Having owned 3 of them, I don't agree the Ranger should be on the list. Ford let that truck die on purpose. Had they done some R &D worth a darn and put forth some effort that little truck could have so much more. Yes it had some minor sheetmetal changes over the years but basically it was the same truck from start to finish. Mpgs were not that good for such a small truck, even with a stripped 4 cyl stick model. The 4x4 v6 models were not far price wise from a base F150 and didn't get much better mpgs. The main thing this truck had going for it was the high caliber build quality at Twin Cities Assembly. Now the Ranger as we knew it is dead and the plant is being razed to make way for nail salons, dog grooming and coffee shops.
I've had 3 of those cars in the family
Ranger shouldn't be on the list.
The 900 is questionable.
I've driven several rangers, and do miss them. I still see plenty of non-SRT8 Dodge Magnums running around.
No Caprice=no care.
The G8 is the only one of those cars that would be on my list.
I only want half back.
I'd like to see Mazda bring back the RX7 thusly: use the existing Miata chassis, restyle it so it won't look so MX5-ish, make it a 2 seater hatchback and stuff in the RX8 running gear. Not only would it be fun fun fun, the Twins and the Hyundai Genesis coupe would never know what hit 'em.
Ranger, meh.
SAAB 900, it deserved to die. Damn that thing was weird even for SAAB.
Pontiac G8, yes. Saw one a couple of days ago, we NEED a V8 RWD car here in the Great Satan. But not the Magnum, that car honestly is not very well designed. It's nowhere near as useful as the ad makes it sound. The rear cargo area was sacrificed for the sake of styling, much like the Isuzu Axiom. You can get groceries in it but that's about all. And it won't tow anything. My mom's 9 passenger Chevy wagon was pressed into duty towing my dad's boats which weighed in at around 6000 pounds, don't think the Magnum will do that. It's rated at 1000 pounds normal (whoopee) and with the optional tow package 3800 pounds.
The Ford GT and Acura NSX were both meant to be limited production 'halo' cars. Big production numbers would knock them down, if you get my drift. I heart both but can understand why their production was limited.
Good list. I'm meh about the G8, but to each his own. A lot of those cars filled market segments that currently are ignored. (...I have no idea if there are enough buyers to make those segments viable, but that's a separate issue)
Yes, the ranger should be on the list. We need small simple trucks to exist, because I need inexpensive drive train donors. 
I only have one problem with the list: no nickle-dime
Nissan's already relaunched the datsun brand, and they have dropped lots of hints about bringing back the 240Z, but they need to give us both of the icons
They already sell the cube, why not add another boxy car to the lineup?
Buick Grand National.
IS everyone forgetting the G8 is actually back? Sure, it's called the SS and wears a bow tie on the grille, but that's a Holden Commodore if i've ever seen one.
I don't think it should be just the Ranger. It should be compact trucks in general. Everything besides the Ranger became a Mid-Size truck.
Compact trucks have their place, unfortunately, when the companies can't price them out much cheaper than a base full size truck, nobody is going to buy them.
CRX...or RSX, however you want to badge it, but an UPDATED version in two flavors:
See also: Civic Si hatch...or Fit Si. You have 200hp motors. USE THEM!
*RX-7. Not the RX-Saturn. The RX-8 intrigues me, but I can't get past the fugly.
I just have one word to say
"Falcon"
OK two words,
"Falcon ute"
I miss Saab, especially the "classic" 900. The new-gen 900 was E36 M3, but my '86 900 was wonderful, even without a turbo.
Ford Ranger, though, no. Horrible, even for a pickup truck.
poopshovel wrote: CRX...or RSX, however you want to badge it, but an UPDATED version in two flavors: 1. The 40-50 mpg econobox that's bigger on the inside than you'd imagine. 2. The car that all us ricers try to turn them into. Use the totally tossable Fit Chassis, remove 2 seats and doors, add all the safety nonsense, pick your poison on dead nuts reliable NA 200 hp 4 cylinder engine, keep the whole package under 2,300 lbs, and you've got a 13-second car that gets decent FE and can carry a 4 x 12 guitar cabinet. See also: Civic Si hatch...or Fit Si. You have 200hp motors. USE THEM!
????
I could live without the Ranger or Magnum.
It seems like there should be two or three truck market segments.
Small truck with near-car like MPG (40mpg highway?), made for folks who daily drive something needed for hauling light dirty objects (lots of businesses). No need for towing.
Full-size truck with power to tow, but truck like mpg. Nicer interiors etc for hauling the family on the camping/boating trip.
Commercial vehicles.
The Magnum wagon!? Fer chrissakes, it was the worst wagon implementation in recent history. Ranger!? Worst of breed small truck. The G8... it's already back. Ford GT? Why? So I couldn't afford it this time either?
The only car on that list I really want back is the S2000. Club version please.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:poopshovel wrote: CRX...or RSX, however you want to badge it, but an UPDATED version in two flavors: 1. The 40-50 mpg econobox that's bigger on the inside than you'd imagine. 2. The car that all us ricers try to turn them into. Use the totally tossable Fit Chassis, remove 2 seats and doors, add all the safety nonsense, pick your poison on dead nuts reliable NA 200 hp 4 cylinder engine, keep the whole package under 2,300 lbs, and you've got a 13-second car that gets decent FE and can carry a 4 x 12 guitar cabinet. See also: Civic Si hatch...or Fit Si. You have 200hp motors. USE THEM!???? Does it get 40-50 mpg? Is there an available Si model that runs a 13 second 1/4? Reading comprehension FTW!
Funny thing about a list like that.... if enough people bought the cars in the first place- so that the company making them could still make money (or still be in business), they would still make them.
well.. some of the cars (the GT40) were limited edition.
The Ranger was -never- updated because it competed with the F150. I think if they had kept it small, it would still be around, instead they made it bigger to get more marketshare and found they were eating into their own profits.
The Saab, it was done by 1990. It was old (but good) tech that needed to be updated.
The magnum got the nod because it was the only vehicle of it's ilk outside of the europeans. We do not seem to get hot rod wagons in the states.
I agree with Pheller. We -need- a small decent miliage pickup. Not everyone needs the behemouths the full size trucks have become. If I could have gotten a ranger that would tow my boat, I would be driving that right now instead of the Rover
poopshovel wrote: Does it get 40-50 mpg? Is there an available Si model that runs a 13 second 1/4? Reading comprehension FTW!
Err, I'd say it's there on the fuel econ and there never was a stock 13 sec CRX, I'm betting somewhere there is a 13 sec CRZ though
You'll need to log in to post.
