<![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck - Jalopnik Comments]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck - Jalopnik Comments]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> I learned how to drive a manual in a 1986 ranger. Crappy freaking clutches.

Hyruu

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> I remember driving a Ford Ranger in the mid 80's and we also had some Escorts for company use. The Escorts fell apart in short order but the Rangers were tough as nails and we drove them really hard (as in aggressive, not our vehicle type driving). The F150 is a big, full size truck, and it's not a bad idea to make a smaller version for the person who doesn't buy sheetrock in 4x8 sheets. With the price of gas I think a lot of people would buy it. Not contractor sized, but for most things you can fit in a smaller bed.

Nick_Bentley

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> @Bauhaus: Hey, thanks for clearing that up - I'd honestly wondered why the "Ranger" showed up later as this little tiny truck. My Pop's *was* sweet - he was a pro drag racer and his truck followed suit, huge rubber in the back and skinny up front, Cragars all round, Kilroy peeking over a bug shield on the hood... *was* sweet, that is, until the last few years when it just sat to rust and break down all over, thanks to his advancing age.

ANYways, I may have been beside the point, but I assure you it was genuine curiosity; I was not trying to give anybody a hard time.

On-topic for good measure: Ford trucks these days *are* nice, but lack any "feeling" in their styling; it's why I picked the Ram a few years ago instead. If they make a smaller truck, I'll hope it's something stepside and aggressive like the Lightnings were.

jammadave's cake is a lie

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> @Mazda-Eric-with-1cup-arugula:

Looked up the old ratings for the Ranger... in the mid-late 80s, you could get a Ford Ranger that pulled 29 city, 33 highway.....

Dust off the old blueprints, work some modern computer magic to increase safety without swelling weight, and you think they'd have themselves a winner....

redbulloh

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> @creigs9: agreed!

Mazda Eric has his own radio show

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> The way I see it, if it's too big and heavy for the 2.5L 4cyl, then it's simply too big and heavy to be a Ranger replacement.

petersterncan

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> Why not save a boat load of money, and make the Ranger relevant again.

creigs9

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> This isn't rocket science. It's a pickup. Just re-issue the 1990 Ranger with a modified 2.3 liter with up to date internals, and it would be the bomb.

DoctorNine makes tires squeal in terror

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> the 2011 Ford F-1.50

smokyburnout

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> @Lobo1625:@mojomoney: Exactly! My first truck was a rebaged courier (Mazda) with a diesel and a 5 speed. No options but dealer installed air. $5999 special Usually got high 30's to low 40's. Would not get out of it's own way. I'd take something similar now to replace my Ranger.

subsammy

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> I too hope for something truly small (like, Courier/LUV-esque, except modern). Give it a diesel, or maybe even a start-stop system, and we'll be in business.

That, or make a -chero out of the Focus a la the DOTS Falcon-based Ranchero.

Paul Y. can't think of a better, shorter handle

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> Ford execs must be kicking themselves now. With the way gas prices are going, selling the only true compact truck on the market just went from a huge negative to huge positive.

@theeastbaykid: "F-100" is definitely more identifiable than "Fusion", though.

MajorOutage

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> Ford: How did that whole "replace the Taurus name with something totally forgettable" thing go?

Everyone: Terrible.

Ford: Good, now what are some other names we can eliminate?

theeastbaykid

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> If you're thinking about the first generation compact ranger P/U ('84?)

That's the same platform they use today.

RocketScientist

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> @jammadave: There's "right" and there's "beside the point". I think you managed to hit both of them simultaneously. "Ranger" was a trim line for F-Series pickups from 1967 (the introduction of the 5th generation) to 1982, when the name was dropped as a trim line for the F-Series and became the name of a new, smaller model of truck. Starting in 1970, "Ranger XLT" was the slightly snazzier trim line for the F-Series. Basically the same thing happened to the name "Explorer" - which of course became the SUV that replaced the old Bronco II. Your grandfather's pickup is an F250 (model) in "Ranger XLT" trim. Sounds sweet, actually.

Bauhaus

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> @smalleyxb122:

First generation Ranger? I don't know how old you're thinking, but my grandfather's pickup truck for as long as I've been around is a 1973 Ranger XLT, which is about the same size as my 2003 longbed Ram was, and I believe carries an F250 (size/capability) badge in addition to 'Ranger' (model) and 'XLT' (trim) badges.

jammadave's cake is a lie

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> I would love to see something in the size range of the Chevy LUV. Now that was a small pickup. Throw a tiny diesel in there and we're in bidness.

mojomoney

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> What the truck, they should name this an F-050.

Branden.Tang

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> If this is truly on the same platform it isn't going to gain much in terms of efficiency. The current F-150 has a fully boxed frame and the entire front end is common with the Expedition/Navigator. It will still be huge, heavy, and expensive.

piththeelder

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> 2011 calendar year?

badco/LoJ

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> Problem with a slightly smaller truck based on the larger one is that it won't give any advantage. Look at the Dakota, or Colorodo/canyon. You get nearly thr same economy and pay the same amount for it. I took my 21mpg 4 clyinder 2wd extended cab s10 even and traded it for a v8 4x4 extedned cab silverado that hits 20mpg. Until that make something like my 1988 4x4 s10 which could hit 30mpg then I'll stick with the full size.

enine

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> It's about freakin' time.
It seems that these days finding a truck without a crew cab is about as easy as finding a Ferrari at a Chevy dealer.
All of these people buying 10mpg SUV's seemed to have brought the car manufacturers into the realm of thinking no one wants 'small' trucks any more.
My father gets more use out of his little S10 than any other truck on my street, save the other S10, hilariously enough.

Konrad

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> @subsammy

+1

Lets get the Euro Ranger/BT-50 here in the States....With the diesel engines they have over there.

Lobo1625

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> Bring back the "Courier" ! Though, a re-vamped Ranger does make sense to me. I had a Ranger GT with a turbo and intercooled 2.3 out of a T-bird that I wish I never got rid of. Truck should've stayed, and girlfriend should've went.

tts10driver

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> I think it still may be too big. I think the direction they need to go is the "NEW FORD F-70" Now available with optional 2.5L diesel power and optional automatic transmission, power windows, and CD player.

subsammy

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> I am wondering if they are going to make the Ford Ranger, truly small pick-up a thing of the past or if Ford will do something like this?
[jalopnik.com]

TomCelica

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> Yes, smalleyxb122, 'smaller than the current F150' leaves a lot of room for interpretation... I mean, you could almost fit the short-bus into that category.

FЯeeMan is slowly cЯawling out of the new commenting system

]]> <![CDATA[More Details On Ford's F-ing New Small Truck]]> Smaller than the (current) F150 implies that it won't be nearly small enough. Should we expect something on the scale of a Colorado/Canyon?

Personally, I'd like to see it come in smaller than the current Ranger, more on the scale of the first generation Ranger.

I thoroughly expect to be disappointed.

smalleyxb122

]]>