Quote:
Originally Posted by autoteach
The one limiting factor was power, coming in at just over 100hp in the late 1980's. The hp was fine for around town, great for heavy off hwy work in tight quarters, but really didnt allow the truck to reach its full potential, IMO. I can imagine if it had 150-175hp 4 cylinder, it would have been incredibly more popular than what it was.
|
How about an ecoboost-type small turbo and/or a six-speed manual?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sid
As someone who bought a new Ranger in 1999 (3L 6 cylinder) and another new 2010 Ranger (2.3L 4 cylinder) last year, plus from talking with friends who used to own Rangers but who got F-150s the last time they bought new vehicles, it is extremely obvious that Ford puts a lot of pressure on potential Ranger buyers to switch to F-150s.
|
And the pricing (see above). Ford prices the Ranger so that if you need it to actually do any hauling, you have to option it to within $500 of an F-150, AND it gets worse mileage.