Report: Ford to Increase Ranger Compact Truck Production

Report: Ford To Increase Ranger Compact Truck Production

There's still life in the old girl yet. Even though production of the Ford Ranger compact pickup truck is scheduled to end in 2011 (or until a next-generation Ranger arrives), Ford will boost Ranger production for the next three months in response to increased demand from truck buyers taking advantage of the federal government's Cash for Clunkers program.

Last month, Ford sold just over 3,000 more Rangers than it did in July 2008, even though the Ranger's year-to-date sales are off by 25.8% from a year earlier. quotes Jim Eagle, chairman of United Auto Workers Local 879, who said the Ranger's factory in St. Paul, Minn., will be on a schedule of five 10-hour days in September, plus overtime in October and November when the plant begins manufacturing the 2010 Ranger.



Gotta make hay while the sun's shinin'!

Had only Ford engineered a new Ranger a couple years back,they would nearly own the compact truck market now.Now they are staring down the end of the line for the archaic (basically similar to the debut 1982 model) junior pickup.

I checked, and apparently, while the Sport model was available with a four-cylinder configuration last year, it won't be for 2010.

That's too bad. I liked the looks of the Sport, it was one of the few reasons I was considering the Ranger. While the XL longbed and XLT longbed might also get my attention for a second, I think if I were out looking right now I'd end up with a Tacoma.

But hey, the Ranger's still got some perks. I suppose.

I'm still amazed that the Ranger outsold the Tundra this month. Well, not really amazed, because Ford builds the best trucks. This Ranger is going to sell like hotcakes once they finally update it.

I like the Ranger that they sell looks a heckuva lot better than this old thing which should be regarded as a "clunker"...maybe not thanks to EPA estimated fuel economy of 20 - 26 mpg highway. But that's still no excuse to keep a "nostalgic" design for 16-26 years.

Speaking of which, to Paul. You are right about the basic shape going back to 1983, but this design goes back to 1993, which is an update of the '80s.

No matter how old Ranger is,one things sure,the 4 cylinder job is sure economical....I work where deliveries are made,and our "fleet" of Rangers (4/manuals) regularly get 26-32 mpg.And thats stop and go.I shudder to think what easy cruising could deliver.Former 2.2/manual S10s got 22-27.

Interesting dilemma for Ford. It's tough as nails and gets great mileage. And it just works hard. But the forever design (tho very classic looking) just doesn't get desired pub much less any excitement. But I actually think the timing for doing a new design is better now. Ford has got their mojo working right now and I think the design and platform will be better off for waiting this long.

What Paul Said. Yes, Yes and Yup.

Its going to be pretty exiting in the next few years , Ford will have a new Ranger Toyota will have a new Tacoma (probably porkified ) Ford might just knock Toyota of the sales lead .

Right on, Taylor. I'm excited as well, however saddened that Toyota doesn't have the foresight to downsize the current Tacoma back to what it was in 2004 and prior, or at least introduce an A-BAT-like truck underneath the Tacoma if they don't downsize it. And, as is evident with the problematic 2005+ Tacomas, they really need to focus on quality again. I wouldn't touch a post-2005 Tacoma with a 50 foot pole...

Along those lines, I hope the T6 Ranger is just as tough as the current one, not too much bigger, and has great powertrain options that get us into the 30s for gas mileage, at least. If Ford can basically do it by not differentiating too far away from what Australia, New Zealand, etc. have as their Ranger right now, then hopefully they can avoid the first and second year issues that often go along with all-new redesigns.

I've got a 1990 2WD Ranger SuperCab, get 20mpg just dorking around , love it and hope to get 200K on it before replacing. Can't go back to a car, current crop of other small P/U is crappy, and heard Ford was going to end Rangers. I want a small WORK truck: keyed locks (read what happens if you soak your electronic key when fishing), crank windows, tie downs, all the windows open, limited-slip axle or maybe 4WD, no A/C. Not a truck gussied up like a car but a hard working run down dirt roads, carry camping gear, take fly fishing truck. Why did trucks become so car-like?

omg why are they still producing this old fugly relic.

@iwc: For one reason, because I'd bet that the costs to Ford were paid off a long time ago on the Ranger, and they're seeing that it's still selling well (actually better and better in recent past)? And perhaps people are still buying them in droves because they couldn't care less about looks versus the economical, dependable and appropriately-sized attributes it brings to the table for them?

I've got to love it this light duty Ford - it's still the classic, good looking, tough pickup truck. His European equivalent that we have here (based on the Mazda BT) isn't so good...and after last face lifting he'd become even more softy look, like trucks from east automakers!

And don't make it look like a pacific rim wannabe truck. Make it look like a downsized real truck. The current design has that going for it big time. It looks very truck like. And that's very good. Just update it in the F150 DNA and give it a 6 foot bed and four door option...Please.

Let's not go overboard, the Toyota Tacoma is still the king today...

The issue with the Ranger is the safety hazard low running torsion bars, geesh those things are so low on their 4wd's!

And nice rear lower shock mounts, talk about breaking those with some rough off-roading...

The Ranger's refinement and fit & finish may be way behind current standards, but as a little work horse, it serves its owners well. Ford could keep producing this model with a few styling tweaks every couple of years and continue to make money without major design, tooling, and marketing investments. Meanwhile, Ford could offer the new generation Ranger under a different name...appealing to a different customer. Let the market decide what sells.

Thoughts from all...i'm considering a '09 or '10 Ranger xcab 2WD here in Florida, don't need 4WD. Can't decide if i need the 4banger or 6cyl...either would come w/auto as my family would need to be able to get behind the wheel as well. Thoughts?

i love the look of the current Ranger and one of my friends has had 150s it seems his whole life and is a true Ford man. but i can't imagine the gas mileage a 150 gets vs a Ranger 4cyl, as the Ranger 6cyl gets about the same as the 150!

just need it for light duty carrying load, to/from work about 20miles one-way. appreciate any comments.

You are right about the mileage - F150 small V8 vs. Ranger 6 Cyl. We have both. So 4 Cyl. would be some savings.
Be sure to get the extended cab in the Ranger. You will always need the extra space. The Rangers are tough workers.

thx Johnny! i'd prefer the 150 but i know sure as all get out, the price of gas will go up to if not over $4 a gallon in the future and THAT'S when the price to fill up will be killing me.

sort of like life have the bigger truck to carry, tow, push, pull, haul lots more cargo, but 95% of the time I (personally anyway) wouldn't need it.

what kills me is having a truck w/a 4cyl tinks it makes the engine work too hard regardless of who made it. i'd prefer the 6 or even 8 cyl, but again, that gas pump action would make me gag. thx for the input!

@Hoodman: Per the following link, the MPG difference between the 4-cyl and the V6 might be less of a factor than you may think, mostly due to the fact that you're going with an automatic and not a manual. (MPG on the following page appears to be an average of city and highway):

You probably know those figures already, but it's worth considering if we do some math. You said 20 miles to and from work per day, so 40 total there, and we'll add in, say, 10 miles extra for other driving, road trips, etc. Per year that's 50 x 365, which is a little over 18K miles. Using that mileage mark, the 4-cyl at 21 mpg (average) will require roughly 860 gallons of gas for year. The V6 at 18 mpg would require 1,000 gallons. So what, right? Well, if (when) gas gets to, say, $4.50 per gallon, you'd spend $3,870 on gas for the year with the 4-cyl and $4,500 on gas for the V6. If you go with the 4-cyl, that's a yearly savings of just $630, or about $50+change per month. And that's if gas were $4.50 per gallon, a scenario that I would say won't be arriving for at least another year or two at the earliest (*knock on wood*!!!). So your margin of savings with the 4-cyl will be even less in the meantime. Purely based on that, I think most would agree to go with the V6. But obviously, there's purchase price, auto insurance and reliability to consider. Invoice will be ~$1,200 cheaper for the 4-cyl. Insurance may not be all that much for for the V6. And reliability-wise, I've heard that the V6 is actually more reliable than the 4-cyl. But don't take my word for it; research all those areas.

In terms of saving money, though, what about a low-mileage (10K to 25K) used 2007 or 2008 Ranger with a clean background and perfect service records? You'd avoid the bulk of the depreciation by going that route, that's for sure.

What do you think, now?

when are they coming out with something better than this is ugly

I'm keeping my two old Nissan 2WD trucks for as long as I can. Even the Ranger is huge compared to the compact trucks from the '80's and 90's. All I want is something useful (and a tiny car or SUV isn't all that useful) that get me from point A to B.

I know that all the manufacturer's are making small, light trucks with 4 cylinder manuals that get great gas mileage, but they all say that there is no market here for them in the US. I don't know why that is. There was a market, starting with the Ford Ranchero and El Camino.

Last month I brought home a load of manure for the garden, shoveled it out and hosed out the bed. Last week, I went a picked up a load of 2x4's and today I am getting some landscape timbers.

Can't do those things with an SUV!

Trip, appreciate your comments and diligent background info provided! I really want the 6 banger and as my wife tells me, get what is going to make me REALLY happy and be darn with the gas prices. It goes back to the emotion thing, i'm looking at a Ranger, as the Colorado makes me throw up just looking at it, the Dakota has a workhorse V6 and a killer V8, but the looks outside and in turn me away quickly. Why can't Dearborn see his and make some timely updates to the Ranger and as noted previously, they'd own the compact market as everyone is upsizing and most of their looks just don't turn my warm fuzzy i want to buy a GM, Ford or Chrysler so the Ranger wins, just gotta decide about the 4 or 6cyl and i'm now leaning towards the 6. thx to all for great commentary on this blog.

the 4 cyl with an extended cab is overloaded, with a automatic trans, it won't be able to get out of its own way. The 3L 6 is what you want if you go with anything but the shortbed std cab manual 2wd, I have one '99 2.5L 4 std cab std trans sbed 2wd. 205K miles and still could be my daily driver. I live in ME and put 4 snow tires on it for winter, as long as I don't go off the road I'm out there with the Subaru's.

The ranger was always one of my favorite trucks from Ford. Granted, its a small one, but even so its a pretty nice truck. I dig it.

The comments to this entry are closed.