Forum Discussion
FishOnOne wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Bro in Law had a Ranger a few years ago it was a great truck, I assume this will be also.
First thing I would do is RIP that STUPID (IMHO) "FX4" sticker off each side.
Fish I actually owned a 99 XLT with the 4.0 V6 it was slightly darker copper color with a painted to match canopy I got trading my 90 Corvette. Thought about commuting with it but my 98 12V got as good and getter mileage so sold it. Really liked the truck.
I'm certain if your Ram had some FX4Squared stickers you would be touting how great it looks!
No I would take them off right away. Lots of RAM trinkets I don't like as in the Limited grill.- Ford said -because new roll over standards would require a complete re design and with falling sales ,plus a old plant ..... its done.
back then the 4X4 didn't get much better milage the the 1/2 ton ,at least according to a friend that bought one.
Notice they still didn't develop a new one but brought over a existing truck,I have seen these driving around dearborn for a few years now , all right hand drive though. LIKE2BUILD wrote:
I was really confused when Ford decided to ditch the Ranger and go all-in with only F150 and larger. Really? It seemed the small truck market still has plenty of buyers and to get out of that segment was leaving money on the table.
Oh well, the Ranger is back now and looks to be a pretty capable truck.
KJ
Ford never gave an official statement but my understanding is they found a lot of buyers were comparing the Ranger to the F150 as the "small" pickups got ever closer in size to the 1/2ton. The result was they were cannibalizing the more profitable F150 sales.
Only after the fact did they realize they ticked off some of the Ranger fans and lost sales to rival brands with their "small" pickups.
Did the recent CAFE rules change the truck vs car designation? Forever small pickups were the compliance vehicles as "trucks" (including most SUV's) were considered separately from "cars". Small 4cycl pickups were the CAFE compliance vehicle. My first S15 got 27mpg but the last small pickup (a dakota) got 17mpg and we regretted not just moving up to a 1/2 ton as the price difference was negligible and the MPG roughly the same.FishOnOne wrote:
And this is why Ram offers the Power Wagon without the gewgaws. ;)Cummins12V98 wrote:
Bro in Law had a Ranger a few years ago it was a great truck, I assume this will be also.
First thing I would do is RIP that STUPID (IMHO) "FX4" sticker off each side.
Fish I actually owned a 99 XLT with the 4.0 V6 it was slightly darker copper color with a painted to match canopy I got trading my 90 Corvette. Thought about commuting with it but my 98 12V got as good and getter mileage so sold it. Really liked the truck.
I'm certain if your Ram had some FX4Squared stickers you would be touting how great it looks!Cummins12V98 wrote:
Bro in Law had a Ranger a few years ago it was a great truck, I assume this will be also.
First thing I would do is RIP that STUPID (IMHO) "FX4" sticker off each side.
Fish I actually owned a 99 XLT with the 4.0 V6 it was slightly darker copper color with a painted to match canopy I got trading my 90 Corvette. Thought about commuting with it but my 98 12V got as good and getter mileage so sold it. Really liked the truck.
I'm certain if your Ram had some FX4Squared stickers you would be touting how great it looks!- Sounds like the use of alcohol in gas! I burn a combo of more gas plus alcohol mixed, than straight gas. Granted having been in what many call a green industry for years, I should like the use of this stuff, because it is cleaner burning.....
I have a client that works at the EPA, you can probably guess his view of current fuels. Same as mine, gas/alcohol mixes suck!
Marty LIKE2BUILD wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
The reason why Ford got rid of the compact Ranger was mainly due to CAFE regulations....The Ranger had a footprint of a small car, but its fuel economy was much worse than most cars with the same footprint.
This is one reason why I tend to say that not all EPA regulations are good and many have adverse side effects .....EPA didn't know that when they made the 2011 diesel emissions years before it was enacted, that they would be creating the DEF industry and all of its added pollution.
Ah, thanks for the clarification, it makes perfect sense now. Unfortunate, but I understand.
Agreed on the EPA. I took several Environmental Studies courses and we always talked about thermodynamic efficiency. The basic idea is to never consider just the immediate efficiency of a single device, but to account for all energy input required to make and operate it.
Your example is perfect. DEF and the catalyst used with it might reduce NOx emissions, but how much other energy input is required to make the fluid and operate the system? Is the total sum of inputs less polluting than not having the system at all? For many systems it's better and others not. I don't know if DEF is in the better category, but just because one part makes something 'cleaner' it doesn't mean the whole process is cleaner.
Seeing FCA and now Ford, GM have released 3 litre Diesels in their Pickups it appears it is their way of overcoming the EPA restrictions. GM's new Diesel appears to be
a "clean sheet " that was designed VM Motori in Turin Italy.ShinerBock wrote:
The reason why Ford got rid of the compact Ranger was mainly due to CAFE regulations....The Ranger had a footprint of a small car, but its fuel economy was much worse than most cars with the same footprint.
This is one reason why I tend to say that not all EPA regulations are good and many have adverse side effects .....EPA didn't know that when they made the 2011 diesel emissions years before it was enacted, that they would be creating the DEF industry and all of its added pollution.
Ah, thanks for the clarification, it makes perfect sense now. Unfortunate, but I understand.
Agreed on the EPA. I took several Environmental Studies courses and we always talked about thermodynamic efficiency. The basic idea is to never consider just the immediate efficiency of a single device, but to account for all energy input required to make and operate it.
Your example is perfect. DEF and the catalyst used with it might reduce NOx emissions, but how much other energy input is required to make the fluid and operate the system? Is the total sum of inputs less polluting than not having the system at all? For many systems it's better and others not. I don't know if DEF is in the better category, but just because one part makes something 'cleaner' it doesn't mean the whole process is cleaner.LIKE2BUILD wrote:
I was really confused when Ford decided to ditch the Ranger and go all-in with only F150 and larger. Really? It seemed the small truck market still has plenty of buyers and to get out of that segment was leaving money on the table.
Oh well, the Ranger is back now and looks to be a pretty capable truck.
KJ
The reason why Ford got rid of the compact Ranger was mainly due to CAFE regulations that set fuel economy standards based on the "footprint" of the vehicle. The Ranger had a footprint of a small car, but its fuel economy was much worse than most cars with the same footprint. This would have penalized Ford in the CAFE numbers especially since the Ranger was so popular and average fleet ratings were based on weighted average of vehicles produced, not just the vehicle line up.
How The Government Killed Fuel Efficient Cars And Trucks
This is one reason why I tend to say that not all EPA regulations are good and many have adverse side effects that do more harm than good. Case in point is how the EPA didn't know that when they made the 2011 diesel emissions years before it was enacted, that they would be creating the DEF industry and all of its added pollution. Yet, some people still think that whatever the EPA says is best for all of us.- Glad to see the Ranger is back. My first two trucks were Rangers and I loved them. My 2nd was a '93 Ranger with 4.0L V6/ 5-speed. That truck was ridiculously reliable and did everything I ever needed it to do.
I was really confused when Ford decided to ditch the Ranger and go all-in with only F150 and larger. Really? It seemed the small truck market still has plenty of buyers and to get out of that segment was leaving money on the table.
Oh well, the Ranger is back now and looks to be a pretty capable truck.
KJ
