Ford to introduce another pickup, smaller than the new Ranger.

[Ford850]

These are going to be smaller than the old Ranger, and unibody construction built on a car platform.

 

[RalphVa]

Our 1994 Ford Ranger only got 23 mpg and actually got less on the highway. It was a really awful pickup. Cost about $900 for the 1st turneup because they broke off 2 of the 8 spark plugs and had to replace the location sensor gizmo (converted Pinto engine; I think).

Drove the 2005 Tacoma today. Had to go get some diesel. Been using the tractor a lot in shredding/chipping up autumn olives and red cedar branches. Thing is SO BIG and monstrous. It's 500 # heavier than the extracab 1997 one that we had. Should have spent the money on new clutch, brakes and fixing up the right front fender the body shop botched and kept it. We both liked to drive that pickup. While "escaping" from Louisiana passing literally everything in sight ahead of us doing close to 80 mph, it got 30 mpg in 2 tankfuls. Not a fluke.

Another one of our favorite pickups was the Dodge Rampage. Really lovely to drive because it drove like the sportscarish Dodge 024. Dodge had a problem with rust and seals on the overhead valve cam.

Ralph

 

[Peter 315]

These are going to be smaller than the old Ranger, and unibody construction built on a car platform.

Like the dodge rampage ....

 

[Jstpssng]

Our 1994 Ford Ranger only got 23 mpg and actually got less on the highway. It was a really awful pickup. Cost about $900 for the 1st turneup because they broke off 2 of the 8 spark plugs and had to replace the location sensor gizmo (converted Pinto engine; I think).

Drove the 2005 Tacoma today. Had to go get some diesel. Been using the tractor a lot in shredding/chipping up autumn olives and red cedar branches. Thing is SO BIG and monstrous. It's 500 # heavier than the extracab 1997 one that we had. Should have spent the money on new clutch, brakes and fixing up the right front fender the body shop botched and kept it. We both liked to drive that pickup. While "escaping" from Louisiana passing literally everything in sight ahead of us doing close to 80 mph, it got 30 mpg in 2 tankfuls. Not a fluke.

Another one of our favorite pickups was the Dodge Rampage. Really lovely to drive because it drove like the sportscarish Dodge 024. Dodge had a problem with rust and seals on the overhead valve cam.

Ralph

Back in ‘94 a full sized truck was lucky to get 15. As their mileage slowly crept up though, that in the smaller trucks went down. For a long time the only pickup which delivered decent mileage was the 4 cyl Tacoma, and I always threatened to cut holes in the floorboard so that I could “Fred Flintstone” up the hills.

 

[EddieWalker]

Might be a good farm truck for running to town to get feed for the animals. I'm curious about what they come up with.

 

[fidowanttobe]

Not a Ford fan but will agree on the big three dropping the ball again on what the consumer really is looking for. My brother's 2016 Colorado is almost the same size as his 1985 Silverado and when it is next to my S10 it REALLY looks like a full size. Seeing how many S10 and Rangers are still on the road and getting high prices when in decent shape, I find it hard to believe that they needed to enlarge them due to demand. My 4x4 S10 is a pleasure to work out of compared to my 2x4 2013 full size at work due to the box height alone.

 

[shooterdon]

100% agree. I had a 1986 S10 that I put 300,000 kms on. It had a geared 4 cyl engine (no timing belt) that was good on fuel, and ran reliably for years with only basic maintenance. I drive that thing across the continent from Halifax to Vancouver (or the reverse) 6 times. The final time i took a scenic detour when I left Vancouver and went down through Wash, Oreg, California, Ariz, New Mex, Colorado, Wyoming, Dakotas, and Michigan so I could cross the border at Sault Ste. Marie. I hunted, camped, kayaked and everything else with that little truck for years, and it was amazingly reliable.

All those little trucks were very basic, light, and simple, the Rangers, S-10's, and Mazda B series 1/4 tons. As soon as people started wanting more towing power and bigger engines the trucks went down hill because they ended up with crappy mileage, and a higher sticker price than the 1/2 tons.

I had the same truck and loved it. I think I paid $5200 (Can $$ lived in Sarnia then) and the only option was an AM radio. Basic, dependable and affordable transportation. It never let me down.
I saw the add in the paper and went to the dealer to see it. Asked if he still had one and he said yes, but it was a basic truck to get people to come in a get a "better" truck. Told me I would be happier with a few more options. Told him no. He was not happy, but I was. He did not make any money of the financing as I paid cash.

 

[Oaktree]

Another one of our favorite pickups was the Dodge Rampage. Really lovely to drive because it drove like the sportscarish Dodge 024. Dodge had a problem with rust and seals on the overhead valve cam.

Weren't there some serious handling issues with those "trucks"? They didn't make them very long, ISTR reading they were discontinued due to some sort of safety concerns.
I had a couple Horizons/Omnis back in the 80s, don't recall they were any more rust prone than anything else of that era (which isn't saying much). OK car, not very refined. The carburetors in those 2.2s really sucked, and I never had any luck rebuilding them. Heard a lot of stories about head gasket problems, but I never had any.

Back in ?4 a full sized truck was lucky to get 15. As their mileage slowly crept up though, that in the smaller trucks went down. For a long time the only pickup which delivered decent mileage was the 4 cyl Tacoma, and I always threatened to cut holes in the floorboard so that I could æ“¢red Flintstone up the hills.

I recall hearing stories of mid-upper 20s gas mileage on those, I always dismissed it as fanboyism. My BIL had one and the best he got was 17 or so.
You're right those things were gutless, got stuck behind one many a time on a hill...pedal to the metal 35-40mph. And they always sounded like they had a cracked exhaust manifold or something. Total rustbuckets too, you were lucky to get it home from the dealer before the bed rotted off.

 

[4570Man]

I like that news, the new Ranger is too big and too expensive. I currently have a 99 4x4 Ranger, and it's just right.

I’m not in the compact truck market but agreed. I really don’t see the point in the new ranger. It’s close to the same truck the F-150 is and the box sides are still 5’ high.

 

[Jstpssng]

Weren't there some serious handling issues with those "trucks"? They didn't make them very long, ISTR reading they were discontinued due to some sort of safety concerns.
I had a couple Horizons/Omnis back in the 80s, don't recall they were any more rust prone than anything else of that era (which isn't saying much). OK car, not very refined. The carburetors in those 2.2s really sucked, and I never had any luck rebuilding them. Heard a lot of stories about head gasket problems, but I never had any.



I recall hearing stories of mid-upper 20s gas mileage on those, I always dismissed it as fanboyism. My BIL had one and the best he got was 17 or so.
You're right those things were gutless, got stuck behind one many a time on a hill...pedal to the metal 35-40mph. And they always sounded like they had a cracked exhaust manifold or something. Total rustbuckets too, you were lucky to get it home from the dealer before the bed rotted off.

My '91 SR5 consistently got 23, and that included running back and forth to New York with an ATV in the back. It was so gutless though that I would have to downshift on grades to maintain 55, and there's one stop sign in Vermont where I used to shift into 4lo to get started on the hill. Just before the head gasket failed I found out that it had solid lifters which needed adjustment; there was no free play in them at all.

My '83 and '85 Rangers both got 23.5 consistently, with the 2.8 V6, manual shift. My '04 gets 17 if the wind is right and I put an egg under the accelerator, generally it gets around 15-16. Going down the interstate with a 5' tiller in the back I barely got in 14 mpg... not much of an economy truck.

At 29K for an entry level 4WD I thought that the new Rangers were affordably priced, I just found the concept of another addition to the line to be intriguing. If it is indeed a unibody and can pull down an honest 30 mpg, I will consider buying one.