Talk:Ford Ranger (Americas)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Category Deletions and External Links

Someone quietly improperly deleted the categories and external links, leaving the article rather barren. Rather than trying to patch the pieces back together, I reverted to the "last" version that contained the needed information. I realize this also reverted some of the "generational" arguments, and the "external links" that some editors may not like, but this can be easily re-corrected by whoever is in possession of the facts. --T-dot 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ford's website

• Ford Ranger official web site

Does anyone object to adding Ford Motor Company's website? -Will Beback 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No I don't have a problem with it. I removed it earlier in an attempt to keep the link spamming down, I didn't know that you were the one that had posted it. Seeing how that is the Ford Motor Company's Official Ranger website that one should probably go at the top of the list. I hope it's ok that I added that line "(Please read discussion page before adding more links.)" to the page under External Links, if not let me know and I'll remove it. -Josh 21:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I hadn't posted it originally. But since it it is the official website I think it should be included. I appreciate your diligence with the external links. -Will Beback 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Expand

This whole article needs to be expanded, It needs a new first generation pic, sufficant information about each diffrent generation, it needs a lot of work to put it in a nnutshell. Karrmann 14:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did the best I could, but it still needs info. At least it's starting to make sense. We may have to do something about those two pictures on the bottom of the page, it took me a while to get everything so it fit together, I'm sure there's an easier way. --Sable232 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

These links mostly seem to be to forums, and do not meet our guidelines. Unless someone can justify their existence, I will remove them again. The section has been a spam-magnet. -Will Beback 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that atleast the Ranger Power Sports and The Ranger Station links should be left in the external links since they are the two largest most informative RBV websites on the net. They are the best places to go for any information regarding Rangers, Bronco IIs, Explorers. I agree with you about this section having ben a spam magnet, most of the people that have ben causing problems have ben the ones trying to start their new little groups and are in turn directing people away from where they can find more information about these great little vehicles. There is information that can be gleamed from those two sites that would take months to recreate here, that would in the end just be undone, removed, or distorted. In example: Ranger Generations, as mentioned above in annother talk topic, have ben erraneously edited by someone when they were right to begin with. I know they were trying to make it right by edmunds or some other group like that but the information they have is incorrect. What is currently listed as the first generation should actually be the split after between the '88 and '89 years into first and second generation, what is currently the second should be the third, etc. I would have corrected this myself but I don't know how to edit the sidebars, and I can't revert it without destroying some (of the very little) good editing that has ben done.

Josh 02:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. Let's leave those two in and if someone wants to add another they're welcome to explain why. Meanwhile I'll remove the rest. Some seem to have more ads than content. And yes, those sidebars (or as we call them, infoboxes) are tricky to edit. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

i believe that "josh" is incorrect . other ranger sites are available and alot of them alot more informative than the two showing in the external links section of this site . saying that the two sites shown right now are any better than any other site is totally incorrect. and im pretty sure that the last time i checked the two sites shown are FORUM sites just like all the others? if im incorrect then PLEASE inform me . lol . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.20 (talk • contribs)

We really should not have any pure forums. I looked at the first one and found many information pages beside the forum. A useful website that also has a forum is still a useful website. A forum alone is not useful. Again, see Wikipedia:External links for our full policy. -Will Beback 07:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that yall at Ranger Resource have a Wiki page that contains a link to yall's forums (sorry I looked again and saw that it isn't wikipedia). I don't see any problem with adding Ranger Resource to the list, but please don't edit the other links, that's how everything started to begin with. If you are going to add it, explain why you want it added, and just make it the next on the list. Don't edit the other links unless for some reason they get messed up. -Josh 14:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Edited -Josh 14:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As the admin of Ranger Resource, I'd like to apologize for the actions of a few of our users. Our original roster is made up of people who were unhappy with how TheRangerStation was being run, and some of them get a bit overcompetitive. If there's ever any improper modifications in the future which you think came from one of my users, contact me and I'll help figure out who it was and stop them.--Sean 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello , my messege is in regards to this..

I looked at the first one and found many information pages beside the forum

... i would like for someone to please show or explain to me how rangerpowersports is anymore than a forums site . everything on that site is linked to the forum or a simple classifieds section . just becuase they have a different main page than many other sites doesnt change the fact that everything about that site is screaming forums .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.213.115 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2006

That site has dozens of articles on maintenance. [1] -Will Beback 16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that someone keeps on editing out The Ranger Station and Ranger Power Sports from the external links, two of the oldest and biggest Ranger sites out there. Both have multiple sections outside of their forums, and both have non-forum-based tech sections covering a wide range of topics. Between the two you probably can find out everything you want to know about the Ford Ranger, to not link them is a disservice to anyone who reads this article. --24.238.161.57 07:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A site called Ranger Forums keeps getting added back by it's various members. This site is just a forum and as such, the link doesn't belong here. I'd like to get this page protected, but that seems unlikely. --Sable232 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Generations

Why is the second generation picture a picture of an appropriate year ranger with the grill of the first gen Explorer? Also i am concerned about calling the '95-'97 look third gen. The '93 & '94 models were very distinct from them. --PhilKenSebben 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand a thing you're saying. The '95-'97 are part of the second generation, as are the '93-'94, and the article reflects that. --Sable232 17:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The generations i am concerned with are pictured as Second gen:'89-'92 (incorrect picture) and Third gen: '93-'97. as I said, i am concerned about calling the '95-'97 look third gen. The '93 & '94 models were very distinct from them. --PhilKenSebben 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That style grille was available in black on '92s, I've seen it on 4x4 models. Not sure about the chrome.

There is no difference between '94 and '95 save for the dashboard. They are the SAME generation. --Sable232 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dumb Question - just exactly how are "generations" defined in these automotive articles, and how should they be defined? It seems to me there is a disagreement over what qualifies as a "new generation". The automakers refer to major and minor freshenings, and total redesigns. Perhaps we should do the same? I think the whole "generations" thing is an invention within the Wikipedia, and really applies no where else except perhaps in some external forums, and it seriously needs to be critically and objectively reviewed at a higher level. Perhaps this should be discussed in the Automobiles WikiProject and a firm consensus reached there. Otherwise we will continue to argue whether very subtle visual changes in a facia qualifies another "generation". --T-dot 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, the generations thing is dumb, it should be documented by yearly change. there are changes every year.--PhilKenSebben 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may think it's "dumb" but that is the way cars are classified. Most articles here split vehicles into generations. Most any club or association dedicated to a particular car does so as well, and these almost always coincide. Just because they aren't listed the way YOU think they should be doesn't make the system "dumb." --Sable232 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is deciding which modification is worthy of being called a new generation. One could say (as I probably would have) that the two Ranger generations are 1983-1992 and 1993-present, or you could split them up the way they are now, or you could split up the current generation (as listed in the article) into two or three additional generations. And I'd agree that the way they are now seems a bit questionable, and a year-by-year might be the best way to fix that. IFCAR 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Highland Park plant?

the highland park plant in highland park, michigan has been closed for dozens of years...is this the same highland park plant where the ranger production is believed to be transferred in 2008? or is this a mistake? Parsecboy 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Highland Park plant, where the Ranger is currently built, is in Minnesota. --Sable232 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, just wanted to know Parsecboy 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Overseas Ranger?

I think there need to be two sections to this article. One explaining the the North American Ranger, and another explaining the Overseas Ranger (which was recently redesigned). The link to the overseas B-series isn't sufficent. What do you people think? --Msl747 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the two are completely different, I think it would only cause confusion to have them both in the same article here. If anything it should be on the overseas B-series page, because it is a version of that truck. --Sable232 01:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What about starting a new page, Ford_Ranger_(Europe)? --PhilKenSebben 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are people saying the Mazda and Ford versions are completely different? They have some different options, but in general, the only difference is in some of the plastic like the grill. I've seen many B3000's that were identical to my Ranger 3.0L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.83.192 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2007

If you've been outside the United States, you'll see what they're talking about. The American Mazda pickup is a rebadged Ranger. The overseas Ranger is a rebadged B-series, which also comes in an SUV version, as the Ford Everest. Parsecboy 18:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

South American Ranger

Unlike Europe, which now has a new generation of Rangerr, South America still builds and sells the ame ranbger we have here with many similar options (2.3l I4) and some differences (double cab available, limited trim available, 3.0l V6 diesel available)

Moreover, the Ranger sold worldwide until recently was also related to the current NA ranger. The new generation Ranger, could very well be entered into this article, since it is simply a 5th generation ranger - Ford just decided to not sell it in several markets.

I believe we should include 2 new sections: 1) South American Ranger - it is very much the same truck

and

2) 5th generation Ranger.

Igor Iholas (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Chicken tax"

What exactly is that? Can someone add a brief description about that? Without it, we're kind of left to speculate. toll_booth (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Gen Ranger

Hey can we find a better picture for the second generation Ranger? I don't feel that a smashed up truck for sale in someone's front yard is the best image for the 2nd Gen Rangers. (talk) 01 April 2009 20:30

I agree that it's not the best photo. You can take a look through [the images on Commons] and see if you can find a better one. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

External links 2009 edition

WP:EL is pretty explicit about what links are not permitted. Please make sure that you do not add forums or sites that are easily googled, among others. Greglocock (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifications and technical data are certainly permitted. The fact that there is a forum attached to a site with detailed information is irrelevant. I have restored the useful sites. --Sable232 (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Also the lede mentions the mazda derived models, therefore the section on the Thailand model is appropriate. I suggets you reread WP:EL, and I have reverted your edits. Greglocock (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mazda-derived model is at Mazda B-Series (International) according to the lead paragraph. It shouldn't be here unless that model becomes the continuation of this one. It hasn't and Ford has made no indication of anything outside of that fact that the current one might be done after 2011.

I have re-read EL. There is nothing in there that says external links shouldn't contain further detailed information on the subject (and no, I am not referring to the damn forum section, I've deleted enough of those links in my time that I can tell what's a tech library and what's a forum). --Sable232 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth generation? No.

The "Fifth Generation" section does not belong on this page. It's the next variant of the Mazda B-Series (International) (aka Mazda BT-50, apparently?). The Ranger referred to on this page is still being sold in the U.S, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina (and probably Chile, but Ford's website for Chile isn't working), just like the lead paragraph says. It has NOT been replaced by the "international" variant so information on that truck belongs on it's page, not here.

I'm moving it to Mazda B-Series (International). --Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not very fussed, but it is a Ford of Asutralia led design, not Mazda. Greglocock (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That Ranger and the B-Series are still basically the same truck... maybe something needs to be rearranged on that end. --Sable232 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ranger - Ford Thailand

Ford re-entered the Thailand market in 1995 with the formation of AutoAlliance Co. Ltd. Located in Rayong province, AutoAlliance is owned jointly by Ford (48 percent), Mazda (45 percent), KPN (2 percent) and SMC (5 percent). The facility produces Ford Ranger pickup trucks and Mazda Fighter B-series, and represents a $500 million investment. In Thailand, Ford is involved in six new companies representing a total investment of over $500 million: Auto Alliance (Thailand) -- A joint venture with Mazda and other local partners, Auto Alliance (Thailand) began building Ford Rangers and Mazda Fighter/B-Series at its Rayong province plant in July 1998. In March 2000 Ford launched Ford Laser and Mazda 323 for Thailand market, which produced from AutoAlliance. Annual capacity: 130,000 units, including 100,000 assembled vehicles for sale in Thailand and other Asia-Pacific markets and other markets outside North America and 30,000 component kits for export to other assembly locations. This new Ranger, which has been specifically designed and engineered to meet the needs of the Asian customer, will sell in Thailand and be exported to Asia-Pacific, Europe and markets outside of North America.

[2]
This Ranger is created and designed by Mazda? --Tomcha (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have never left the United States and are unfamiliar with the Ranger, then you might think that you're right. However, we're talking about the Ranger that's sold in Europe. For example, this Ranger, which you can see is nearly identical to this B2600, is the one we're talking about. The page you've cited says nothing about who designed what, only the ratio of ownership in the company. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mazda designed the current Ranger (J97) made in Thailand and sold everywhere just about except the USA, Ford of Australia are in charge of designing and developing the next one (T6), to be built in the same plant, and sold just about worldwide except the USA.Greglocock (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thai Ford Ranger was designed by Ford is a fact [3]. --Tomcha (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Believe what you like. What would I know? Greglocock (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tomcha, you are committing serious research errors here; the source says nothing about Ford designing the Thai Ranger. You are assuming so, because it's a press release from Ford, and that Ford has half ownership of the AutoAlliance plant in Rayong. That does not equal designing the truck. Parsecboy (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I quote the fact: the 2nd Generation Ford Ranger; providing Thai consumers greater convenience with Ford's innovative Rear Access System (RAS) technology. The total development of the new Ford Ranger cost approximately Bt 4.0 billion, of which Bt 2.2 billion was invested into the research and development of the Rear Access System (RAS). --Tomcha (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are reading too much into that. Does it say specifically that Ford designed it? No, just that it's "Ford's", which only means that Ford owns it (which is a given, since it holds a majority in the AutoAlliance company). Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it say specifically that Mazda designed it (RAS)? --Tomcha (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

<- See your talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Where it says Rear Access System designed by Mazda? --Tomcha (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to; it states that the whole truck is designed by Mazda. You're wrong. Drop it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry at all disagree. Your facts are only given the tabloid media. You have no real facts from the manufacturer. --Tomcha (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what a tabloid is? Car Magazine is not a tabloid. You, likewise, have no clear statement from the manufacturer, just information you have interpreted. Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ford's innovative Rear Access System (RAS) technology, not written Mazda's innovative Rear Access System (RAS) technology. You understand the facts as you require. Therefore, I will add NPOV - neutral point of view. --Tomcha (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. Ford owns a majority share of AutoAlliance, and so it is logical that they would claim ownership on what that company produces. That doesn't mean they designed the technology. You are extrapolating your own conclusions based on your own interpretation; that is expressly forbidden according to Wikipedia policy. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You also seem to not understand what WP:NPOV means. An example of when there is a POV problem would be, say, if I were to go change the lead section on Kashmir to completely remove any claim by Pakistan to legitimately possess the territory. The problem is, I would by doing so only promote the idea that India legitimately owns the land, which is pushing a POV. That is not what is going on here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources (no tabloid). It requires that where multiple perspectives on a topic have been published by reliable sources, all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. --Tomcha (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are very mistaken. That Mazda designed the overseas Ranger is not a perspective. It is an established fact. WP:NPOV has about as much bearing here as it does for someone trying to make the argument that the sky is yellow. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Compact truck

The quote below (from the main article, under delcine heading) doesn't seem right to me the parts I have issues with are bolded.

"Since then, all of its competitors from the Dodge Dakota to the Toyota Tacoma have been redesigned and enlarged towards the mid-size market, leaving the Ranger the only original compact truck in its size range, with many offering V8 engines, and undergoing two generations of redesign."

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't compact truck the size range of the Ranger. Wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say: "leaving the Ranger the only compact truck"? If so I think that entire statement should be re-worded to:

Since then, all of it's competitors from the Dodge Dakota to the Toyota Tacoma have been redesigned and enlarged towards the mid-size market, with many offering V8 engines, and leaving the Ranger the only compact truck on the market.

Wouldn't that quoted statement effectively make the Ranger the only compact truck? Which would in effect mean that it has no competition. That would the places that say that it is no longer the best selling compact pick-up are wrong. Of course I'm sure it isn't that simple those other manufacturers have probably found some loophole to keep it in the compact truck market and therefore give them an unfair competitive advantage over the Ranger. But with the manufacturers claims aside, there products are actually mid-size vehicles and the Ranger would be the only true compact truck left on the market. If that train of thought were correct there is only one choice for people wanting a compact truck, like myself.

Josh 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (sorry for the essay)

what about the little mazda, toyotas, izuzus, s10s and s15s? those are compact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.147.99.126 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What? They don't make Mazda pickups or Isuzu pickups or S-10s anymore, and the Tacoma is no longer considered a compact truck. --Sable232 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I've had the same thought for a while myself. If you go to the wiki pages for the Tacoma, Dakota, etc., you'll see they're classified as compact trucks in their first few generations, and then their most recent versions are listed as mid-sized trucks. Go ahead and change it. Parsecboy 17:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I want to give a chance for more input on the subject before I do though. Josh 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Info on manual transmission for 3rd gen incorrect.

I own a 93 ranger with 5 speed manual transmission, it is not a mazda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.241.64.94 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Then what is it? What engine do you have? --Sable232 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ford Ranger Splash, 4 cylinder, 5 speed manual169.241.64.14 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The M5OD-R1 was the only manual transmission used in four-cylinder Rangers after 1988. How do you know your truck doesn't have it? --Sable232 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I re-read the paragraph and realized that it was saying a mazda engine, not only mazda models had a manual transmission. My mistake.24.234.97.115 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

i own a 97 Ranger 4L and it is a manual transmission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.122.46 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Update

This article needs an update. The info is 2 years old. In the intro there are some speculations about the decision of Ford related with the production and tle plant in Minessota, but now is certain than the model will be no longer produce and the plant will close. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Ford Ranger is a series of pickup trucks ..."

Lede: "The Ford Ranger is a series of pickup trucks that have been sold by Ford globally, following two distinct lineages: "

Since the Ford Ranger are two different models sold in different markets/regions, is it still proper to describe it as " a series of pickup trucks". ---North wiki (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How's this then: [4]? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Much better, IMO. ---North wiki (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FX4 Models

Where it talks about the FX4 models, it states that they came with 31 spline 8.8's. This is only partially correct. The 2002 FX4 and the 2003+ FX4 Lvl 2's have the upgraded 8.8's. Where as the 2003+ regular FX4's do not. Toreadorranger 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How come the other special models of the Ranger aren't mentioned in this article, like the Ranger Tremor or the STX? Either it should encompass all specialty models and not just two or none at all. Jax Rhapsody —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

Ford Ranger (South America)

The newly created Ford Ranger (South America) has just been deleted and transfered to the North American Ranger. Does this look like the North American Ranger: or this; http://www.ford.com.ar/nueva%5Ffordranger/ , and with all due respect, i would highly recomend keeping the Ford Ranger (South America) page alive since its not being “discontinued” by Ford Motor Company in South America, in other words; it's alive and kicking, and it may well change Ford Motor Company′s mind from closing a factory in the USA, furthermore its giving a bad press that U.S. engineered Ranger may be totally out of business, keep this great truck rolling please! – Cheers — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not separate articles based on emotional grounds. According to the information provided, the South American model is the same as the North American model with a few localisation changes. GM do Brasil (or another GM division/subsidiary in South America) have also developed a four-door version, but a separate page is not required for this. The Ranger being discontinued in North America has little to do with the status of production in South America, and the infobox and text can easily accommodate this. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally incorrect, no other Ford Motor division/subsidiary in South America has built a 4 door version excet maybe Mazda based, furthermore, you're from Sidney and the Ford Falcon [(Ford Falcon (Australia) and Ford Falcon (North America)[] has separate articles acording to their evolution, ...and the Ranger being discontinued in North America has a lot to do with the status of production and evolution in South America!! and is not based on emotional grounds, (you've probably checked my personal page), its based on closing of factories and on jobs in all of the Americas!! — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How many lines to you intend on devoting to the four-door version? The Chevrolet Cruze hatchback is currently not slated for North American sales, should we therefore create a separate "Chevrolet Cruze (Europe)" article to account for this?

Ford Falcons were originally the same car in Australia and the US for the first generation only. The second generation was also based on the US models but had much more Australian input. If Australian sales ended here, then there would be a good case for a merger. However, since all subsequent models have been entirely indigenous and have no relation with the US model of the same name there is no case for a merger. The South American Ranger on the other hand has not developed into a separate model line as such.

The potential job losses in the US is also not a deciding issue for the retention of separate pages. How the ending of US production adversely affects South America is unknown to me and if it is such a critical issue, then you should probably add a paragraph to the article explaining this. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The third generation Australian Falcon even though it was entirely “indigenous”, it did share the second generation 111-inch (2,819 mm) wheelbase, and it kept the underpinnings, but surely it evolved into the magnificent auto that it is today, and we all wish we had that model in the Americas! ... and its not just the four-door version... here The New Ford Ranger recently introduced for the South American market→ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t72NIg8enE4&feature=related — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

When merging contents, ref links #22 and 24 got screwed up, here #24 → http://espaciocoches.com/2009/06/ford-ranger-2010-mercosur-primeras-imgenes-y-datos.html — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference error has been fixed now. The updated South American Ranger introduced in 2009 as a 2010 model is not a new generation, but a substantial facelift. The front-end has obviously been completely redesigned and the outer door skins have modified to incorporate pull-out type door handles, but the glass and cargo tray remain the same (presumably with just about everything else). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Generations

I don't believe that the Generations are listed correctly on the page. What is listed as the first gen should actually be split into 1st and 2nd.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.193.28 (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2006

I think they were listed correctly. The so-called "second generation" you keep adding is not a true second generation; it's just a refresh of the first generation. --ApolloBoy 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get your information to support this ApolloBoy? Josh 20:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just compare a 1988 and a 1989 Ranger and you'll see what I mean. --ApolloBoy 07:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have I currently own a 1984 Ranger, and we used to own a 1990 Bronco 2 I had alot of comparison time, there are as many diffrences between these two as there are between any other 2 Ranger generations. Also if you study the Rangers you will find that almost everywhere else they are classified as having a generation split between those 2 years. Josh 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the first and "second generation" Rangers share most of the exact same body panels and use the same engines, transmissions, axles, etc. Therefore, the "second generation" Ranger is practically the same as the first, just with a different front fascia and interior. --ApolloBoy 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should add that both Edmunds [5] and ConsumerGuide [6] split the Ranger into three generations (1983-1992, 1993-1997, 1998-present).

The generations of Rangers are a source of constant debate, but what I've come across the most has been 4 or 5 generations, with debate over whether the 1998-2000 and 2001+ models are seperate generations or just a visual refresh. I've never heard anyone argue about the generation split at '89.--wolrahnaes 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This page in Consumer Guide [7] sheds light on another generational aspect of the Ford Ranger: in this Wikipedia entry's first paragraph it says the name "Ranger" was first used as an options package from the 1960s. But the Consumer Guide article notes that the 1952 Ford Panel Delivery-- when equipped with the Marmon-Herrington AWD package, was also called a "Ranger". The Marmon-Herrington package had been available since 1935 on the pickups and 1937 on the panel trucks (which had part-wooden bodies before 1949), according to an article in the "fall 1997" issue of the (now-defunct) print magazine Open Road. (In fact, Open Road refers to the 1938 vehicle as a "Ranger".) It doesn't affect the vehicle in this Wikipedia article, but just for completeness I'll keep looking for more indications that the Ford Ranger name is older than 1960. -- Ray Etheridge. (UTC) 24.228.32.248 02:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)24.228.32.248 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added and revised some detail information reflecting the use/discontinuation of engines and transmissions in the generation paragraphs and charts. a sterling example was the mention of the A4LD in the Gen4 trans listing (discontinued in the ranger at the end of 1994) and showing the 4sp TK trans in the gen2 listing (discontinued at the end of 1986) and also that the 3.0 was introduced in late 1990, not with the Gen3 trucks. FWIW I agree with the current listing of "generations" because there are many parts that were changed between the 1988's and the 1989's and the changes to the ranger are more than "skin deep" including a radical change in the way the trucks are wired, brake line routing a complete revision of the fuel systems, different (plastic) fuel tanks that necissitated changes to the frame etc... AllanDeGroot 01NOV06

Dec 04 Note: Ford has introduced a new Ranger ("3rd Generation") in markets outside of N. America. The new Ranger is modeled closely on the Nissan and Toyota small truck paradigms, and is only available with low-sulfur turbo diesel (I-4) engines. See Ford websites outside of N. America (UK, Australia, Germany, Italy) to catch of glimpse of the new Ranger. CDB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.22.222 (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"First generation" was called "Courier" and not Ranger. The internal company name was "G2". The "second generation" was also called Courier and named internally as "J67". The 2.5 Turbodiesel "WLT" engine was introduced. The "third generation" in 1999 was named Ranger in some markets, Courier in others. Code name was J97 A (Ford) and J97 C (Mazda) The next small facelift (J97 P) was named Ranger in all markets. Mazda derivatives were called J97 T. The 4.0L Cologne V6 was introduced. The next large facelift (J97 M/U) saw introduction of Common Rail Diesels "W" family, 2.5 and 3.0L Diesels. 4.0L V6 was dropped. Last (and current) small facelift (J97 S/W) is currently in production and the last pickups from this Mazda platform. T6 platform is totally new and will replace the G2/J67/J97 platform. So there were many "generations" - depends how you count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.2.69 (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Link

I would like to submit a link for consideration, http://generation-edge.info/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=8 This is the How To section of a technical forum, www.generation-edge.info. Yes it is a forum. And yes there are general, off topic discussion threads on the forum. How ever, if you peruse the home page, you will find many discussion threads dealing with all models and drive trains, as well as lifting and lowering the Ford Ranger. IMHO, this site can prove to be of benefit to anyone seeking information on the Ranger platform.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The440volt (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 February 2007

the 2004 FX4 level II came with a 8.8 rear end limited slip and 4.10 or 4.11 gears. Also they used 2 different styled cloth interiors red and blue. I know I own one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.97.157 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1989-1992 generation

For the most part, the change from 1988 to 1989 was more of a facelift than an all-out redesign, with new front fenders, lights, and grille. It's not that much different than what happened to the F-Series in 1987 and 1992. As such, it would make more sense for the second-generation content to be included as part of the 1983-1988 section. --SteveCof00 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Petition for Name Change

Ford Ranger (North America) → Ford Ranger

For clarity, i recommend changing the articles name for the following reasons:

• This is THE Ford Ranger and it is build not only in North America but also in South America.
• This is THE ORIGINAL Ford Ranger, the other Asian Ford Ranger is not the original and can be called the International Ranger
• The American engineered Ford Ranger will still be made in Argentina for the South and North American Markets (Mexico), side by side with the new T6. (Production of the T6 is planned for Asia, South Africa and Argentina)
• Sales of THE Ford Ranger are thriving in South America. (The other Mazda based Asian Ford Ranger is also being assembled in Colombia and Ecuador for select markets)
• The Ford Ranger may be discontinued in the US, but an updated version will still be in production... the legend continues!!.

—Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: the bias in your petition is remarkable, "The Ford Ranger", "the legend continues"... please. The North American Ranger may be the first, but then other "original" vehicles have been overtaken or rivalled the original in terms of notability. The Mazda-based Ranger is sold in over 180 countries, including Thailand, the second largest market for pickup trucks after the United States. Add the rest of Southeast Asia, China, Europe, Australasia, parts of South America, and possibly the Middle East and Africa as well. The new T6 Ranger will eventually replace all existing versions, so why should it be relegated to disambiguated "Ford Ranger (international)" title, while these American models receive the title: "Ford Ranger"?

The current setup with "Ford Ranger" as a set-index article works very well. It also does not show bias towards any particular market while also making it easy for readers to find the exact model of Ford Ranger they are looking for.

Lastly, the reason why the article is titled "Ford Ranger (North America)" is because it was originally designed, engineered, and retailed in that market. It just so happens that South American markets received the hand-me-down design, giving the model a design overhaul 17 years after the original design was launched in 1993. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Would a slight name change "North America" → "Americas" be a useful compromise, to include the South American production?

Anyway, regardless of which one would be deemed more important (obviously debatable), the standard practice is to give both models a parenthetical description. IFCAR (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

When it first came out it wasn't the North American Ford Ranger. Any magazine, book, website, etc. doesn't refer to the trucks as the North Ranger either. I support changing the name back to the only name it had for 10 years.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's never the part of any car's name. It's a descriptor. "International" isn't part of the other Ranger's name either. IFCAR (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I would suggest changing the title from North America to Americas (the South American Ranger is strongly derived from the North American one, aside from powertrain), but I wouldn't change anything further. Much like the LTD, Falcon, and Granada, the Ford Ranger article is a disambiguation page. It should stay that way. --SteveCof00 (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In Favour 100%:

The title Ford Ranger (North America) is wrong and totally bias, "Ford Ranger (Americas)" may be acceptable since the other "Ford Ranger" is a Mazda pickup "assembled" in CDK form by Mazda in Ecuador (MARESA) and Colombia (Compañía Colombiana Automotriz).

Let me remind you that this page was previouslly moved on 17 October 2010 from Ford Ranger to Ford Ranger (North America) without a speck of consultation whatsoever; (Ford Ranger →Ford Ranger (North America)), and i have requested the move to the original and correct name in good faith.

And lastly, the so-called "International" Ford Ranger, (aka Mazda BT-50) is a rebadged Mazda, the original and authentic Ford Ranger is the American engineered vehicle designed by FORD, and made by Ford factories in both continents and there is absolutely no reason to call it North American, The world over the American Ford Ranger is known as THE Ford Ranger, "no need to clarify", and the other as an imposter even though it's made by a Ford-Mazda joint venture, so come on you guys (and gals), GET REAL! —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

1998–2011

I believe the 4x4 went from Dana 35 TTB with Dana 44 U joints to Dana 30 IFS with this change.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discontinuation section needs rewrite

As said, this section is a bit out of date right now, dealing with some out-of-date information on the development of the "rest of the world" Ranger that is now for sale. While sourced, I think it's neither in the right context or current anymore. There are some statements there that need to be sourced as well. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rangers were F-Series trucks first

One important fact this article is missing is that the Ford Ranger was originally a top-of-the-line Ford F-Series pickup from 1967-1969. By 1970, it's status was surpassed by the Ranger XLT, then around 1977 or 1978, it was pushed even further down by the Ranger Lariat. ----DanTD (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To a point, that is mentioned in the article lead-in. I'm not sure if that needs expanding right now, though. --SteveCof00 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It didn't when I saw the article, but I'm glad it's there now, and I don't think it needs that much expansion either. ----DanTD (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ford Ranger (North America). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/22/u-s-ford-ranger-production-ending-this-december/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_19564573
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430101525/http://media.ford.com/pdf/Dec2002sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/pdf/Dec2002sales.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212180838/http://media.ford.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=27379 to http://media.ford.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=27379
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206054304/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/dec08sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/dec08sales.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020844/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/December09sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/December09sales.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124044733/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec10sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec10sales.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131003153/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec11sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec11sales.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)