There goes my future political career.

 Reply

Good view through the sunroof.

 Reply

Although I bet they wish they had. Sales are up on Rangers because they have the best fuel economy of any trucks on the market

 Reply

I went to their website the other day and they had Mazda B-series listed on the truck page. I kid you not.

 Reply

Surprised to see you mention the B Series since Ford just dumped a lot of its Mazda ownership. I know that the B-Series is a Ranger but it cant benefit them as much as it used to.

 Reply

[www.ford.com]

 Reply

@Wes Siler: Yes, I'm suggesting exactly that. The little Toyotas I had in high school and college were pretty bulletproof (22R/RE FTW), but the maintenance schedule and associated cost at the dealership was a nightmare for someone in school, so it gave me the added bonus of learning to do my own maintenance. I think a new version of that type of truck would sell like crazy if it was priced appropriately. I don't think either one of mine even had a cupholder now that I think about it. Maybe we're in the vast minority, but I would like to hope not. Dakota-sized mini trucks suck imho.

 Reply

I would like to see a new 3rd-world Ranger in person. It seems like something that they really, REALLY need to sell here.

...with a small diesel.

 Reply

It's cool, Wes, I got your back. (Call me!)

 Reply

They can't sell the "other" Ranger here (that you see in Mexico and other places) because it doesn't meet all FMVSS requirements. Something to do with the A-Pillars, if I have my facts straight.

The current Ranger is basically the same truck that was released in '93. There have been some suspension tweaks (went from Twin I-Beam/Twin Traction Beam to IFS around 1999-2000) and some engine and exterior/interior updates. But I can bolt transfer cases and rear suspension parts from an '09 to my '93. In fact, I upgraded my driveshaft with one from a '97.

Me, I guess I'm in the minority, but I hope they don't mess with the formula too much. Styling is one thing, but the bones of the truck need to be sturdy. My '93 still rides pretty nice with 250,000 miles on the original drive train (and the archaic Twin Traction Beam D35). I want a full-framed pickup that can tow, do work and doesn't wear a skirt (see: Ridgeline). Also, I want better economy then a full size. Don't need a full size, but I want a real truck. Since the new F-150 can get 21 MPG's, I know there's room for improvement in the efficiency department, but I want a truck engine. Not some all aluminum piece that's toast after it overheats once, and something that gives near-max torque at around 1800 RPM's (see the OHV 4.0L for an example), not after revving up to around 2500-3000 RPM.

And something the Ranger community has been clamoring for years to get: a diesel. I nice four cylinder turbo diesel (see: Jeep Liberty) would be perfect. Towing and efficiency aren't just for full size pick up trucks.

 Reply

On the other hand, my brother got talked into an F150 about a year and a half ago, because it's impossible to get a four-banger Ranger without a fleet order, and the V6 is no more efficient than a 5.4L F150 (somehow). To top it off, the F150 was only a little more expensive once incentives are factored in. It's like Ford doesn't even want people to buy their small truck. He once had a 95 Ranger, and basically liked it (though he did like the similarly-configured GMC Sonoma I had at the same time a bit better-- the GMC had better gearing and felt a little more solid overall).

 Reply