It'llrun

3.5... Yeah, it would be cool in a tiny Ranger. I'm shocked they're still offering it the same way it's been available for like a decade. Sales are way down, I'm sure. A new, powerful engine would immediately boost sales. Of course, that 3.5L would also boost the price and that would hurt sales. It's almost a no-win situation. There was word for awhile that Ford would replace it with an Explorer based Ranger or F-100... I don't think that's gonna happen now, since they've replaced the Explorer with a FWD, no frame platform. They also dropped the longbed altogether on the current Ranger from what I can tell, and the dated look is boring, good economy or not.

Seems that's the smallest small size on the market anymore, and with only 2 engine options, both rather low on power, this pickup is doomed to die off. Even the 4.0(which I thought was dropped) only puts out like 207hp. It moves along, but is not competitive in performance with basically anything. To think they built the "LightningBolt" version for consumer interest at one point, only to see where it all went... kinda sucks for Ranger fans. If nothing else, that one needs more power. Personally, I think it's just too small for todays market.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Pretty sure the Ranger was already killed off, I think this year or last year was the end of it. I meant to put it in a newly designed Ranger; a new design with their new engines could sell some models. Not everyone wants a big fullsize truck, Dakotas sold around the same price as Rams did (pre-05 Dakotas) and they did fairly well for sales (I think, never really checked into it).

It'llrun

I think Dakota sales were okay and it did wear a price around the 1500 Ram... I have no idea how it sold well either. Admittedly, I drove 2 of them, but neither was what I'd call nice. They were bigger and stronger than Ranger and that's the only reason we got either, opting against a real full size... Then came F-series as a replacement and what a difference it made to our work load and capabilities.

The current Ranger is the same as last year and I have heard 2011 will be the last, but I don't see a replacement on the horizon. Other then bedlength, I wouldn't want to see this as a full size wannabe. Explorer size... good to go. Since that model's been axed, I do wonder what they'll use. Surely it won't be a frameless and FWD pickup. That would be silly. Last year I was hearing the new Ranger/F-100 would be Explorer based, but using the 3.5L turbocharged V6. That would've been fine. I think a similar build now would get a down-rated 3.5L so as not to step on the toes of its big brother F-150 in the power/torque department.

On that note, a Dakota with the new Tradesman/Adventurer style underhood... Oh, that would be quick! On the other hand, maybe not. The Dakota blew up to be nearly the size and weight of the full size...

A Colorado with a 390hp V8... Oh my... I might just get over the ugliness of it for that! I do like the look of the 4X4 version, btw.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

I own a 01 Dakota (R/C SB 4x4 V8 M5 ) so I'm pretty bias towards it haha, but I've spent a good deal of time around the Rangers, S10s, and a little around the Colorados. To me, all of them had a cheaper feel to the interior compared to the Dakota. The towing and payload ratings on the Dakota were pretty much even (towing was a little higher, payload was a little lower) than the Ram, so it was basically a mini Ram that didn't lose anything other than size and weight. I would guess being the only mid-size with a V8 option helped too. What killed it is exactly what you said; they became a slightly smaller full-size truck. IIRC the 05+ gained 5-600lbs over the 97-04 trucks, but stuck with the same engine and same output until 2008. I think they were fairly close in size and weight to an F150.

I'm happy they are finally doing away with the current Ranger, and I'm really shocked they let it go this long. The 2011 doesn't look a whole lot different than the 80s Rangers did, a newer design and engines could have helped boost sales. The current 4.0 in them is rated at 207hp and gets 15/20mpg , about 70% less horsepower than the 5.0 that gets 15/21mpg, and the Ranger also weighs a couple thousand pounds less. I'm shocked they have been selling any! The other option for it is the 2.3 that gets 22/27mpg(M5), but with only 143hp to push it around. It's really hard to blame poor sales on the fact that it's a small truck when it's really because it's a shitty truck.

390hp Colorado would be nice, but even a 5.3 in a regular cab, short box, M5, would be a seller for me. I think you can only buy them in the crew cabs, maybe the extended cabs, but no regular cabs

CaptainDirtymax

+1

i've been averaging 19mpg in town with my '02 Duramax and 23mpg highway on a bone stock truck. the 6-speed manual does help though