Ford May Keep Building Rangers

[JKriegs]

Well, I have owned both a S10 and a Ranger. I liked both trucks. Ford is smart to keep it around awhile longer. As far as the Colorado/Canyon...not a good looking truck, limited options as compared to Ford. When will GM get the replacement design for the Colorado/Canyon?

[460ford]

Good idea, If I were to go buy a new vehicle today the Ranger would be very near the top of my list as its a simple nice looking truck with a decent interior and a pretty good motor ( 4.0). Anyone see the ranger getting the new 2.5 that replaced the 2.3 in the escape?

[napolron]

Originally Posted by ausrutherford

o ok, it just looks like a broke.

Naw nothing broke, just a very deep hole.

[Stéphane Dumas]

I hope then Ford will bring their new 2.5L I4 as well as their Duratec 35 under the Ranger hood. Or replace the Vulcan 3.0L V6 with the Duratec 30 (does the old Vulcan 3.0L is still under the Ranger hood?) Then a return of a turbo-diesel engine as well.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the old 3800 V6 could replace the 4.3L V6 for the Silverado and the I5 for the Colorado? It could offer lots of HP, torque and good highway mileage.

[lght1]

Originally Posted by Stéphane Dumas

I hope then Ford will bring their new 2.5L I4 as well as their Duratec 35 under the Ranger hood. Or replace the Vulcan 3.0L V6 with the Duratec 30 (does the old Vulcan 3.0L is still under the Ranger hood?) Then a return of a turbo-diesel engine as well.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the old 3800 V6 could replace the 4.3L V6 for the Silverado and the I5 for the Colorado? It could offer lots of HP, torque and good highway mileage.

Hi

We have owned a '05 Colorado CC 4x4 with the 3500 I5. This thing with 3.73 rears, gets about 24 -26 mpg on the hwy.

The Ranger may be a fine off road truck with the 4.0, but on the hwy with the 4.10 rear, its a bit like driving a 1973 IH Loadstar dump truck.

The Ranger badly needs nre powertrains. Those two V6s are terrible for efficiency and NVH.

[CHASLS2]

At least give the boring Ranger a new body and a new life with a v8 option.

[napolron]

Originally Posted by lght1

Hi

We have owned a '05 Colorado CC 4x4 with the 3500 I5. This thing with 3.73 rears, gets about 24 -26 mpg on the hwy.

The Ranger may be a fine off road truck with the 4.0, but on the hwy with the 4.10 rear, its a bit like driving a 1973 IH Loadstar dump truck.

The Ranger badly needs nre powertrains. Those two V6s are terrible for efficiency and NVH.

I really dont know where you're getting your info, but from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE both of my rangers had 4.10 and the 4x4 4.0 and highway keeping my foot out of it I get around 22mpg. And NVH? Ive left the thing in 4th gear spinning around 4000rpm and didnt know it until I looked down at the tach, they are very smooth engines all the way to redline, sorry to tell you.

And unlike the colorado I could order a manual transmission with any engine or option combo I like, why doesnt Gm like to give you the option or shifting your own gears?

[MN12Fan]

Originally Posted by napolron

I really dont know where you're getting your info, but from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE both of my rangers had 4.10 and the 4x4 4.0 and highway keeping my foot out of it I get around 22mpg. And NVH? Ive left the thing in 4th gear spinning around 4000rpm and didnt know it until I looked down at the tach, they are very smooth engines all the way to redline, sorry to tell you.

My dad has a 2001 Ranger 4x4 with the 4.0L SOHC V6, 5-speed auto, and 4.10 rear. I borrowed it to pick up an entertainment center in Sacramento a couple years ago and, doing over 80MPH almost the whole time, I averaged 20.5MPG. As far as NVH though, I think that's something that needs to be put into context. The 4.0 and the 3.0 (which I've also driven in a previous Ranger my dad had) are surely not the most refined V6s out there. At the same time, we're not talking about something that should benchmarked against an engine from BMW or some other techy and expensive luxury make. Could the Ranger's engines be better? Sure, but considering what kind of truck the Ranger is, an inexpensive compact, you have to ask how relevant it would be to go to the trouble of improving such things. Such things that I believe are subjective to begin with. There are better sounding engines than the 4.0L Cologne, but I've floored it in my dad's truck before and it has a nice growl to it. And though it may not be the fastest truck on the market, it still moves with authority. That's the most important thing.

[igor]

Originally Posted by CHASLS2

At least give the boring Ranger a new body and a new life with a v8 option.

rofl - out of touch much? V8?!!? today!?!? you must work for GM!

Igor

[Canyonaro]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

Powertrain wise I think it's fine, at least compared to the Colorado/Canyon...

-Manual trans:

Ford: any trim level, powertrain level, engine, cab/box config

GM: FAIL...only base trim levels, 4 cyl

Agreed

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

Engines:

Ford: 2.5L four, 3.0L and 4.0L SOHC V6

GM: 2.8(?)L four, 3.7 I-5...FAIL...GM forgot that some buyers want a V6

Actually it is a 2.9l I4 and the 3.7l I5 is better then most V6's out there in these little trucks. It has 242hp and 242tq, so the only people it turns off is people that don't understand that you can get quite a bit of power out of the inline 5.

The Ford 4.0l V6 is 208hp and 238tq....FAIL
The Ford 3.0l V6 is 148hp and 180tq....BIG FAIL since the Coly/Canyons 2.9l Inline 4 puts 185hp and 190tq. Lets not get going on the 2.3l I4 that is offered.

Point is, do some research before you jump to conclusions.

[CHASLS2]

Originally Posted by igor

rofl - out of touch much? V8?!!? today!?!? you must work for GM!

Igor

Maybe i am. But i like small fast trucks with a V8 i want the same power or close like my modded C6 Vette.

[F14CRAZY]

Originally Posted by Canyonaro

Agreed



Actually it is a 2.9l I4 and the 3.7l I5 is better then most V6's out there in these little trucks. It has 242hp and 242tq, so the only people it turns off is people that don't understand that you can get quite a bit of power out of the inline 5.

The Ford 4.0l V6 is 208hp and 238tq....FAIL
The Ford 3.0l V6 is 148hp and 180tq....BIG FAIL since the Coly/Canyons 2.9l Inline 4 puts 185hp and 190tq. Lets not get going on the 2.3l I4 that is offered.

Point is, do some research before you jump to conclusions.

I understand what you're pointing out but there's a number of buyers that want a V6 over an I5 no matter what the HP numbers are. To them more=more

[MN12Fan]

Originally Posted by Canyonaro

Actually it is a 2.9l I4 and the 3.7l I5 is better then most V6's out there in these little trucks. It has 242hp and 242tq, so the only people it turns off is people that don't understand that you can get quite a bit of power out of the inline 5.

The Ford 4.0l V6 is 208hp and 238tq....FAIL
The Ford 3.0l V6 is 148hp and 180tq....BIG FAIL since the Coly/Canyons 2.9l Inline 4 puts 185hp and 190tq. Lets not get going on the 2.3l I4 that is offered.

Point is, do some research before you jump to conclusions.

Better? I'll grant that the 3.0L Vulcan is a weak engine since Ford hasn't done anything to it in 20 years, but I wouldn't dismiss the 4.0L Cologne so easily. I said myself that it isn't the most refined engine, but it doesn't "fail" against the Atlas I5.

In terms of horsepower the Atlas has an edge with its 242HP@5600RPM against the Cologne's 207HP@5250RPM, but how often are these engines going to be revved this high? As far as torque, which is more important in a truck anyway, the Atlas delivers a whopping four pound-foot advantage over the Cologne...but how much of an advantage is it really? The Atlas makes 242lb-ft@4600RPM while the Cologne makes 238lb-ft@3000RPM.

What's more, even with the I5's supposed advantages, it doesn't equate to better towing. Straight from the Chevy website the maximum trailer weight of the Colorado with the Atlas I5 is 5,500lbs with the Extended or Crew Cabs and 4,000lbs with the Regular Cab. The Ranger can pull 5,600lbs with the 4.0L Cologne in SuperCab form or 5,680lbs in the Regular Cab. The Atlas I5 might be competitive with V6s but I would stop short before calling it better.

[F14CRAZY]

Don't forget the Cologne's gift of being built to be operated on the Autobahn . High RPMs for long periods

[free_energy0]

Originally Posted by napolron

I really dont know where you're getting your info, but from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE both of my rangers had 4.10 and the 4x4 4.0 and highway keeping my foot out of it I get around 22mpg. And NVH? Ive left the thing in 4th gear spinning around 4000rpm and didnt know it until I looked down at the tach, they are very smooth engines all the way to redline, sorry to tell you.

And unlike the colorado I could order a manual transmission with any engine or option combo I like, why doesnt Gm like to give you the option or shifting your own gears?

If you think the 4.0 Cologne has good NVH in the Ranger or Mustang, then your frame of reference is obsolete. That engine sounds and feels like a out of balance blender full of rusty nails compared to contemporary V6s, even Fords bottom-feeder 3.0 Duratec.