved in the original contracts had a clue as to what it would take to make those trucks meet US safety and emissions standards. I also think that the M&M people who worked on the initial contract may not have let everyone in their organization know what they were doing. So I think there may have been some pressure from Navistar a part owner and joint venture partner of M&M. Certainly if they would have discussed the emissions certification with their engine people, IE Navistar, they would have known just how hard it would be to pass 2010 diesel emissions standards, and that spending any money on meeting the 2007 standards to get the truck here earlier would have been a waste of money.
Personally I think that they have now got GV USA out of the picture, the likelihood of the brand having some semblance of customer service is much higher than it would have been with the cheesy used car dealer in control.
There is still a Mahindra dealer sign in front of one of the Chevy dealers near me. I never saw any trucks.
And it’s amazing just how simply they could have done it: Just give each Mahindra tractor dealer a truck franchise, out of the same showroom/office. You’d think if said farmer was happy with his tractor, he’d certainly be willing to try the company’s truck line. Once word gets out that the farmers are as happy with the trucks as they are with the tractors, then the suburban types would happily start buying.
(This is said assuming they had the EPA and NHTSA stuff in line, of course.)
The whole history of Mahindra has been a circus act.
I remember, long ago, in the early days of the Web…some European poster had tested a Mahindra CJ-5 clone. The troubles he reported were beyond belief.
Since then, they’ve moved way up in style and advertising, or at least web-page display; but I’m not surprised that ineptitude remains. And I doubt I’d chance even RIDING in one of their offerings, much less buying it.
And I say this as a former Yugo owner.
GM Inside News was reporting in October that the USA will get the new Colorado.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f13/new-chevrolet-colorado-pickup-confirmed-u-s-106224/
If you’re using Google Chrome as your web browser, it will give you the choice to translate the text parts of this next page to English. (Although some of the translations are hilarious) From the Chevy Thailand site…where the new Colorado is already on sale. Has a diesel option too:
http://www.chevrolet.co.th/vehicles/view-all-vehicles/cars/colorado/index.html
@chas: I’m hoping that the new Colorado will be a quantum leap over the original one. And I hope they price it well.
A couple of years ago, my Buick GMC dealer finally got a nice V8 powered 4×4 Colorado on their lot that I would have bought (had we not wanted a car), but the d*mned thing cost as much as a 4×4 Sierra.
Sounds like a market niche that could be exploited by a smart auto company. Suzuki isn’t one of them. The nearest dealer is 150 miles and two states away. Maybe NIssan or Toyota could get back in there with a small truck that’s about the size of a Corolla or Sentra.
Lean into bed and grab goodies therein.
How simplistic is that scenario with full-sized pick-ups?
hat an opportunity for one of the herd to perform basic research!!!
Drive around your hamlet bending over and into various years and models of full-sized and smaller pick-ups.
Not advisable in Texas where statutes apparently allow vehicle owners to shoot first then query later.
Or the rest of the states where shooting depends upon owners’ mood/inclination at the moment.
Or ask for permission.
Merely asking could result in gunplay with a local hillbilly-type.
Shucks.
Just forget it.
Ain’t worth dying just to create what might make a decent Web story.
I’m with Syke. Detroit and Congress have decided that the truck market must change. There are still trucks out there that can be bought and used for years.
I don’t imagine I will buy another truck until someone recreates the 81/87 Datsun/Nissan that I drove for half a million miles. My Nissan cube is the closest thing I could buy to the 60’s vws that I used to drive.
I have spent a lot of time overseas and I can tell you that the rest of the world is not marching in lock step with us. Just drop over the border to the south and you will see many interesting trucklets. They cannot be imported due to rules set up by congress. Mostly I don’t blame Detroit. I think they have been following Washington’s lead for so long that policy makers in both cities have had collective lobotomies. Buying used and keeping is about our only defense. That will last for a while.
Having one currently (1992 Ranger STX extended cab) that is, I’ll admit, long in the tooth with over 236K miles on it, it’s been a stout, reliable vehicle for the past nearly 6 years I’ve had it and now leaks (most likely) oil at a prodigious rate but still starts and runs fairly strong still and remains (so far anyway) dead reliable.
I’ll be sad when I finally replace it, but really, I’ll be honest here, I don’t really NEED another truck as I live in the city and have to park on the street so that’s a negative for a small A or B segment hatchback will do probably 75% of what this old beast can do – and be MUCH more economical to run where gas is concerned. but if I were, I’d go find a gently used Ranger to replace it with and probably get the venerable 4 banger version though.
The big thing with most of the full sized trucks today is that they barely, and I mean, barely fit in most garages if they fit at all so downsizing them or simply supplying the buyers out there with a small truck that’s MUCH more updated than the now former Ranger would be the ticket for those who want a truck, but have no need for a huge one and need/want to park it in their garages, the ranger does that wonderfully.
Jeff, nice write up but a couple of clarifications.
First off, you are right, the Ranger’s first major facelift was 1989 but is still technically a 1st gen model still but the 4.0L V6 didn’t make its debut until 1990 and was available for both the 2WD and 4WD trucks, I know as I have a 2WD Ranger with that motor. Early versions of this motor had head problems apparently but it was solved by 1992 when mine was built.
Also, the Ford Explorer originally had the exact same front end as the trucks when it made its debut in 1991 and that body style lasted until 1994 when the Explorer was soften with rounded sheet metal and an all new front clip that was nothing like the trucks. The Sport Explorer (Bronco II) had the same new front clip as the Explorer to better differentiate the SUV’s from the trucks, beginning in 1994.
The trucks got virtually ALL new sheet metal, front to back in 1993 and other improvements and thus is technically the second gen truck, even the cab, if I recall was not identical to the previous models, which simply got a new front clip from the A pillar forward, the rest was identical to the previous generation.
It is this redesign that basically has remained through 1998 when the 3rd gen made its debut and the biggest thing was a bit longer wheelbase was introduced which meant the base cabs were now a bit roomier and the Twin I Beam front suspension was replaced with a double wishbone version and this generation of trucks received new rack and pinion steering along with a new front clip from the A pillar forward and got modified tri-colored taillights but by 2000 on were bi-colored, meaning the amber turn signal lens was discontinued, but the basic body shape/design didn’t change much at all until the bitter end that has now just passed.
Thankfully there are still plenty of these still plying the roads, even the early editions, well, at least where rust isn’t an issue. The one thing to take away from this, outside of the normal attrition situations such as accidents, use and rust where salt is used, these trucks have proven to have very, very long lives but even so, no matter how WELL they are built, how reliable, they eventually DO wear out and have to be scrapped.
Like I’ve said, I’ll miss these little trucks for their simple honesty and sheer reliability for what they offer.
The only complaint I have with my 2010 Ranger 4×2 XLT regular cab is that it rides and bounces like a buckboard; short wheelbase and stiff springs, but, hey, it IS a truck!
I bought a V6 Ranger in 84 and kept it until my then-girlfriend (now my wife) bought a 98 V6 Ranger. The 84 was the last year for 2.8L with carbs, and seeing the smog-techs cringe when I brought it in for inspection/adjustment was no fun. Eventually, its ability to do in valve guides made it too hard to keep up, but the 98 with the 4.0L has done well for the limited service we’ve needed from it.
I have a 4WD Chevy Silverado and it’s been my lumber/crap.trailer hauler, but if the Ranger had 4WD, I’d consider getting rid of the Chev. 25MPG beats 16 any day, and being able to take 4 x 8 sheets of stuff easily is nice, but I’ve learned the tricks for doing such in a Ranger.
Most likely, we’ll swap out the Ranger for a Subie Forester, and I’ll keep the Chevy until it drops. I’m hoping something smaller comes out. (We see some Tacomas around here, but the dealer isn’t very popular among the very conservative people over here. We lost our Chevy franchise in town while they kept the Dodge/Toyota dealership due to connections. Alas, they also bought the local Ford franchise. I’ll probably go to Medford or Lakeview if I go for an F-150)..
Well, merry f@%zz*^ Christmas to the Twin Cities plant employees. I grew up not far from the plant and have many fond memories of the area. The Highland Park plant was Ford’s oldest operating plant. Now we have no Ranger, no Panther, soon to be no E series. I hope the hell Ford knows what it’s doing.
Me too Mike, me too…
I was thinking the same thing. “Hey, let’s ax the iconic Ford vehicles!” First the Marquis, then the Crown Vic and Town Car (this one bothers me the most), now the Ranger. All these cars added to the variety of Ford’s lineup. What’s next, the Mustang?
Another sad day. However the fact remains that the American public doesn’t buy new compact pickups anymore. That is the big reason why Ford stopped updating the Ranger and why it won’t be replaced anytime soon.
Is it the public that won’t buy them or Detroit and their dealers that won’t sell them? The bigger the truck, the thicker the profits.
I think it’s pretty much that the general public doesn’t want them. A couple of months ago, at least around here, they were offering up to $7500 off of Rangers. Not sure why they decided to do that vs possibly stopping the line earlier. It does make a pretty clear case that yes there was a substantial profit for Ford on the Ranger. Certainly not as much as a King Ranch F-series but they definitely weren’t loosing money on them.
We have the new Ranger /BT50 arriving soon, US dealers know they can sell crap like the 150 in the US but nowhere else too much a show pony and very little work horse utes are for the US market everyone else wants usefull size turbo diesel utes that dont take up a city block to only carry as much as a wheel barrow. We can get utes from Holden and Ford if you really want a V8 petrol motor even those are 1 tonne rated as are all the Japanese and Chinese cab/chassis outfits.
We live a short walk from the Ranger plant here in St. Paul. The final truck, as Jeff suggests, went to a fleet buyer — in this case, Orkin, in Georgia. More than 80 years of Ford production have ended with the closing of the plant, and many lives have been affected. Thanks to the workers, many of whom are my neighbors, for their good work.
“Thanks to the workers, many of whom are my neighbors, for their good work.”
Very well said. Our thoughts are with these honest, hardworking folks.
I can attest to the good workmanship of the Twin Cities workers. I have a ’99 XLT 4.0 with the Twin Cities Assembly Plant sticker still on the rear window. Except for some paint peeling here and there, it’s a great truck.
I wonder if Ford doesn’t have something else up their sleeve. Back when Ford was touting all the investments they were going to make once the UAW approved their contract, buried in the list of dollars spent here and there were references to money for tooling for the next-generation F150. Given Alan Mullaley’s drive toward “one Ford”, I wonder if the next-gen 150 might share some DNA with the overseas Ranger. That would be a bow both to fuel-mileage reality–and to sanity.
Toyota just wrapped up the pest control industry. F-150 is too big to be running around town doing 17-20 stops a day.
We will still get the Ranger for 2012. It had a makeover since last year. You can take a look here:
http://www.ford.com.mx/camiones/ranger/conocelo/galeria/Exterior/
It always seemed to me that the Ranger’s demise was just another casualty of the popularity of the SUV, along with the better build/longevity (but also higher price and larger ‘mid’ size) of the Toyota small pickup (Tacoma). While Toyota was upgrading and improving their small pickup over the years, Ford sat idley by with only occasional sheet-metal changes, eventually handing the entire market over to them.
Granted, it’s not a particularly big market, but it’s there, and now it’s Toyota sitting idley by with the same, small, occasional sheet-metal changes. The big difference is there’s no competitor on the horizon to steal the market from Toyota.
It’s a shame because although there are a lot of negatives attributable to the small pickup versus a full-size, the small pickup will always triumph in one area: maneuverability. IOW, it’s a whole lot easier to get around in a smaller pickup (esp in parking lots) than trying to muscle around a big ‘ole full-size truck. That’s a big plus for what would seem like a substantial number of owners who only occasionally need the use of a pickup bed.
“Better build quality of the Tacoma” ???? What are you smoking?? The U.S. Tacoma is a bloated Hilux or a 3/8’s scale dog-ass ugly Tundra. Ever see a 4×2 Tacoma on it’s base steelies? Like a Happy Meal toy! Not dissing Toyota trucks evergreen outstanding quality and reliability, but I don’t consider them “better built” than Rangers.
The Bigger-is-Better crowd has won out. It wasn’t for nothing that the Tacoma grew to almost full-size; and the Little Jap Truck (don’t mean it as a slur, it just rolls well off the tongue) that beget the S10/Ranger, morphed into the Dakota and Colorado.
The small trucks, I mean the original Japanese models, won out on road manners and economy, of purchase and operation. But road manners mean nothing to the average truck buyer today; and half-ton capacity is limiting. American half-tonners can be overloaded with impunity; but it didn’t take much to put a PL620 down on the bump stops.
I write it off to increased prosperity over the years; just as the average car-buyer now automatically shops for power windows and seats, so, too, the average truck buyer can, or could, in recent years, afford a full-size truck – often with discretionary equipment, like four-wheel-drive and custom paint. And high resale value adds weight to the desires.
There is a hole in the market; but I believe right now it’s a small hole that no domestic manufacturer can fill with reasonable volume. Today’s safety-standards are such that Japanese domestic trucks can scarcely be modded to be sold here with cost-effectiveness.
And adding to this…on the horizon, are the new CAFE standards for trucks. We will soon have little trucks, whether we want them or not. I think that right now the manufacturers are making hay while the sun shines, and trying to spread the cost of their present tooling.
The big American truck is here, and NOW – and it shall not pass this way again.
I agree with everybody else.
As Bryce notes further up, we’re getting the new Ranger imminently, and the local Mazda dealer already has the new twin-under-the-skin BT-50 series utes on its lot. The styling of both is great, but as I followed a 4wd BT-50 up the road last week, I couldn’t help but think that it’s hardly mid-sized any more. You’d need a step ladder to put stuff in the tray from the sides. I understand that’s one reason why Ford won’t sell the new Ranger in America: it’s now so much bigger that it’s too close to the F150’s size.
I personally think Ford not offering the Ranger in the USA is a big mistake, and I’d suuggest the only reason they aren’t is to protect the F150’s best-selling vehicle status. But with GM bringing the new Colorado to the States, they’ll be applying more pressure than ever to Ford. The F150 may well retain its top-seller status, but I’d wager that in a year or so if you add together all the Chev full-size and Colorado sales, you’ll find that they dwarf the F150’s sales. What would you rather have? – one product that’s individually the best-seller, or a range of different utes that sell far more combined?
As a trade-marketer in my day-job, I can categorically state that relying on one sole product (no matter how great) is short-sighted. It renders a manufacturer all the more susceptible to changes in market tastes and demands. It’s that sort of thinking that has seen Ford dropping the Marquis, Crown Vic, Town Car etc; not to mention deciding the future for Lincoln is all front-wheel-drive. It’s also that sort of thinking that sees Ford USA leaning hard on Ford Australia to drop the Falcon. Yet the thing is, the minute a manufacturer drops a loved and respected nameplate, they don’t just lose the buyers of those nameplates, they lose support and thus sales all the way down (and up) through their product range. I don’t have a current Falcon (although my sister does), but its very existence (ok, mostly that of the XR6T, XR8 and FPV versions) in the showroom means I still like to visit. It’s called the ‘halo’ effect. I’m sure the Ranger’s very existence meant the same to many folks in America. No Ranger any more? I don’t care about what else you make Ford, I’ll go to another manufacturer.
Well, got that off my chest! So long (in America) Ranger, your history and presence will be remembered and missed.
I’ve always found the compact truck useful and fun to drive, from early Couriers and late model Rangers at work, to my own S10. I know we can shout all day long about the benefits of the compact truck, but these are out of fashion. Not everyone hates CAFE! I still cannot believe that a fresh new compact truck wouldn’t sell briskly (not a mid size Ranger or Colorado, or even Tacoma or Frontier).
Fortunately for me, I don’t drive much, so my little truck should last for many more years. But when it goes, I’ll probably buy a compact hatchback – instead of something I need a step stool for to reach over the bed rails. Good job, Detroit!
Speaking of venerable Fords, have you heard how bad the 2011 Mustang’s drivetrain is? One guy on youtube defeated the v-6 speed limiter and then shredded his driveshaft at 135 mph. I think Ford is getting ready to screw the pooch here guys. Better sell your Ford stock!
I’m not so sure that you can equate that experience with overall issues with Ford. Most people don’t drive their cars that fast so they didn’t design the car with those speeds in mind and set the speed limiter accordingly. Most tuners that allow you to change rev and speed limiters state something to the affect that you do so at your own risk.
Ford US has spent big money updating the F150 and its brethren so in house competition from the Ranger would be unwelcome they have to maximise sales in the only market the F series has. The Ranger will sell worldwide the F series will only sell in NA. We get new Chevy pickups here but they atre slow selling $100k+ put a lot of people off.$10 gallon gas aint helping either most of our US pickups are used imports but they arent work trucks just show ponies.
Overspeed a driveshaft by a significant amount and what do you expect to happen? There is a reason they have a speed limiter
I think the point was it’s just a generally shoddy and crappy design.
The V6 Mustang is built around a very powerful V6 engine, purely for cosmetic reasons (300+ hp looks mighty fine on a spec-sheet) then they install cheepo drivetrain parts to pad their margins making all that extra horsepower useless.
“Not everyone hates CAFE!”
If people truly wanted little trucks in large numbers, there wouldn’t be any need to pass a law to make them buy them.
That’s all I’m going to say on that.
Minor nit:
“MoPar even slapped a Plymouth badge on its Arrow pickup, the first use of the brand on a truck since the early forties.”
http://www.plymouthtrailduster.com/
They sold vans in the 70s too.
On another note, does anyone know how many Tacomas and Frontiers Toyota and Nissan sell every year? Maybe Ford decided that anyone who wants a competitive compact truck will pony up for one of those, killing the margins for the Ranger? Jeff’s story emphasizes that the “XLT Lariat” stuff is where they made their money.
There was an article over at TTAC a couple months back where they had a chart with all compact and midsize truck sales over the last couple decades or so.
http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/08/graph-35-550×424.png
So you can see that Toyota is currently #1 with about 100K sales, the Ranger was a distant 2nd at just over 50K for 2010. The rest aren’t even really blips on the radar. With the surge in sales for 2011 as companies like Orkin stocked up the Ranger won’t be in such a distant second and will likely sell as many trucks as the rest of the competition combined, Tacoma excluded. So no it’s not that people are buying other compact trucks they just aren’t buying compact or mid-size trucks. Heck the Ranger sold more in 1999 than the entire market segment in 2010.
Thanks, Eric – appreciate the info. 🙂
Per autoblog, Orkin is in fact taking the last Ranger. an ignominious end…but at least Orkin said they’ll retire it to their “corporate archives”
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/08/final-ford-ranger-to-be-built-mid-month-already-sold-to-orkin/
Ford, on it’s Ranger, much like Orkin, in it’s exterminator business, both have “worked the bugs out”. !!!!!
Ranger has 5cylinder turbo diesel now
I’ve owned three pickups in the past 12 years, and they’ve been my primary means of transportation. A ’92 F-150 Custom (long bed, 4.9 I-6, 5 speed, 2wd), and then a ’92 F-150 XLT (short bed, 302 V8, auto) when the first one got killed. I sold the ’92 in the Spring of 2010 with just over 200,000 miles on it – and feeling like it would last another 200,000 – and now have a 2003 Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4×4. I don’t think I’ll buy another truck.
Why? I loved my F-150s, and still find myself staring longingly at them. Dakota, however, is just easier to drive, maneuver and park. It’s not about the gas mileage for me, in fact I think the low mile but super thirsty 4.7 in my Dakota does worse than either of my F-150s. What I do like, however, is that I can carry the whole family and a load of drywall in the footprint of a minivan. Granted I now have to get creative with motorcycle straps on most loads – the bed on the quad cab is almost joke-worthy – but I don’t mind so much anymore. My little Dakota just feels more.. “sprightly” than my other trucks did. Much of this is due to a extremely favorable power to weight ratio, and a 5-speed auto that allows a nice short rear gear, but it just feels a world differnt.
What I would love for Ford to do is to reincarnate the Ranger in the size and dimensions of my Dakota, but with a small turbodiesel. Give me the grunt, and the mileage, and I’ll buy it. I looked very seriously and longingly at a F-150 XL, Supercab, long bed with a EcoBoost. Just the type of truck I want – not too much flash, but with the right powerplant, but the price got me. And the size.
I’ll miss these little trucks, and I’m sure we’ll see them back again soon. Until them my Dakota only just recently rolled through 80,000 miles, so I have many years left with the beast.
There IS a new Ranger with (almost) Dakota dimensions for sale; in Asia, the UK, down under, South America and many other places. Just not in the U.S. and Canada. Think “EcoTech V-6 F-150.”
I LOVE repeat LOVE my Ford Ranger. Mine is a 4×2 regular cab XLT. 2.3L DOHC four banger w/5speed automatic. Suits my needs for play, hauling stuff on weekends, and commuting or yeoman duty. Very manueverable; perfect vehicle for the Honolulu traffic and tight parking spaces. Took easy-corners, chairs, and snorkel equipment to Ma’ili Beach park this weekend. Mine is a ’10. In October of last year, when I got my truck, I knew the Ranger’s days were numbered. The rest of the world has new Rangers; turbo-diesels. People here in the Aloha State hang onto them. Many are still running strong on the road with 2-300K. Mine will stay with me forever!
And, yes, my avatar was my 1974 Ford Courier. It too was another great little truck and like the late North American Ranger, it had for it’s day, some archaic mechanicals, like it’s drum brakes (non-self- adjustable) and mechanical litters on it’s Mazda 1.8L SOHC 4. It desperately needed a fifth gear. Tough truck! I believe it is now probably a Sanyo refrigerator in Malaysia. . . . .
BTW – my Ranger averages 25-26mpg in a combination of highway and Honolulu gridlock traffic. Tailgate up.
I owned a 1996 Ranger XLT, short bed, standard cab, 4 cyl 5 speed, A/C. Candy Apple red (is there any other color than red for a truck?). Bought it used in 1998, still under warranty for a little while.
That little hauler was great. When I had some serious back issues and the driver’s seat was butt-sprung and felt like sitting in a hole, I toughed it out as the Ranger never quit and nothing ever went wrong with it. I just couldn’t see getting rid of a vehicle that ran perfectly each and every time, no matter how much agony I was in. I don’t believe the truck was the source of my back issues, but it certainly didn’t help.
Did I consider a new seat? Duh…of course not! Never thought of that…
My back finally got the best of me and wifey did all the numbers and I bought my 2004 Impala. Ahhh…
After six months of treatment, my back finally healed and has been great ever since. Still miss that Ranger on occasion, though. A friend bought it, but not sure if he still has it as he uses it for his business and his son used it.
The problem with small trucks, from a manufacturer standpoint, is that you have to sell a vehicle that really isn’t much cheaper to build than a full-size truck, at a considerably lower price. Ford didn’t have that problem so long as they continued to build the Ranger using tooling paid for eons ago, but that advantage would vanish if they offered a new design.
I recall hearing local radio ads offering “New F150s for the price of a Ranger!” Given that, you really have to WANT a Ranger to buy one. I did want one, and I bought a ’99 second-hand for more than I would have paid for a ’00 fullsize shortbed that I also looked at.
From the dollars-and-sense viewpoint, what sense does that make? Even I’ll tell you–none.
I think that GM, by offering both the SIlverado and a new Colorado in the same showroom, is going to compete with itself, to the sales detriment of both. But that’s OK, the General is used to needlessly competing with itself. It’s an Old GM tradition!
It’s bad enough that Ford discontinued the Ranger truck for the North American market, but they didn’t even bother asking us, the customers, for suggestions for a replacement! That’s unforgiveable. Even worse, there’s no diesel engine option for the small truck. If you want diesel, you have to buy a full-sized truck like the F250, the F350 or bigger vehicle. Thanks, but that’s way too big for me.
America loves bloated bad ass full size pick ups and thats were the profit is.
My first truck was a 1977 Toyota (Hilux) Pickup truck. It was owned by my stepdad before he passed away. I loved driving it. I miss driving it. I’d give anything to buy it myself. It was just as capable as any bloated, badass full-sized pickup trucks out there. It seems the only compact truck out there is the Toyota Tacoma. And even it is getting too big to be considered “compact”. One thing I’d order if I were to buy a new truck would be diesel engine.
I worked as a salesperson at a Ford Dealership in downtown …New Bedford Massachusetts during 2012. People love these trucks, it was almost like a cult following …. A used one would come on the lot and the phones would light up, I found them a bit rough around the edges, but they brought a lot of interested buyers….We got a particularly mint Ranger in on a trade, the level of interest was amazing!!….. you would have thought it was Mecum…
I’ve never owned a Ford Ranger, so i wouldn’t know what it was like to own or drive. i did drive a similar sized Toyota Pickup Truck (called the Hilux in some countries). Who in their right mind would discontinue a small truck from the line up of vehicles? Not everyone needs or wants a full-sized truck.
I wonder if anyone else noticed that while big rigs and city buses seldom reek of the smell of diesel fuel, that diesel pickups often do. I cannot remember a time at a light where a diesel pickup is in the next lane where it did not stink of diesel.
And back on topic, I think Ford is leaving a lot of change on the table not having a small 4 or V6 cylinder pickup in their lineup.