Greg In The Desert

Ford has issued a Speed Control Deactivation Switch Recall (09S09) on a number of trucks and SUVs. They sent me a letter to about my 1997 Ford Ranger and suggested I have it fixed as soon as possible.

Ford cannot be confident that over many years in service, a speed control deactivation switch installed on your vehicle will not leak brake fluid, posing the risk of a fire. This condition may occur either when the vehicle is parked or when it is being operated.

This risk exists on vehicles equipped with or without speed control.

Ford Motor Company has authorized your dealer to perform the repairs under this program and your dealer on your vehicle free of charge (parts and labor).

Your dealer may be able to perform this repair while you wait; however, due to scheduling requirements, your dealer may need your vehicle for a longer period of time.

Please call your dealer without delay and request a service date for Recall 09S09. Provide the dealer with the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of your vehicle. The VIN is printed near your name at the beginning of this letter.

Until you have the recall service performed, park your vehicle outdoors away from structures to prevent a potential fire from spreading.

I took it to the local Don Chalmers Ford who was able to get my truck in immediately. They had my truck for about 6 hours and gave me a receipt. Total cost of the repair charged to Ford was 28.89. I realize Ford has millions of these to pay for but I have never taken my truck to a Ford dealer and had such a cheap repair. If I had to pay for this myself, I wonder how much it would have cost me.

There is nothing wrong with my 1997 Ford Ranger except that it’s getting up there in age (kind of like me). Since it’s my only vehicle I am always concerned about total failure or some expensive repairs that could be more than the value of my truck. I’m very interested in what the government’s CAR Allowance Rebate System (formally known as Cash for Clunkers) could do.

Cars.gov has the requirements for the program:

• Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
• Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify
• Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
• Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in
• You don’t need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
• Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.
• The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

According to the fueleconomy.gov website, my 1997 Ford Ranger qualifies for the gas efficiently requirements because they say it gets an combined gas miles of 16 MPG.

I was surprised to see that the EPA says my truck gets such low gas milage. I can get at least 18 MPG in town and 22 MPG on the freeway. I was also surprised when I compared my 1997 model with a 2009 Ford Ranger that the 2009 model gets 1 MPG less.

If I were to replace my vehicle under the CARS program, I wouldn’t replace it with a super fuel efficient vehicle. I would need to replace it with another truck (yes I do actually use my truck as a truck and utility vehicle). This doesn’t help me very much because nearly every new truck gets nearly the same gas mileage as mine. I compared my truck to a variety of similar trucks. I could find two that met the mileage requirements and only one actually qualified.

The 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 15 Hybrid 4 wheel drive qualifies on the gas miles requirements as it gets 20 MPG. But for some reason it is a Category 2 or Category 3 truck and I cannot trade in my truck for own of those. I don’t know what they category requirements are but seems kind of silly on the surface.

The second possibility is the 2009 Toyota Tacoma 4 wheel drive. It barely gets 2 MPG more than my current truck netting me $3500 in rebate. Is it really worth it for me to trade in my perfectly good working truck for a new one?

Kelly Blue Book says it’s worth about $3000 in trade in value. CARS is not saving me much on the trade in. A new Toyota pickup will be about $26,000 leaving me for about $23,000. That runs just under $400 a month depending on financing.

I just don’t think it’s worth it to trade in a perfectly good pickup that may or may not have problems in the immediate future for a $400 a month payment.

This is Honda’s first attempt to make a truck. It’s called the Ridgline and is suppose to come out somewhere around March 2005. A friend of mine that recently bought a Honda Pilot pointed it out to me, knowing I will be in the market for a new truck in the next few years.

I kinda of like the look of it. To me, it’s no so ugly as the Aztek, though I know there are those that disagree. At least this thing is pretty consistantly boxy, where as the the designers of the Aztek tried to put every angle possible on it. Though still, you know what they say about beauty. The concept vehilcle show on their website is apparently not exactly what the real thing will look like. There’s been sightings that it has more “normal” looking headlights and not such strange tires.

What I’m really looking for in my next vehicle is innovation. Lets look at the specs on this thing:

• 3.5-liter V6 engine
• 5-speed automatic transmission
• Automatic 4-wheel drive system
• Anti-lock brake system
• Fully integrated, closed-box frame with unibody construction
• Half-ton payload capacity
• Five-foot bed with minimal wheel arch intrusion
• Five-passenger interior
• Side curtain airbags
• Vehicle Stability Assist

The specs compare pretty favorably to my current ride, a 1997 Ford Ranger. I do have a bigger engine but I suspect Honda has been able to get some more performance out of the 3.5L V6 that would compete pretty well to my 4.0L. My ranger has over 1/2 ton payload capacity (if my calculations are correct) but I’ve never come close to that. What amazes me the most is how little has changed in the specs of the ranger in the last 8 years. That is what I call a lack of innovation.

I like the auto 4×4 system, which is more like an automatic all wheel drive system. At least from what I’ve seen on my friends Pilot. It would sure beat this 4×4 system on my ‘97 Ranger, in which the motor, controlled by the electronic switch, has gone out twice (that’s about $500 a pop for repairs). What’s worse is you don’t find out that it’s out till your out i the middle of the snow. Not to mention the automatic system on the Honda doesn’t require unlocking the hubs.

The interior on it looks pretty nice too. I like the way they have eliminted the carpet. When I custom ordered my current truck I tried to order it without carpeting but the wouldn’t do it for my class of truck, only the low end gets that.

Another consideration I’ve had for my next vehicle is having 4 doors. The size of my Ranger is fine (I don’t need a F350 like half the people in this state do) but it turns out I want to haul people around a lot more than I suspected. Who knew?

The big disadvantage that purchasing this vehicle has over my current Ranger is price. My truck is paid for, and has been for about 4 years. I love not having to make a payment and I would expect to pay between $25,000 to $30,000 for the Ridgeline. That will be a pretty hefty payment, one I don’t look forward to paying.