you do realize they have been producing a version of the overseas rangers outside of the US for many years now right? they are just ending production of the american ranger, not moving production out of the country. also last i knew, ford was still based in the US so regardless of where its made the money will still come back to the US in some way or another.

__________________

Wow, so angry and I'm not sure why. If you want to blame anyone blame the public for not buying into the small truck market and making it worth it for Ford to keep the Ranger around. Also, why would Ford keep producing the trucks in the US if they are just going to ship them all overseas? They probably already have overseas plants capable of manufacturing the parts needed and then they don't have to pay export taxes. Yeah, shame on Ford for making a smart business decision. Maybe you should be angry at the government for making rules and regulations that reward this way of doing business. Plus 01_ranger 4x4 is right in that all of the profits still come back to the US and still benefit this country.

Next, I have no problem with unions being broken up. Many of them, including the automotive industry, have gone way overboard. I don't understand how some people have not realized this after Unions almost single handedly put our country's steel production out of business. People are so greedy they don't want to face the fact that you shouldn't get paid $30/hr if you barely passed high school.

Prosperity? I'd like to know where that is for Ford. They posted losses almost every quarter until recently. If you consider that prosperity than you must think the economy is doing fantastic right now. Ok, I can see where you are coming from with the T-bird, that ugly POS, but the Mustang? The new Mustangs are probably the best version since the 70's. Plus let's look at the F-150, Fusion, and Fiesta all ranked top of their class. Doesn't seem like they are putting out crap to me.

__________________
2003 Ford Ranger FX4
4.0L SOHC V6 Auto 4x4
K&N Performance Air Filter
Bosch IR Iridium Fusion Spark Plugs

Well said. Ford recently announced an upcoming investment to 4 plants in Michigan of 850 million..1,200 jobs. The new all electric Focus will be made in the Wayne, Michigan plant towards the end of next year. I wish they weren't killing the Crown Victoria since that probably means the end of the plant in St.Thomas ON that makes them. But Ford's operations in the rest of the world are more important than ever what with the growth in China, Brazil,etc. They are also going to start making the Kuga in Kentucky..at a model loss to a plant in Germany that has been making them. The Germans may be pissed that they aren't going to keep making it there.

__________________
JBA s.s. headers&exhaust, K&N cold air intake, Bosch Iridium Plus 4 plugs, Royal Purple in motor, 5spd & diff.,Superchips programmer, axle girdle. Also have but yet to install KYB Gas-A-Just shocks and Belltech sway bars.

Huum I must have pressed the button.....
Too many comments to cover all of them, but....
Yes Rangers are made elsewhere in other countries, but that's
not my point here. My point is the US and Canada has their "own"
version" of the Ranger for our market. It will be these
plants that are being shut down.(Specifically the Twin Cities
plant.) All that Ford need do to sell a global Ranger here is
simply import one over, with little mods. Yet it is the
US and Canada that is doing without the Ranger. My point
being that it is the people who make these Rangers, and
the supporting suppliers and their people that will suffer.
So far as the buying public goes, makes no difference to Ford
or anyone else, they will sell and buy just whatever is
available at the time. Based on hype and advertising of
course. Who loses? The workers, the common folk,
and potential buyers who actually like the Ranger and or
prefer them.

As for the money coming into the US from overseas, still
being a US company.... Don't make me laugh till I pee
in my pants! That's the lamest, poorest excuse I have heard
in a long time.

As for unions, oh you can't win that one at all. To start, let me
ask you a couple of questions; Did you ever stop and think, what
would have happened to all the GM and Chrysler workers if they
had NO union and the companies declared bankruptcy?
They would have been left with nothing... Is that what you
want from a job after spending most of your life with a
company? Is that all you are worth to anyone? Is that all
you expect out of life?

Does the unions actually cost the companies and consumers
more? That depends on how one wants to view a union.
In the case of GM and Chr, those unions did NOT cause the
mismanagement and failure of those companies. Actually
those unions acted as an insulator for the employees
against the poor management of those companies. It
guaranteed the workers they would not unduly suffer
from poor company management.

The extra money it costs GM and Chr for the unions was chicken
feed compared to the money they wasted on pet projects,
perks for the senior management and poor mismanagement of
funds. Not only that, Ford, GM or Chr can go out of the
country and make cars cheaper, which is true for most
countries, BUT..... Does it actually mean those savings will
be passed on to the consumer? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Those
vehicles would still sell for about the same regardless to
country of origin. The car companies would ONLY pocket
the extra income, for good or bad.... Yet the Americans
and Canadians would pay MORE for that vehicle than if it had
been made here! (If you can't figure this out, then I will
have to explain this in more detail later, but it is true and
I want you to actually think, deep, for a change.) The answer
is pretty simple and may surprise you.

Maybe I'll write more later, but my time is limited.....
I actually work in a non-union company and I have no say
in my hours.....

Mike

Not sure what that was an excuse for, but I hope you're not saying that a US company with some plants overseas is worthless to the economy and other workers. I would rather have some parts of a company overseas and have that company make a profit so that the US workers can still have jobs instead of everything staying in the US, losing money, and eventually cutting back or closing down. Maybe you would rather have all US or nothing, but I don't see it that way.


Have you ever thought about whether what happened was ever really fair? The government, which should have NOTHING to do with commercial businesses, forced out shareholders and made them lose everything so that they could pay off the workers. Why did they do this? So they would get the Unions' vote next election. Honestly if I ever worked for a company with a union I would not want to be part of the union. But wait, most unions make it MANDATORY to pay their dues and fees if you are wanting a job at that company. Also reeks of a lack of freedom and fairness. I would honestly have no problem if I was working for a company that went under by legitimate means (ie not Enron) and lost stock options, retirement, etc. When you work for a company you risk losing things if the company ever tanks. That's the way it is. Would I be pissed if the executives took off with millions after it tanked, absolutely. But in the same respect I wouldn't want those executives to get screwed over to fulfill my greedy wishes. That's what I expect out of life, to do my own work to get ahead and not screw others to try and get things for myself.

Were those companies mismanaged? I would say they had their problems, yes, but you can't blame everything on management. Don't try to tell me that the Unions worked as an insulator. All unions work towards is less hours of work, more vacation, better benefits and better pay for all of the workers. Hmmm...sounds like those things all might HURT a company rather than help it. Management was at fault as well, but workers are a big factor in how a company succeeds/fails.

Yeah, makes sense that a having tens of thousands of workers making thousands more a year is less than a couple execs getting perks. I agree that it is ridiculous what executives get paid and how they take advantage of their position, but when you look at numbers (aka facts) the majority of a company are made up of grunts and a little boost to each persons pay has a big impact on the whole.

About cars costing the same, what economics did you ever study or even look at? Yes, they will always sell their vehicles at a profit for them (or at least try) but prices go down based on cost. If they could sell cars for whatever they wanted we wouldn't be in this situation because car companies would always be in the green. Now if GM could make a car for $4k would they still sell it for $10k? Maybe if it seemed to be of $10k value to the public. That is until Ford/Toyota/Etc. made a car for $4k and started selling that one at $9k. The next year it would be down to $8k and continue down until they felt they would not make a profit off it anymore. Competition is good business for the consumer and even common sense says it works.

Americans and Canadians might pay more for cars made overseas, but that is only because of Tariffs. If you have any reason other than that, I would like to hear it in a way that actually makes economic and logical sense and not just some "this is the way it is".

__________________
2003 Ford Ranger FX4
4.0L SOHC V6 Auto 4x4
K&N Performance Air Filter
Bosch IR Iridium Fusion Spark Plugs

This could go on forever. But read this;

http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_p...speakeasy.html

similar here;

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/0...e-tax-in-2009/

In today's world it is possible to move corporate headquarters to one of the tax haven countries...often small islands or places like Monaco. At any given time 2/3rds of Formula 1 drivers claim Monaco as their main residence to avoid paying income tax in the countries they are from. As I pointed out earlier Ford is not giving up on U.S.A. investment...nor are they doing the same in the rest of the world. Our beloved Rangers had no major change for so long. A good thing to keep an old one on the road..including now newer ones as they become old. But with the Sport Tack and Explorer with body on frame construction ending production the Rangers fate was a sure thing. Maybe we will see the global Ranger imported eventually...maybe not. More likely we will see its' Mazda twin since Mazda will be left with no truck to sell in The U.S.A. and Canada..unless they start doing a F-150 Mazda makeover.

__________________
JBA s.s. headers&exhaust, K&N cold air intake, Bosch Iridium Plus 4 plugs, Royal Purple in motor, 5spd & diff.,Superchips programmer, axle girdle. Also have but yet to install KYB Gas-A-Just shocks and Belltech sway bars.

Yeah, that is ridiculous.

__________________
2003 Ford Ranger FX4
4.0L SOHC V6 Auto 4x4
K&N Performance Air Filter
Bosch IR Iridium Fusion Spark Plugs

I think the real question here is why Ford wasted money developing a truck that is close enough in size to the F150 to compete with it. Why not simply sell the F150 in those markets. This make no sense at all.

I am just about tired of the growing vehicle sizes, and if you want a smaller vehicle they refuse to offer them with interesting engine choices.

Why is it they offer a 4 cylinder and V6 in the ranger and a V8 in the Explorer. We all know the V8 fits in the Ranger, but they won't sell it because it would "take away sales" from the F150.

They need to start offering fun engines in all of their vehicles, and stop worrying about competition among their models.

Not everyone wants a Mustang, some people might like a Fiesta or Focus with a decent amount of horsepower and would pay a premium for it, but would not even consider buying a Mustang.

I look at a lot of the offering from GM and Ford and just shake my head because there is nothing exciting about them, they need to create exciting products in all the market niches to get people into the lots. They may not sell a lot of the exciting models, but it turns people heads and gets them onto the lot to look at a boring sedan.

The reason they spent money developing a new truck instead of selling a F150 is that the majority of foreign truck markets are for small trucks. Trucks like the F150 are too difficult to drive around in some european/asian cities, plus they don't really need big trucks, plus gas there is so much more expensive.

Like you said before, why spend money in development if it isn't going to make a profit. That is why they didn't put a V8 in Rangers. If someone wants a V8 truck chances are good that they want it to do hauling/towing. If that's the case chances are then good they they will want a little bit bigger of a truck for the little bit of money difference. I doubt there is much of a market for a truck that has an engine that will tow 5000lb but a chasis that can only stand up to 1300.

__________________
2003 Ford Ranger FX4
4.0L SOHC V6 Auto 4x4
K&N Performance Air Filter
Bosch IR Iridium Fusion Spark Plugs

thats the fuckin truth. have you seen how big the new tacomas are?!?! Insane!

__________________
2004 Edge 3.0

lol this thread makes me laugh out loud

__________________
2010 Ranger XLT
2009 M109R
http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/41030.png

It's not so much about a V8 ranger, its about not putting excitement into their cars and trucks. If you want something exciting they try to push you into a Mustang or F150.

As for the towing thing you are flat wrong. I would bet the vast majority of trucks on the road never tow anything and if they do it is a light trailer at max, most people that are towing things are looking at heavier trucks than an F150.

How much can an Explorer/Mountaineer tow?

I am simply calling BS on the Ranger not selling due to the reasons Ford points to. The Ranger stopped selling well because it is a 10+ year old design with zero advertising and few exciting features.

Ford just wants to shove everyone into an F150, and shove business customers into a Transit Connect, so they are killing the Ranger.

My other point still stands, why design another full size pickup truck for other markets when they could just sell an F150. That new ranger is stated by Ford to be "Nearly the same size" within a few inches. What a total waste of R&D money. They would have been better off selling the American Ranger over seas, since it is a true compact truck.

I would love to see them sell the Ranger with a turbo, turbo diesel or a small V8. Something that would get peoples attention and get people on the lot to buy American made cars.

The Ranger will be back, after ford realizes there mistake when there sales plumit. I think its all hype and confusion. Pulling a Hudini act, people will be dissapointed its gone, but when it makes its return the crowd goes wild!

__________________
Ball Joints/Upper A-Arms How To
Replace Door pin/bushing
Repair broken dome light tabs
VIDEO OHC Install

They are discontinuing the Ford Ranger after 2011. Back when the Ranger first came out it was selling 200 thousand plus every year, for the last 3 years they've sold less than 75 thousand units each year. And it's being outsold by other Rangers in its class like the Tojo Tacoma by nearly double. Fact is, the Ford Ranger is the smallest production vehicle produced today so it won't have nearly as many capabilities as other nonfullsize production vehicles.
And all the new vehicles coming out in 2011 like the updated Focus and F150's with v6's, the position of the Ranger's jobs are being replaced with other, more efficient vehicles. Though there are rumors that there might be a midsize Ranger replacement, but we can only cross our fingers =]

__________________
2005 Ford Ranger 4x4
2 door supercab
4.0L 245ci v6
Oxford White

I don't think you understand how the marketting system works. Ford advertizes the F150 because it's their best selling truck and is the best selling truck for 34 years. The people want something, and then the company focuses on it and advertizes to focus on what the masses want. If you want exciting, buy a muscle car like a Mustang. The Mustang is for that market. If you want a general truck, buy an F150, it's for that market. If you need a big truck for big loads, buy a Superduty. My Ranger is good for everything that I need to do on a highschool standard. But I'm a dragracer so I'm going to need a bigger truck to tow a 4,000 pound trailor and a 3,000 pound Mustang on top. My Ranger couldn't do that structurally even with a v8.

The foriegn market is COMPLETELY different than America. The Ford Ranger in the foreign market is the LARGEST production vehicle out of states. It doesn't have the same chasis as the Ranger; it's much wider but still smaller than the F150 and has a 3.0L DIESEL in it.

People aren't buying the Ranger not because it isn't advertized, but because they don't need it. Their is no problem. It's not the Company. It is the customers' needs.

__________________
2005 Ford Ranger 4x4
2 door supercab
4.0L 245ci v6
Oxford White