U.S. Ford Ranger Production to End December 22, UAW Says

Ford Ranger Production in the U.S. Will End by December 22, UAW Says

After almost 30 years, Ford Ranger production will end Dec. 22, according to the United Auto Workers 879’s June-August newsletter. Chapter 879 covers factory workers at Ford's Twin Cities assembly plant where the Ranger is built.

"We are scheduled to run until December 22, 2011. The Leadership of Twin Cities Assembly Plant and its members thanked the UAW and Plant leaderships’ for their support during these difficult times for our plant," said the newsletter.

The 1983 Ford Ranger — which started production in January 1982 — was a replacement for the Ford Courier, which was based on the imported Mazda B-Series small truck. Ford wanted a scaled-down, lighter version of its full-size F-Series pickups that could work hard, get good gas mileage and compete head-to-head against small Japanese trucks such as the Datsun and Toyota pickups, and the U.S.-built Chevrolet and GMC S-Series pickups from GM.

More than 7 million Rangers have been built during its lifetime.

Ford hasn't announced a replacement for the U.S.-built Ranger. Instead, the Ford F-150 with its new 3.7-liter V-6 is the most direct replacement. However, an all-new Ford Ranger for global markets outside North America goes on sale later this year.

Comments

sure is a shame they can't replace with something that gets better FE

Time to start planning the funeral :(

Ford is making a HUGE mistake. The only reason they are killing it is they are worried about under-cutting F-150 sales. A v6 F-150 is NOT a Ranger replacement.

Make it a little bigger and throw in a small diesel. People would buy it like crazy.

Leave it as is, but drop in a diesel. This is the last honest real small truck. I have had 5 of them and my current one is an '89 reg cab 4x4.
They have been essentially unchanged and Ford paid off the tooling costs years ago.

Good thinking Ford. Ranger buyers will be just fine with the mediocre Fiesta. Yeah...sure they will.

People do not buy the Ranger for it's fuel economy...because it's dismal. They buy it because it's an extremely liveable, amazingly versatile little truck. And they don't want to be bothered with the "far too large" F-150.

It puzzles me that companies are abandoning the small pickup market right at the time when gas is expensive and people are looking for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I have a 2006 Ranger xlt 4x4 extended cab, and it works well for me - it's big enough to haul stuff for a side business I run, but small enough to park on city streets when I drive to work. I don't want an F150 - it's wider and bigger than I need.

Given the fact that Ford has managed to sell 60k+ Rangers a year for the last few years, despite a 15 year old design and absolutely no marketing, imagine how many they could sell with an up to date design and some actual advertising. I can't be the only person who needs a truck, but not a big truck.

This is a shame that Ford doesn't bring the new global Ranger to the U.S. I understand it's ~90% the size of a full size truck however so is the Toyota Tacoma. The Tacoma, at least in my opinion, is a very successful truck.

With a global market for the Ranger that is available everywhere but North America there should be enough volume to make it profitable. Especially if North America was added to the market size (volume).

This is really a shame.

The global Ranger with an eco-boost I think would really sell in North America

Cannot believe Ford is not at least replacing the Ranger!!

I not have any faith in this ONE FORD PLAN!!!!

Killing MERCURY, Lincoln Town Car and all the Rear wheel drive cars, Crown Vic etc, and looking at all the Front Wheel drive clones they are replacing them with is not the plan I like!

Ford better get some new product planners with vision! Just because its cheaper for Ford to build front wheel drive clones that are very very expensive doesnt mean they will sell!!!

Sometimes automakers make good moves and sometimes they do boneheaded things. Ford has used every excuse in the book why they shouldn't build a new Ranger. "Its too close in size to the F-150" Which is a bunch of crap and there is the ever popular "We don't sell enough Rangers" which is also hooey. they sell far more Rangers then ford flex vehicles and it likely outsells the new Taurus? None of the excuses really pans out. A redesign would sells these trucks like hotcakes. Its really all about profit and the larger the truck the larger the profit. I think this decision will come back and bite Ford in the ass. It was a good little truck and had a good run. I'm sorry to see it go. I own a Ranger now but will not be buying an f-150 for my next vehicle. Its just to big for my use.

Just because Ford has not made an announcement, does not mean there isn't a replacement.

Deciding not to bring the global Ranger to the US is the right decision because it is 90% the size of a F-150. However, that does not mean there isn't a replacement.

Mike Levine said Ford is working on another truck smaller than the new Ranger.

Hold your horses.

who copied who " Ford wanted a scaled-down, lighter version of its full-size F-Series pickups that could work hard, get good gas mileage and compete head-to-head against small Japanese trucks such as the Datsun and Toyota pickups, and the( U.S.-built Chevrolet and GMC S-Series pickups from GM.)" yeah i thought so, hey dad their at it again lol still shames its ending production i say its a bad move to but what can you do rip ranger

It was a flawless little truck. I had a 1993 SuperCab 4X4 with the 4.0L v6 5spd in "Bright Calypso" green. I now have an F150.

If I were to buy another compact truck it would be a Toyota or Nissan... I'm not even considering the underpowered, unreliable Colorado/Canyon.

@Bob P,

I couldn't agree more. A Raptor based Eco-boost 2.0L Ranger would be awesome and nice for the trails.

Drool!

Pickuptrucks.com measured both the old Ranger and the NEW T6.

The old ranger was 87% the size of the F150.

Remember the T6 is 90% of the size of the F150.

The Tacoma is physically larger than the T6. Ford's excuse is not a real excuse. The only excuse I would buy is: " We would not make a lot of profit on it"

Yalls r gonna be surprised what's coming.

I think Ford should keep it pretty much as is considering how well it sells for what it is.
Personally I have never seen the point of it, but enough other people apparently do.
When I was young and single it would have been a fine vehicle, now with kids and wife I have no use for it.

@Jack
colorado canyon aint underpower i just when to the ford gm site to check spec
2.3l inline 4 143hp 154 tq
4.0l 207hp 238 tq
colorado canyon
2.9l 185hp 190tq
3.7l in line 5 242 hp 242 tq
5.3l 300hp no tq spec for it that i saw
if you ask me 300hp is alotta power for a small tin can on wheels and even the inline 5 still has more hp tq then the 4.0 so i don't know where you get the underpower idea from to each their own i guess lol

The F150 and full-size pickups are federally protected. There will never be an imported pickup (ranger, Aussie Utes, etc) until the feds repeal the Fish Act (25% tariff on imported pickups).

correction; it's the "Chicken" tax. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3155

Sad indeed!

No more Rangers to compete down in desert off-road races unless in vintage classes...

At least my Tacoma will go up in value again...

@chevy guy

Thanks for the update... I didn't know they offered the 5.3!
All I remember is having the Colorado for a week with the inline 5 cyl and I didn't like it (compared to the old 4.3L)
BTW, my old 4.0L had 160HP and it would loose the rear end in 3rd gear.

GM 5.3 - 300 hp = Ford's 3.7L - 305 hp.

Nice move Ford. I hope Jeep builds the Gladiator and takes over the small/mid-size truck market. What is Ford thinking? Gas is going to be $5/gallon in the summer of 2012.

Our esteemed host has indeed hinted several times the last few months that a new Ranger may be headed our way. I am just saying. Blame it on me.

Doesn't matter to me. I am still driving my '97 Ranger 2.3 lima, with almost 300,000 miles. I just hope they continue to have replacement parts available. Not that I have needed very many yet.

@Dave, Lou & Frank
Sorry to rain on your parade, but way to go Chevy!!!!! There is a Chevy replacement. There is no Ford replacement.

Ford is letting Ford fans down. GM isn't letting Chevy fans down.

The heartbeat of AMERICA. That's todays Chevrolet!!!!!!!!


no problem jack my friend had a 1993 4.0 5 speed had some fun with it lol smoked 3 trannies but can't blame it for the stuff we was trying to pull and drag plus all the fun burnouts we'd do lol

maybe ford can rename the truck to the Ford Tonto? Good riddence ford ranger, don't need any ugly trucks on the US roads anyway. The Colorado and the Next generation Colorado make the ford ranger look like a ugly duckling.

Let the complaining begin...

I am glad you are happy that GM is not letting you down.


GM 5.3 V8 - 300 hp = Ford's 3.7L V6 - 305 hp.
GM 5.3 V8 - 300 hp <<<<< Ford's 3.5L V6 - 365 hp


Bwahahahahahha!!!!!

Well there goes the coolest truck ever.

@ frank

the 5.3L in the colorado's are a little water down ,the 5.3l in the half tons are 315 hp 338 tq normal gas or you can get the 5.3L E85 326 hp and 350 tq not bad for a 12 year old motor i say 2 valves per cylinder. When ford had the 5.4L and 4.6L and needed three valves per cylinder to keep up to beat gm's motors lol

Forget
Our
Ranger
Dammit

Only 305 horsepower Frank??? Well, GM'S 3.6 liter V6 will have 323 horsepower for 2012 and it doesn't even have a turbo on it. As long as were talking horsepower Frank, GM'S naturally aspirated 7 liter makes 505 horsepower with NO super charger and NO turbo charger. The Corvette also offers the 6.2 liter makes 430 horsepower and with the optional performance exhaust makes 436 horsepower.

The Camaro with the same 6.2 liter makes 426 horsepower. Now Frank, please tell all the board members what engines does ford make that isn't supercharged or turbo charged or twin turbocharged that makes more horsepower than the engines GM makes. Everyone knows that even though the super duty with the power joke engine that is 400 hp and 800 foot pounds of torque and Yes this engine has a turbo on it won't out perform GM's Duramax. with 397 hp and 765 foot pounds of torque.

Ford for the first time finally put some decent power in the mustang with their new 3.7 V6 and 5.0 liter V8 and in the F-150 with the 3.7, 5.0 and 3.5 Eco boost. Until then ford was sucking wind with the 5.4 try to run engine. So who's laughing now Frank? ha ha ha ha.....

@chevy guy,

Here is the list of all the current '11 motors:

* 4.3L V-6 (LU3), rated at 195 hp (145 kW) and 260 lb.-ft. of torque (353 Nm)
* 4.8L V-8 (L20), with iron block; rated at 302 hp (225 kW) and 305 lb.-ft. of torque (414 Nm)*
* 5.3L FlexFuel V-8 (LMG), E85-capable with iron block and Active Fuel Management, rated at 315 hp (235 kW) and 335 lb.-ft. of torque (455 Nm)*
* 5.3L FlexFuel V-8 (LC9), E85-capable with aluminum block and Active Fuel Management, rated at 315 hp (235 kW) and 338 lb.-ft. of torque (458 Nm)*
* 6.2L V-8 (L9H), with E85 FlexFuel capability, an aluminum block and variable valve timing, rated at 403 hp (300 kW) and 417 lb.-ft. of torque (565 Nm)*. This engine is available in crew cab and extended cab models.


http://gmfullsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219186

Are you using horsepower sprinkles on your 5.3 E85?

Maybe I am missing something!!!!

@Michigan Bob,

I am still laughing:

GM 5.3 V8 - 300 hp = Ford's 3.7L V6 - 305 hp.
GM 5.3 V8 - 300 hp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHqbqGCCMc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1

"Now Frank, please tell all the board members what engines does ford make that isn't supercharged or turbo charged or twin turbocharged that makes more horsepower than the engines GM makes" - Michigan Bob

This is too easy. Please click here:

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout-introduction.html

4.3 V6 195 hp with a 4-speed Auto - LMFAO!!!!!!

@Michigan,

The Camaro with the same 6.2 liter makes 426 horsepower got it's A$$ handed to by a smaller displaced motor at 412hp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHqbqGCCMc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1

Stop talking about Camaros. This is pickuptrucks.com GM trucks will not be updated until 2014!

Gee Bob, Ferrari has a 4.5L V8 pushing 570hp and it is naturaly aspirated that makes Ferrari > GM too! Comparing Apples and oranges doesn't impress anyone, that goes for Frank, Chevy Guy and anyone else just posting up some numbers.

I too think the Colorado/Canyon's are under powered but in the sense that for similar displacement there are motors in GM's inventory that produce more power and they should be replaced with these better motors. We all know Ford has left the Ranger to die on the vine and the 4.0 is still that Cologne block used in the mustangs for the last decade (really more like 13-14 years)

I am hoping that the new Colorado/Canyon platform is more livable from an ergonomic/chassis standpoint with some of GM's more efficient motors and a much better interior.

They'll be realeasing new motors over the next year or two so I hope one of these new ones ends up in the new Colorado because it could really be a nice pickup for a lot of people. My vote is on a version of the 2.0T with a bias towards torque and at least 6 forward gears.

I was in the camp waiting for the Mahindra's but I am having to abandon that now and hoping someone steps up with a capable midsizer that is much more economical and a full size.

Another thing, there has been no annoucement from GM about the Colorado coming to the US.

Ford is ending the Ranger in December 2011. GM is ending the Colorado shortly after in 2012.

If GM or Ford have a replacement, it won't be until 2014.

In the meantime, Ford will sell more of its EcoBoost and 3.7L F-150 which are more profitable.

@ frank
mike even typed it up so i don't know maybe it's a typo i don't know but i trust Mike Levine's numbers scroll down to under the hood it say's 5.3L E85 326 hp and 350 tq http://www.pickuptrucks.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/2011/expert-reviews/

@ mhowarth
im not just posting up numbers im helping people like jack showing facts useful information sorry if it annoys you

@Chevy Guy,

I got mine from GM website. Who shall we trust?

@ mhowarth

I backing up my comments with facts. However, you are correct. I am comparing a FORD V6 vs a GM V8.

Let's do apples to apples.......

Ford 5.0 > GM 5.3

Happy now!

Yea, the Fords were updated to chug more fuel to operate them. Chevy gets better V8 mileage than F150. These ratings can be found on the advertisements approved by Milk Levine right here on pickuptrucks.com and on found on www.fueleconomy.gov

Another update by Ford and Dodge is no automatic locking differential, no On Star with turn by turn navagation. Just wait to GM adds twitter and facebook to On Star in 2012. No double glove box compartment. I am sick of brainwashed people ruining the posts by only posting anti GM and pro Ford information. GM may have the oldest half ton platform but it can go head to head with Ford, GM beats Ford in the heavy duty department, and GM outclasses Ford in the mid size because Ford doesn't have one. Period.

@Charles, It is not in the US Ford's management leaves a lot of people puzzled. In Australia untimely decisions have made Ford here, lose a considerable amount of market share. In Europe it is not doing that well. In Asia it barely penetrates the market. Short term profits are not a solution for long term effective strategy.
Any company that invites criticism for it's management decisions, needs to look at that management. Having its Flagship sedan almost disappear; pulling out of a viable market without a replacement; running a market down due to inactivity(US and Australia), suggests a lot is wrong with the company, being a highly geared organization(a lot of corporate debt) makes that problem worse.

@Chevy Guy- So your impressed by a brand new 5.3 making 350 ft lbs on E85? Then shouldnt you be sh1tt1ing bricks over my 5.4? It makes 350 ft lbs on 87 octane and makes it at a lower rpm too. Oh and its 11 years old. lol

I will have a moment of silence that day. Here in Winchester, VA, the Ranger is the Standard for small trucks, there isn't a place with more late model 4wd Rangers. Wonder what we're all gonna drive next?

@Robert Ryan
I also have my concerns about Ford maintaining the turnaround, but a couple of your points seem a little off. First, I wouldn't say Ford has been inactive in the US market. New product like the Focus this year and Fiesta and SuperDuty last year, not to mention freshenings to the Edge, Fusion, and Taurus, at least means that product is not exactly stale. Second, although debt is still high, it is being pared down, and the stock is almost at investment grade. However, other decisions give me pause. Killing and not replacing the Ranger when fuel prices are going up seems short-sighted, there is no real plan for Lincoln, the Falcon seems to be whithering on the vine in Australia (wouldn't it make sense to combine the Falcon and Mustang on a common RWD architechture, and then use that platform for a Lincoln?), and MyFordTouch looks to be the next iDrive.

@LukeinCO.The "withering on the vine" with regards to the Falcon and Ranger is exactly the sort of criticism I have of Ford. Yes the Falcon platform , could have been like the Zeta (Commodore, Camaro, US Police patrol vehicle).Fiesta is new in the US, but not that new in Europe and it's sales in Australia are tiny. Taurus has some very bad vibes for Australians, the"catfish" model is known for its speed of departure from the local market than anything else.

@Frank

So they have a 305 hp 3.7 in the current Ranger ? Really !!!

I dont think so,the Colorado with the 5.3 V-8 has the most power for a small truck.

Under your logic,comparring anything under the sun,how about this my Dodge Ram has 510 h.p 525 torque with a stock mild factory tune !! Beats anything Furd ever had !!!! They first said 500 hp,then 505..but remember a few years ago many Japanese lied about the h.p in its vehicles claiming more than what they actually had,Chrysler underestimated some of theirs,and the correct h.p is 510..not the 500 or 505 but it is 510 with the factory very very mild tune..mine now has 607 h.p just dyno tuned thats it,minus the crap load of cat conv they have on those things...beats a 305 hp or 365 h.p Furd ..eh !!

By the way Mopar has the most powerful engines ever !! Toyota,Ford,GM use them today in Top Fuel,over 8,000 h.p !! Nobody can beat a MOPAR !! Most h.p ever !!! Screw spark plug in head Furds !!! And 6 cyl trucks that suck up the same average mpg as a new 5.7 HEMI !! You gotta granny sounding 6 cyl that sucks up the same amount of fuel as a Ram Hemi and Ford fans are bragging....lol !!!



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com