Talk:Ford Ranger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ford Ranger article.
Article policies
Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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 [1] and ConsumerGuide [2] 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 [3] 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)

[edit] 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 .
That site has dozens of articles on maintenance. [4] -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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Ford's website

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)