I used a 15-year-old Ranger to pick up some AMG wheels this evening. The ride was . . . pleasant. Light jazz on the radio. Engine and stick shift in good working order. Intermittent wipers and ABS for the rain. Alloy wheels for show. Did I mention this thing is 15 years old? Anyhow, my mind wandered into the world of ‘what if’s’. What if someone decides to buy this truck and keep it for another 7 to 10 years? It has only 150k and the prior owner took good mechanical care of it. Paint’s cheap. Parts are even cheaper. So…
I’m really wondering if the American car market will ever really ‘need’ to recover given what’s already out there. Yeah, I know that we’ve come a long way since the days where Chrysler LeBarons haunted the new car showroom. But this Ranger isn’t exactly the pinnacle of durability for it’s time either. Yet it will probably see a double decade lifespan despite being built at a time when the 486 computer chip was considered state of the art.
A lot has happened since then and yet, post-Bush, post-Clinton, post-Bush, there are millions of old cars still out there in America. A lot of them are perfectly fine and can be bought for a song. Let me just say it. Is the idea of buying new just getting old?
72 Comments on “Hammer Time: An Enduring Dilemma...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Well, it sure ain’t what it used to be.
Used to be, you had to buy a new car every 3 or 4 years because by the time you hit 100,000 miles your old car was shot.
Now most everything will give you 10 years of decent service.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think a little less of the disposable culture isn’t a bad thing.
People have to keep buying new in order to put their used units on the market. Besides, there are people out there that just prefer new cars, and I think there always will be. Used cars have picked up steam now, while people are looking for less expensive alternatives, but when the economy gets a little better, I think new car popularity will come back. That new car smell is quite intoxicating.
Sometime around 2002 I noticed that you didn’t see jalopies that much anymore. I mean the real, three different colors of body panels, you can see the road through the floor type beaters.
Since the pseud-depression hit the houpties have shaken off the mothballs.
So no, I don’t think we’ll hit 15 million a year again, because the market was only there because it was being overstimulated. And it’ll probably stay low because there’s going to be a lot of good lightly used product out there for a long time before it gets decommissioned.
I’d hesitate to make a sweeping judgement here. While you don’t consider the Ranger/Explorer of the period the “pinnacle of durability”, my anecdotal evidence (about a dozen or so people, including myself, who owned 93-95 Rangers/Explorers) suggests they were (are) incredibly reliable vehicles.
We had our 93 Explorer for 16 years. Beat the crap outta it. Wasn’t until the last 20K or so miles (C4C got it at 200K) that we had to start putting money into it. And don’t think it had to do with some inherent problem with the vehicle design or build, just that stuff eventually wears out.
Every so often, a car company puts out a vehicle that’s just a stalwart in terms of longevity (look at the side commentary on the Dodge Darts in the CC Aspare article as another example of this). But that’s an exception, rather than the rule. There might be plenty of Dodge Sebrings out there available for a song but would I want to purchase one?
As more and more people view their vehicle as simply a tool or appliance, the need for new drops.
Reis & Trout’s classic marketing book Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind postulated that, without demand stimulating marketing effort, the natural market for most goods is about 50% of what the modern marketing and advertising boosted world actually sells. If true, that implies that we could all easily do without about 50% or our discretionary purchases.
People who stop viewing their vehicles as a means of personal expression might find that scratching the new car itch every few years suddenly isn’t all that important.
A lot has happened since then and yet, post-Bush, post-Clinton, post-Bush, there are millions of old cars still out there in America. A lot of them are perfectly fine and can be bought for a song. Let me just say it. Is the idea of buying new just getting old?
Yep. I remember reading a C&D car review bout ten years ago to which the author penned his angst and wit against the ‘00 Chevy Metro 1.3L. Postscript he foreshadowed the purpose of offering a $10K sh**box when for the same money you could buy a perfectly good used Honda or Toyota or even a off-lease Escort. As cars have been built to higher and higher standards, it seems this is now prevailing wisdom.
Sometime around 2002 I noticed that you didn’t see jalopies that much anymore.
Move to Central Misery, or any other place that thrives on that “Appalachian State of Mind” and you’ll see plenty of cars just like you describe. The 90s GM A platforms are one of the new jalopies of choice as are Dodge/Chrysler Minivans. Intererstingly, one doesn’t see a lot of Fords in this category. Most Tauri on the roads from the 90s (3rd gen) almost always appear well maintained and run fine. I had one for work that caught fire once which resulted in closing down 4 lanes of a KC interstate during rush hour. But other than that…
My friend got a brand new 1996 Ford Ranger as his first car at age 16. He lived out in a county area, (Dirt Roads, etc) Had fun with it,(ie:light hoonage) drove it to high school, then college. Put a clutch in it at 135K miles. Gave it to his brother in 2002 to take to college. Currently the truck in is his dad’s fleet for going to Home Depot.. It has over 250K on it, it still has ice cold a/c and runs well. Pretty great little truck for 14K dollars.
I know it’s basically an antique, but the Ranger is really a cool pickup in my book. Even new, they still feel mechanically simpler than other pickups, and while not as nice in some ways, I think their personality suits the pickup role better. Trucks should be noisy, have stiffer suspensions, stick shift transmissions, part time 4-wheel drive and be as small as possible outside the bed.
Keep that truck yourself, I can’t see how it’s worth much as they sell basically the same vehicle new, with ridiculous discounts.
People who stop viewing their vehicles as a means of personal expression might find that scratching the new car itch every few years suddenly isn’t all that important.
Continuing this trend, we now have a generation of adults hitting the workplace that grew up with a *ton* more options in terms of where to spend their disposable income. Step into the Wayback Machine 40 years and beyond and the market climate was significantly different. There was a lot less to blow your money on, thus, a car purchase took on greater significance vis a vis personal style.
Not so much anymore.
How do we compare to Europe in this regard? I’ve spent plenty of time there since the early 1990s and thought most people looked at cars as tools/appliances or an outright luxury in many cases.
+1 tedward. Rangers always seemed like proper no-nonsense work trucks.
I had a stone stock 95 Ranger extended cab, in XL trim. 3.0L V6, stick shift, no power anything. The only thing more reliable than my Ranger was gravity. I’d have another one in a heartbeat.
One minor point – I do believe the crash test rating for this vehice is “Sever or Fatal Injury Certain.” Drunk driver or blue hair wacks you, you’re either dead or your wife gets to spends the rest of her life changing your diaper.
Well, you don’t see Rangers being recalled for rusted frames. I wish Toyota would nuke the Tacoma and bring back the Hilux. I’ve got several friends who own various vintage Rangers and they are durable vehicles. As you’ve already mentioned, parts are cheap and they are inexpensive to keep on the road.
I think the other thing going on here is the increased transparency in the used market. With the internet (auto-trader, and ebay) it is now easy to both search out used cars and have a pretty good idea of what a reasonable price is. Place like CarMax and the expansion of certified pre-owned also helps — at least for the low mileage, nearly new market.
You can go to the Salvation Army and buy decent used furniture and pre-worn clothes. But I know a huge population of people that are too high on the social ladder to consider doing that. Cars are often treated the same way.
Yesterday I saw my first new car for sale in a used car lot. It is 21 years old. I sold it 8 years ago. I put 300,000 miles on it when I had it. It now has over 430,000 miles on it. I paid $6995.00 for it new in 1987, traded it in for $1,000 (for a Ford Ranger), and now I can buy it back for $500.
This was supposed to be a disposable car. It is a Ford Festiva LX. I thought I would only have it for about two years. This little car was outstanding, and as I now know, just keeps rolling and rolling – at 36 mpg now. (It got 52 mpg when I first bought it.) This little car has been everywhere, from Florida to Washington, from Maine to California, and everywhere in-between.
Unbelievable.
“I used a 15-year-old Ranger to pick up some AMG wheels this evening.”
Great openings often hinge on irony :). How much is a set of AMG wheels worth on the market? Probably less than a 15 year old Ranger, dah?
“You can go to the Salvation Army and buy decent used furniture and pre-worn clothes. But I know a huge population of people that are too high on the social ladder to consider doing that. Cars are often treated the same way.”
Things would be different if the Salvation Army had it’s act together as much as CarMax does. Or how about a Certified Pre-Owned program for furniture? One mistake the Salvation Army makes is that they don’t refurbish anything and the buying experience is distinctly second hand.
I hope they keep the Ranger in production for a few more years, as my ‘96 S-10 is approaching 150k and I’ll be interested in replacing it with something much newer (possibly new, if I feel flush enough). Refuse to buy GM anymore due to the bailout, besides a Colorado would be a definite step backwards in gas mileage, etc. Refuse to go to a bigger pickup (don’t need it), so that kills the Frontier, etc.
I hope Ford’s smart enough to keep the Ranger in production for awhile longer. An update would be nice, but we’re talking a work pickup for hauling garbage, motorcycles, lumber, etc. – I don’t need state of the art anything.
@JMO
So pay attention and don’t get in an accident. Even the worst car/truck is safer than a motorcycle, and millions of people ride them every day.
I am seriously thinking about going in on one of these with my Mom as a crap hauler. Seems like a really clean 2wd Ranger is in the <$2K range. I'll buy it, she can register and insure it, and keep it at her place.
I have my first new car now that I bought August 06. I traded in a 2000 ranger for it and I miss it dearly. I already decided that I will never buy a new car again because of the value lost in the first 4 years. The only advantage to buying a new car is if you drop a french fry on the seat while driving you can pick it up and eat it because only your rear has been on that seat. In a used car you be hesitant do do that.
a 150k 10-20 year old American truck is a dilemma indeed. Worthless to resell, probably a death trap if ever in an accident, sure it’s not efficient, but functional, durable, cheap to maintain, etc. It probably rides rough (mine does), the headliner is falling off (like mine), gas gauge doesn’t work (…), check engine light comes on from time to time then goes off (…), but it just doesn’t seem to make sense to get rid of it for a pittance, since the original drivetrain still purrs incredibly well. A good 2nd or 3rd car to keep.
My ‘94 with the 2.3/ 5spd has 153K miles and it is the pinnacle of reliability. I bought it with 85K and the only things I’ve done are a serp. belt tensioner, an axle seal, and 2 weeks ago a brake line rusted on me. I don’t know how much oil it burns because when I change it at 5-7k miles, it’s not to the add line yet. I still get 27-28mpg highway too.
I’d buy a new one, but I haven’t used this one up yet.
I will never buy a new car again because of the value lost in the first 4 years.
It all depends on the car. Buying a used E-Class or Jaguar XF (or even 7-series or S-Class) can make sense, buying a 3yo Accord or Camry doesn’t make any sense at all due to the lack of depreciation.
Considering there are less and less new cars that even catch my eye anymore then yes buying new is getting really old. New cars are a double edged sword. We have gained shit loads of gadgets and conveniences like Onstar, NAV, Bluetooth, lane Departure Warning, Radar Cruise Control etc. But things that you took for granted before are mostly gone from todays vehicles like interior colors other than black tan and gray, glovebox lights, trunk and passenger door cylinder locks, bodyside protection/appearance moldings, normal sized tires, large trunk space, bench front seats for 6 passenger carrying capacity, head room, light curbweight, simplicity and exterior styling for the most part and the proverbial cigarette lighter and ashtray because smoking is taboo these days. Todays ilk have also seem to be gaining weight by the motherload in certain applications, are hard to see out with there squinty windows and overly broad thick A-pillars(a neat trick to improve crash test results)and hard to backup and judge with there silly stubby little trunk lids. But they are safer! A real catch 22.
I like those old 90’s Rangers. I wouldn’t own one (too small for 6′2″ of Jeff) but I wouldn’t criticize one either.
A caveat; Haven’t I seen that era Ranger on some top-ten most dangerous vehicles to be in a wreck lists?
What’s more endearing is that it was built with the dreaded UAW labor. Oh the calamity! How could such vehicle exist? It couldn’t be!
I would put the Ranger on par with my beloved Jeep Cherokee. Why did I sell that vehicle?
How could these vehicles be put together so well? How could they last so long? Was it the Engineering, one might ask? Yes, it was the engineering, a function of a well managed company.
trunk and passenger door cylinder locks
Why would you want that? When do you ever put your key in the lock?
I already decided that I will never buy a new car again because of the value lost in the first 4 years.
As said above, it all depends on the car…but it also all depends on the circumstances. If you’re concerned about a car’s value with the first 4 years, then you’re probably the type of person who wants a different car every 3-4 years. However, if you intend to keep the car for 10+ years and at least 200K miles, ie, you’ll drive it into jalopyhood, then any “value” in the car’s first 4 years is problematic.
What’s more endearing is that it was built with the dreaded UAW labor. Oh the calamity! How could such vehicle exist? It couldn’t be!
Shhhhhhhh! Don’t let facts get in the way of bias.
“Is the idea of buying new just getting old?”
Damn straight it is! Simpler is frequently better. I’ll never get why auto manufacturers keep trying to out do each other with technological features that I don’t even have in my residence. When I get to the point where I have to live in my car, maybe…but not yet.
My dad always told me the cheapest car I will ever own is the one I already have. I usually keep cars a long time, and in the frozen wastelands of northern Minnesota, that’s saying something. The one absolute for me is that the car have airbags. They are not perfect, but still I need them for my wife and kids.
All that said, around here you could buy a true classic (’69 Mustang, Camaro, ‘Cuda, etc.), drive it for three years (keeping it clean), and then sell it for what you’ve got in it. That, my friends, is an economy car.
I have a 1987 Dodge Dakota with about 215K miles that I use almost exclusively for runs to the county dump. It sits for 2 weeks at a time and then drives about six miles. That car is stone reliable and impossible to kill, even though it looks like shit and I’ve done no maint on it since 2003. I would keep it forever for dump runs, but…
It can’t pass state inspection for various reasons not worth fixing, and starting this year my state has started linking license plate renewals to passing state inspection. So after this summer, it will have to go. I thought about clunkering it this summer but can’t justify the cost even after clunker rebates for what’s basically a trash truck. But I’ve been looking and one thing about Rangers that surprised me is their completely useless towing capacity. A 4-cyl Ranger can tow less then half of a 4-cyl anything else (Taco, Colorado, Frontier, etc).
I cannot figure out why this is, except maybe Ford wants to force buyers to step up to a six cylinder if they want to tow anything.
No, I don’t tow with the Dakota now, but my thought was if I get a new truck it should be able to tow so I don’t have to keep using my wife’s Exploder to tow with.
If I can’t find something cheap that can tow, I probably will go with a well-used 4 cyl Ranger.
Had a Ranger and wish I had never left it. If I’d put the money into it that I did getting a lease on a 1500 RAM it would likely still be on the road and I’d be way ahead.
That being said I did score a 94 D21 Hardbody that came to me at 95,00 and is now at close to 150,000. All I’ve done is replace the water pump. I believe that I’ll keep this one.
More to the point of the thread, a nice used car is just what most of us need. But we also want a new car. The needs vs. the wants drive most all such decisions.
Cars are so durable, I think your old car or used cars have sort of replaced “entry level” new cars. When they last so long, we simply don’t need to build as many of them. I have a 335i, but until a few months ago I was driving a 95 Cherokee. I still have it- 190k & other than a bit of fading on the exterior plastic, it looks, runs, and drives great. I was going to clunker trade it, but couldn’t work up the heart to destroy such a great car. In all it’s 15 years and 190k miles, it’s needed a starter, a radiator, and a water pump. That’s it. My wife’s 98 Accord with 170k has been similarily reliable, and looks even better. When we drive people around they’re surprised how old it is.
BTW- a few years ago, one of the trucks at work was a ~06 Ranger. It had the biggest engine, and NO options except for automatic. Short cab/bed, no AC, 2wd. So, it was powerful and light. This little truck HAULED SERIOUS BUTT! By my stop watch, I could take that thing 0-60 in just a tick over 6 seconds!
By the way- I think a CarMAX style furniture store would be a great idea! I’ve bought used furniture private party, but it’d be so much easier to find what I wanted like that.
And the Ranger love continues…
I spend way too much of my time looking for used Rangers. Back in my former life in suburban Ohio, I leased two different Rangers and I dearly miss them.
It’s funny watching the current ads for the F-150 which make it sound like an object of worship when it is actually the Ranger that is more deserving of devotion as it’s more true the real idea of what a truck should be.
I borrowed a friend’s Ranger to go pick up a table saw that was 150 miles away two weeks back and it brought back a lot of good memories.
I have a ‘94 XLT super cab, 4WD, bought in ‘96 for $15K, was a lease return. Only 88,000 miles on it. Has the 4.0 V6, automatic, A/C and the usual PS/PB/AM-FM radio. No power locks or windows or tilt wheel.
Love that truck. It’s had lots of little problems like leaking valve cover (still not fixed after two attempts!), rusted out brake lines, broken rear leaf spring brackets and three starters (none recently after the dealer put a real Ford one in it), broken thingy in the 4WD mechanism, etc. We use it around our small farm for light hauling, it pulls like bull in 4WD, always starts, always runs, nice smooth quiet ride, gets no more than 20 mpg on the highway. It has only the second set of tires on it, it had the recalled ones (Firestones, I think?)… ran them until the steel showed through then took it in to get the free set.
The body is as near perfect as you could expect on a vehicle that age… not a spot of rust, no damage. The frame and suspension is another story, apparently that is common on these model years. The guy that replaced the brackets (he said they do one to three a DAY!) didn’t indicate any trouble with it however. Crossing my fingers.
Will keep it as long as I can, if the insurance costs for all the vehicles doesn’t eat me up. Would rather have a full size crew cab P/U to tow and haul with (cargo and people) and sell off the Ranger and the Expedition (that thing is a whole ‘nother tale of woe).
Lots of people have always viewed cars as appliances.
Forget what you see at classic car shows.
Back in the 1960s, most people drove Chevy, Ford or Plymouth/Dodge intermediates or full-sizers with automatic transmission, bench seat, power steering, heater, tinted glass, an AM radio and a mild-mannered V-8.
If mom and dad splurged, they coughed up the money for air conditioning, and if one of them remotely cared about driving, they ordered the car with disc brakes.
If they really went wild with the options sheet, they ordered power windows and seats.
A bigger V-8 and heavy-duty suspension meant that they expected to tow a trailer, not take corners faster or flatter.
Except for the styling, and wider availabiliy of body styles within a model range, cars really weren’t anymore exciting than they are today.
People I know still like the idea of a new car. They just expect to buy them less frequently, because 200,000 miles is the new 100,000 miles. And they have higher standards for reliability. Read the old Popular Mechanics “Owners’ Report” series, or road tests of various models. You will frequently find mention of serious mechanical failures within the first 10,000 miles on both foreign (at that time, largely European) and domestic vehicles.
Today, people are ready to call the lemon law lawyer if there is a rattle in the glove box door at 10,000 miles.
A big challenge is that styling trends aren’t making older vehicles outdated. Park 1950, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1961 and 1965 Chevrolets next to each other. Even people who don’t know much about cars will be able to arrange them from oldest to newest. There was a definite progression of style in those days that made older vehicles look outdated, and thus encouraged people to trade in their older vehicle. Plus, there were mechanical improvements – new ohv V-8s, better automatic transmissions – that encouraged people to trade.
The 2009 Accord looks different from a 2006 Accord, but it doesn’t necessarily look “newer” to most people (it does to us because we follow the auto industry, and therefore know which one is the newer one). Same with comparable Camrys, Passats or Fusions.
Nor do any of the new versions offer truly compelling mehanical innovations or breakthroughs that will encourage people to trade (except, perhaps, for the availability of the Fusion Hybrid version in the newest generation, when compared to the old Fusion).
Couple this with many people worrying about their jobs and having less money to spend on new cars because of declining home equity and stagnant incomes, and I don’t see the auto market rebounding to former levels anytime soon.
People will still buy new cars, and new cars will still be desirable. But the market is waiting for a manufacturer(s) to spark some sort of revolution in styling and/or technology that will encourage people to trade when they want to, as opposed to when they have to, by making older cars look dated or less fashionable.
Couple this with many people worrying about their jobs and having less money to spend on new cars because of declining home equity and stagnant incomes, and I don’t see the auto market rebounding to former levels anytime soon.
I have friends who just bought their first home for 220k. At one point in 2006 it sold for 380k. With the housing correction many people are going to be going through life with far lower mortgage payments than was the case a few years ago. No reason why some of the money that is saved on mortgage payments might not go for a nicer and newer car.
I think you’re overlooking something important in the new vs way-old used debate – the increasing complexity and reliance on electronics in most cars. Cars from the pre-EFI era were possible to keep running indefinitely as long as the body held together and you could find (or adapt) parts for the wear items. Even early EFI trucks like the Ranger are pretty simple – a very rudimentary electronic box to keep the single throttle body fuel-injector (or multiple port injectors if you’re fancy) squirting at the right interval and control spark, maybe an O2 sensor.
I’d challenge you to make the same comparison on any car with ABS, stability/traction control, airbags, direct injection, variable valve timing, electronic transmission, etc, etc when it’s 15+ years old. Yes, while parts are available, you can keep it running, and not all of that stuff is critical to the function of the car, but as those electronics age, you start getting more and more inscrutable maladies that are usually resolved by throwing parts at the problem until it goes away. The utility and cost-effectiveness of owning a car of that age starts going down dramatically once you get into that phase.
I remember Road and Track ran a Peter Egan article about what restoring a 200x BMW 740il might be like in 20 or 30 years, and that covers it I think. Cars are more designed for obsolescence now than they used to be, because they’re simply too complex to fix indefinitely.
Cars from the pre-EFI era were possible to keep running indefinitely as long as the body held together and you could find (or adapt) parts for the wear items.
Then why did they almost never last much past 100k miles?
I remember Road and Track ran a Peter Egan article about what restoring a 200x BMW 740il might be like in 20 or 30 years, and that covers it I think.
Did you see Clarkson with the maintenance bill on his 38 year old Mercedes 600? I think it was 10k GBP.
I keep my 91 Dakota on the road. It’s been very reliable and super cheap to repair and maintain. The fun part is trying to find ways to save money and not have to pay for things like:
- a new engine computer for $400.00 versus bypassing it with a basic voltage regulator for $12.00 and the cost of some wire.
- $9.00 worth of rustolem, a brush, a roller, and an afternoon of sanding the rust off and repainting the truck. I should get another ocuple of years out of it now.
This thing has been great. It’s taken me on multiple trips back and forth to St. Louis from Detroit (among other place).
I will not get rid of this beast if don’t have to :)
Cars are more designed for obsolescence now than they used to be
Are you really saying that a 1972 Chevy Biscayne was designed to last? Was long term durability a priority at all within GM in 1972? The very notion is laughable.
I’ve purchased 3 new cars in my life, and 2 of them turned out to be lemons. The warranties on the 2 lemons didn’t save me anything in aggravation.
If I’m going to lose/spend money on a car (more than usual), then I have concluded I’d rather do so on something old and depreciated.
Wanna feel a good deal less warm ‘n’ fuzzy about the archaic Ranger still offered in North America? Spend a little time checking out the new 2010 Ranger for the Argentinian & Brazilian markets.
WEGIV, I think you are correct. The Expedition I mentioned in my post above still has parts available but no one can seem to figure out the little electrical glitches that crop up time to time. A new part here or there fixes or masks the problem, until the next thing. It will get to the point that I will either have to live with it or hope someone else can live with the issues and costs while I move on to the next vehicle.
Is that R&T article available on the web? Sounds interesting.
I had an ‘88 Dakota and it was, mechanically, a total piece of crap. Auto tranny went out and it took the dealer and Dodge three weeks to figure out what the problem was. Had various and multiple engine problems, all fixed under warranty but still a major hassle. Had it only about a year and a half and sold it to a drunken airline pilot. Took a bath on it too. Wife still brings it up… “You just HAD to have that POS, didn’t you? How’d that work out there, smart guy?” and etc.
Hope they are better now.
@jmo – they didn’t last more than 100K because they weren’t worth fixing whatever caused them not to “last”, not because it wasn’t possible to fix. And no, old cars weren’t designed for longevity either.
I’m simply saying that the costs to fix standard wear items (assuming that the major things like engine block, transmission, body, etc stay in good shape) are going to be fundamentally higher the more of them there are and the more complex they are. Therefore the likelihood of repairs costing significantly more than the car is worth starts to go up as it ages, and people start viewing them as disposable. Why would I spend big money replacing a wiring harness or an engine computer on a 15 year old car when I can find a few-year old Civic for less money?
Got an ‘06 Ranger (4×4). Nothing has gone wrong. Right at 20 mpg average. My wife and I love it. It may be an oldie design, but we’d purchase another…and we hope it’ll last many years.
Wanna feel a good deal less warm ‘n’ fuzzy about the archaic Ranger still offered in North America? Spend a little time checking out the new 2010 Ranger for the Argentinian & Brazilian markets.
I will never understand why the Big 2.8, especially Ford, always seems to offer their best stuff overseas.
While the Ranger is archaic (that’s also something CR said in a recent review), it’s a good kind of archaic for the class of vehicle it is. It shows that there’s still a market for that kind of vehicle here since I think even a few of my bubba neighbors have decided they can drive around a pickemup truck that’s smaller, gets somewhat better gas mileage and can still haul all the empty beer cans in the bed. Yes, that’s what the vast majority of my truck lovin’ neighbors exclusively do with their F250s and such: haul around empty beer cans.