Yesterday I went to the Dallas Auto Show. There were a couple of 2008 Rangers in the Ford exhibit and one of them called to me to open its door and climb in.

What an odd feeling … It was exactly like getting into my “brand new” 1988 Ranger twenty years ago. Yeah, time and technology have advanced and the Ranger hasn’t. But the little trucks did a straighforward, economical and uncomplaining job for millions of people.

Its like driving a completely new vehicle- as in, if its actually horribly dated it sure is fantastic. 2 reasons to get a new car in my books were air bags and ABS and I have those… all for 15k canuck out the door. Plus, its now a 4 star collision rating. Wait! No more twin-Ibeam- the handling is WAY tighter. More power, better mileage. Much better comfort, the space behind the seat is now useful and it has the same great pickup box- my old canopy just fit on!

Given the extremely limited vehicle categories in north america (big, fat, fatbig and bigfat), the Ranger is the bang for buck king here. Thanks Ford- I’m good til 2028.

I’ve read here there’s other incentives being offered in California but I don’t live in California. Is it possible to get other cash bonuses outside of California? Maybe these bonuses are only offered in certain parts of the country.

Ford must be offering their dealers special incentives and rebates to move these trucks off the lots.

Car sales are down in this sluggish economy and truck sales are way down. Guys in construction, who build new homes, can’t afford to buy a truck when new home sales have fallen off a cliff.

Oil prices are now over $100 a barrel, and I read an article yesterday and it said gas this spring should max out at around $3.40 a gallon nationally. For a truck, Rangers get decent gas mileage.

I’ve owned Ford Rangers before and I like them a lot. I don’t know about the future resale value, but one guy here said someone is always willing to buy a used pickup.

I’ve always had Rangers that had quite a few options–XLT, power windows, locks, cruise, and tilt wheel. If I did buy a 2008, I think I better go for a cheaper one. If you take a hit on the resale value ( the last Ranger rolls off the assembly line in 2009 ), it won’t be as big as compared to a more expensive Ranger.

I’ve never had many mechanical problems with my Rangers. I see where the 2008 has less scheduled maintenance–just every 7,500 miles.

I’ve never understood Ford decision to abandon the Ranger. The same week they anounced next year’s closing of the Ranger factory here in MN, they started airing tv commercials hyping the Ranger’s fuel economy (wtf?!). It was such a huge seller in its day. Although I don’t understand other posters complaint that it was never updated. It’s a basic small truck. What is there to update? Ridgeline/Avalanche/Escalade-like plastic crap behind the cab? No thanks.

Wonder what I’ll get in 2033

Hopefully not a casket…

Ford-thanks for nothing!

And Ford is going to stop making them, instead of building and improving on such a good platform? No wonder these folks are having so many problems.

The way it normally works is the selling state does not charge sales tax for that state. They’ll either compute the residence state’s sales tax and charge it, or the the residence state will charge the sales tax upon registration in that state.

It’s all based on the address that’s provided to the dealer where the registration documents are to be sent after the deal is finalized.

In my experience with my friend’s Ranger, I had one gripe, the controls. The pedals, shift column, light, blinker, and wiper switches felt tiny in my comparatively gargantuan paws.

It has had its share of issues… four starters, three alternators, leaking gaskets, rotten brake lines… but it always starts and give a good effort. Not an ounce of body rust however, but the frame is starting to make up for that.

Sad that Ford hasn’t kept this little gem updated over the years and may let it die.

Regarding the ride quality, Immediately after purchase, I found the ride quality to be poor. There was constant “jiggling” and bucking of the vehicle over uneven residential and commercial roads, unsettling wheel bounce on the highway over uneven pavement (eg: construction zones), and too much sway when turning. I shortly replaced the shocks with Bilsteins and that cured all the ride quezyness. Tested by hand, the OEM shocks with a couple hundred miles were weak with uneven travel. I also replaced the tires with quality and got another significant improvement in handling, control, and stability. It seems the OEM “consumable” parts are just too low in quality to keep and use.

My point exactly. Not to mention many truck guys like having a lot of cheap, interchangable parts if they dent a fender, break a grille, get hit by a deer, etc. Ask my friends and relatives who live in BFE aout how nice it is to have abundant replacement parts.

That said, the Ranger has rotted on the vine. But the sheetmetal is no biggie, I’m more interested in the suspension, powertrain and chassis improvements that are sorely lacking in the Ranger.

But there’s an inherent beauty to the whole “honest” truck thing. Which is why its easy to think 3 stars isn’t enough…or too much, depending on your affinity for cheap trucky goodness.

And I’m glad the “honest” factor has resonated with many of the readers. Its a word Farago used to describe the Panthers a loooong time ago, but is even more true for the Rangers and Ranger-based Exploders.

That is what makes the Ranger honest. That said, Ford could, should keep the evolution going, as long as the Ranger brand remains intact. (reference GM for the Corvette).

http://www.ford.com.ar/ford2007/

(go to the above web site and click “camionetas” – i.e. , mini trucks.)

It’s just frustrating. Ford doesn’t need to do much to bring a vehicle like this to the US market. They already make the damn thing!

Much better looking than the hideous Explorer Sport Trac, and with an actual steel bed, much more useful.

It just seems like the car APPEARS better than it is because it’s assumed to be so bad. The fact that it isn’t quite so bad as its reputation claims it is doesn’t make the truck good, or even average. It’s irresponsible of Ford to be selling a 1994 product in 2008. It’s not smart, profitable, or attractive. Regardless if the truck seems “honest” or not, the fact is it’s from a different era, and has no place in this generation of modern, fully optimized vehicles that eclipse it in performance, construction, modernity…everything.

“With the departure of the compact Toyota Tacoma in 2004, the Ranger is the only safe haven for “right-sized” truckers. The Ranger’s long bed carries a full 43.6 cubic feet of cargo, with a metal tailgate that easily closes with a single hand. And while the latest Ford F150 boasts class-leading stepladders to access its bountiful bed, Ranger-philes need not stretch a single vertebra to grasp a misplaced tool in their pickup’s cargo hole.

But the staggering neglect and obligatory demise of another famous Blue Oval product is proof positive that Ford is lowering its overhead via unnecessary self-mutilation. As the threat of mini-rigs from once-foreign lands grows more credible, the low-brow Ranger is a potential profit center. Come 2009, Ford’s decision to kill the Ranger will soon become another haunting melody from another, better time.”

It doesn’t get much more honest and right on the money as that.

“otsegony :
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
I was thinking again about the Ranger as I read a local Ford dealer’s big Saturday advert. They had a ration of 15 F-150s for the single Ranger that was listed in the ad. It seems to me that Ford is using the model for two purposes, one to have something to sell to fleets that is actually relatively cheap to own and run and the other as an opportunity to “upsell” into an F-150. Buyers go to the dealership thinking that they want a Ranger and then are convinced to go to a base F-150, because it’s only a couple of thousand more. From there they are again “upsold” into more expensive (profitable) versions of the F series.”

Bingo, otsegony, I think you hit it right on the head. I have noticed two constants in Ranger pricing, the uber cheap, fleet white, regular cab Ranger, and the F-150-priced extended cab Ranger for everyone else, in which case most usually opt for the jumbo sized, F-150.

I had a 1997 Toyota T-100 years back, remember Toyota’s first “fullsized” truck for the NA market? And the new Tacoma makes my old T-100 look SMALL. As do most of the other new “midsize” truck offerings. Ford has an opportunity here with the Ranger, high gas prices, and looming new CAFE, that I have a feeling they won’t have to good business sense to pick up on.

It continues to amaze me that Ford thinks the “way forward” is continuing neglecting their tried and true platforms (Ranger/Panther) while rolling the dice and introducing all new offerings with a hope & a prayer instead. How is that good business sense again?

Depends on when you bought your 98. I had a 98 and it had the newer 4 cylinder, but that was a 2.5L motor with 8 spark plugs (really quick for a 4 cylinder). A friend of mine had an early 98 model that had a 2.3L. After 2001 I think it went to the 2.3L motor that is still in them that gets a little better gas mileage. That being said, I got low to mid twenties even with the bigger 2.5L version. I miss driving the truck, it had a very sporty feel to it. 4 cylinder, 5spd, flare side, it looked good and drove good.
Traction on ice was scary to say the least though.
Sold it to my cousin who still has it, over 200,000 miles and no major problems. He races bikes and he uses it to carry motorcycles all the time with no problem. I used to tow a 21ft ski boat with it too. Overall you can’t beat the price. I got mine for $10,500 in 98 with very minor hail damage and 17 miles on it.

Hopefully his brother doesn’t mind being compared to a $17,000 Ford Ranger. Since he’s proud of his South Carolina roots, he might even appreciate it.

I do understand that having a Ranger with 4L isn’t worth the effort. But if you can figure my Ranger with a decent running 4cyl getting somewhere north of 27MPG, well, it’s worth it. I can’t imagine having a Ranger with it’s limitations getting under 20MPG. As some say, “It is what it is.”