ranger vs f150
My dad had his truck down to the dealer today for a front end alignment.
We were looking at the (1) ranger they had and a couple f150s. These were 2010 models. the ranger was XLT power everything etc, etc, etc.. as was the f150. I could not believe the price difference. 27k for the ranger, 28k for the f150. No wonder ford is dropping the ranger, for another 1k you can have a full size. I personally dont like the new f150 body design, and for another 5k or so you can get into a superduty with a diesel. I think ford should have kept with the same design for both trucks, back in the '80's a ranger was just a smaller version of the f150, they both looked almost the same. I would be intereseted in an f150 if it looked like a larger ranger. I think they are making a mistake by dropping the ranger, they should have canned the sport trac and went with the crew cab ranger with the turbo diesel 3.0 matted to a 6 spd manual. Then they would have had a hot seller. IMHO:banghead: |
Re: ranger vs f150
Quote:
|
Re: ranger vs f150
I was looking at an F150 before I bought my third ranger (2011). The 150 is such a behemoth I can't believe the gas milage would be even close. I'm sure tires and everything is more expensive with the bigger truck. Since I don't haul much anymore, the Ranger seemed to be the most logical buy. I owned about 6 full sized trucks in the past and everybody, friends and relatives always wanted to borrow them. The last Ranger I bought I ordered a manual trans. That put a stop to borrowers.
I'm glad they're going to stop making the Ranger. Mine will be a collector's item. |
Re: ranger vs f150
my friend bought a sport trac cause he thought the bed would be good for his dirtbike, since he only has one, and doesnt like longer beds.. 10 months later, and he wont stop bitchin' about the bed being pointless haha. I think the sport tracs are one of the ugliest things ford has produced. yeah, as far as the ranger vs f150, you midaswell get the f150.
|
Re: ranger vs f150
ford is pricing them like that on purpose, they are trying to persuade ranger buyers into buying an F-150. its all part of there master plan of ditching the compact truck segment and adding to the F-series sales. in all honesty i dont think it will pay off for them. people will still want a smaller truck and they will now go to GM or toyota to get it taking money away from ford.
|
Re: ranger vs f150
well that is kinda high pricing well its to close to the f150. i stilll think if they took 3k off the ranger than its deffinetaly a better way to go. i bet the mpg is still better than the f150 and just some people dont want such a big truck. its nice having a truck but not huge one which is what a ranger is. i think is would be epic if they make a raptor ranger like a baby raptor haha, be sweet but i dont know how great it would be compared to the actual raptor
|
Re: ranger vs f150
Quote:
|
Re: ranger vs f150
Quote:
|
Re: ranger vs f150
Quote:
http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/a...1/c12d07d9.jpg |
Re: ranger vs f150
Quote:
For me, if I were to make the jump I would go straight to a superduty crew cab short box, at least that truck looks proportionate! Also, the rangers have not changed since '93, I mean body is the same, interior is the same (minus cluster changes) dash is the same, heat vents, window, everything. I don't know if that was a good thing or not. I personally still love the design, but when you get all these sheep gathered around, who knows...? |
Re: ranger vs f150
F 150 is just to dang big...PERIOD!
Regardless to mpg it's still big! And no way around it, regardless to mpg, the F 150 will cost more to operate than a Ranger. I don't want a BIG truck, I want a small to medium size truck! I don't need a BIG truck, but I do need a small or medium sized truck. Also I find it odd, all the talk about conserving and being green. Well the F 150 takes more of everything to build; doesn't it? Another point that follows my thinking is service trucks, or fleet trucks for all kinds of service work. Look at how much better the Ranger handles this job or at least certain large aspects of it, better than a F 150. My service work requires a small to medium vehicle to haul certain things, so I put a camper on my Ranger. But look at parts delivery in general. They don't need a large truck to roam around town, in crowded streets. Nor do they need one for the open road. Delivering parts or small items on quick notice does not require a big truck. It's just a complete waste using one under such conditions, yet we are being spoon fed the idea we need a larger truck, along with more money and more expense to keep that BIG truck rolling! Everyone seems to complain about the Ranger not being updated for so many years, and that is true. Although that can be a BIG plus in itself. There are not any of the problems to address with such a model when compared to a newly introduced model, with all the minor bugs they have. The Ranger has matured into a well honed vehicle that has few problems and fewer complaints because people KNOW what to expect out of it! One thing I did find odd about the BT 50 was it has drum rear brakes while the Ranger has rear discs. Why is Ford taking a step backwards? Why is Ford so bent on keeping rear drum brakes alive? The rear discs on the Rangers was a BIG improvement; so why wasn't Ford advertising such things? Wouldn't such advertising help sell more Rangers? Personally I think Ford wanted to kill the Ranger LONG before we knew anything about it. Even while it's sales was still pretty good! That's the strategy they initially tried to kill the Mustang with.... But why? They don't even realize or accept that model name is a selling quality all in its' own right, and the Mustang IS the absolute perfect example of this! Yet here Ford goes again, trying to do the same idiotic thing with the Ranger. Geez people, Ford is selling the 2011 Rangers and they didn't even update their customer showroom catalogs. They are selling 2011 Rangers using the 2010 Ranger brochures! Talk about cheap and trying to kill off something?! Finally playing off this strategy brings about the biggest reason Ranger sales has fallen. Ford quit advertising the Rangers. They haven't pushed selling these trucks in years, yet they continue to sell, albeit slow, with NO advertising! That in itself is an amazing feat..... So some of your questions, in general, have been answered by the facts that Ford quit upgrading the Rangers years ago and then they quit advertising them, all in efforts to drive the brand into the ground to make way for something else, for better or for worse.... Oh yeah, another thing. Ford IS making BIG BIG money off Ranger sales because there has been absolutely NO investment back into the model. Everything remains the same, tooling, dies, no more or very little engineering, no advertising, no down time for change-overs....etc... Think about it? IMHO the Ranger is as close to perfection as one is gonna get with modern vehicles so far as durability and economy is involved. Everything has been completed for the Ranger and it has only been refined for the last several years, and that's why I think you see so many Rangers get 200k, 300k and even more miles. Actually I think Ranger is a victim of it's own success.. Mike |
Re: ranger vs f150
Quote:
|
Re: ranger vs f150
ranger aint no fleet truck around here, 150 or bigger is fleet here, dum brakes do last longer, and if disks are so great why did gm go back to drum? personally i like both my ranger and 150
|
Re: ranger vs f150
i like the new f150 raptors they are sick
|
Re: ranger vs f150
Quote:
for most of the US. I do know of companies that use Rangers as their fleet trucks. Drum brakes last longer because they are NOT as efficient as discs. Nor or they as reliable. Who knows why GM does anything they do? They don't know themselves. They are a company that was founded upon greed and envy, so whatever they do I'm sure its' for their bottom line..... Mike PS I like the F 150, just that it's too big for me.... |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:53 PM. |