Personally I love my 2000 Ford Ranger. Low enough in weight to tow behind our gas motor home, try that with an F-150. The real reason ford is discontining the Ranger is, "They last forever". An Eco-Boost will cost you a whole lot more then a Ranger. It's all about the dollar bill.
NMace wrote: Whatever the reason, it is a shame, I paid $11,000 for a '98 extended cab manual 4 cyl, put 235,000 on the clock before it was totaled in a rearender.
Sad is me.
And I have never thought the government should dictate fuel economy, nor about 1,000 other things they do.
Neil
Yeah, the computer industry, GPS and spaceflight, Interstate Road system, the internet, jet airplane industry, X-ray machines, Penicillin were all really bad government ideas.
I have worked for the US Government, so I do believe it has a real role, but surely you know those things would have happened without the Feds. Let's take the Interstates, how does it make sense for the states to collect the highway tax, send it to the Fed, and then the Fed decides how much they should return to the states? What private enterprize would not do, the states would, or both would be bypassed.
They MIGHT have happened, but they happened MUCH faster because the government spent heavily, without any goal of profitability, for the common good eg defense, health, education and general welfare like medicine and transportation. I doubt the private sector ever would have invested the money required to make the internet happen. Nobody forsaw that, it was an accident.
The bottom line is that sales are down--- WAY down in the compact truck segment overall, and Ford's slice of that compact truck pie has been dwindling for a decade. The Toyota and Nissan compacts, last I saw, made up something like 90% of the small truck sales. Even with a new engine and/or a new design, they can't compete in the segment. It's just not cost effective for the company any longer and ultimately, it's that almighty dollar that drives production numbers.
bmanning wrote: It's so easy and tempting to take something simple and make it complex.
A lot of smart guys at Ford decided the Ranger couldn't/wouldn't be profitable; poof, no more Ranger.
As much as it stinks, vehicles are marketed to the masses, not the enthusiast, and money will always be what sways the decisions.
and which of the big 3 didn't need the gov't to bail them out????
I have no dog in this fight; my point was if it will make money, companies will do it, if it won't make money, they don't, whether you're talking Ford, Nabisco, Johnson & Johnson, Sony, etc. etc....I drive a Land Cruiser because it fits my lifestyle right now the best, and I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge...had good luck with my 7.3 but as a rule I never close my mind to other options; I guess I'm what you'd call an "anti brand loyalist"
BManning baking in Phoenix
2008 Ford Super Duty F250 XLT, 4x4, crew cab, 6.75' bed
5.4L V8 300hp/365ft-lb, 5sp Torqshift, 4.30 AAM gears
9400lb GVW 11200lb tow
2007 Volvo XC90 AWD V8
4.4L 311hp/325ft-lb, 6sp Aisin, loaded
6100lb GVW 5000lb tow
and which of the big 3 didn't need the gov't to bail them out????
Not sure how that's germane to the discussion, but, umm... Ford?
Germane because it indicates that Ford saw the writing on the wall and made smart business decisions to avoid running the business into the ground, like GM and Chrysler did.
Some say that some of those decisions included getting rid of the Excursion, and discontinuing the Ranger. If it's not selling, don't keep trying to foist it on the uncaring public. Smart decision.
2002 Chevy 3500 DRW 8.1L/Allison
2000 Palomino B1500
...and the reason why I need a DRW to haul a Palomino:
2004 United 7x14 tandem axle enclosed toy trailer
2011 PJ 8x20 7-ton deckover equipment trailer
Offline
