By on January 14, 2018

2019 Ford Ranger, Image: Ford

After watching helplessly as competition from Toyota, General Motors, and Nissan ate its lunch in the midsize truck game, Ford has finally rolled out a new Ford Ranger. Last seen darkening dealer lots as a 2011 model, the old Ranger was put to rest after soldiering on for years with underpinnings dating back to the Jurassic era, or at least the Clinton administration.

No such concerns are on tap for the 2019 Ford Ranger, which deploys all the latest technology ranging, from a Terrain Management System to an off-road cruise control type system called Trail Control. Customer demand for trucks has never been higher, so the time is right for Ford to join the midsized pickup fray. The Ranger’s back, and we hear Sajeev is planning a party.

What most people want to know, naturally, is what’s under the hood. Ford reached into its corporate cupboard and hauled out a 2.3-liter EcoBoost inline-four that has been appropriately beefed up for truck duty. It has direct fuel injection, a twin-scroll turbocharger, chain-driven dual overhead cams and will be paired with a 10-speed automatic.

Other versions of this engine make around 300 horsepower when plugged into other machines in Ford’s stable. In the Mustang, it actually lays down 310 horses while the RS sees 350 horsepower from the same displacement. We’re confident Ford has sorted out the head gasket installation issue but if not, Bozi will likely be the first one to figure it out.

Conscious of only offering a four-banger in a segment where six-cylinders are readily available, Ford is quick to point out that the engine has a torque target on par with competing V6 engines. In the two applications mentioned above, the 2.3 EcoBoost makes 320 lb-ft and 350 lb-ft respectively. The 3.6-liter V6 found in The General’s mid-size twins makes 275 lb-ft of twist.

Three trim levels will be available at launch — base XL trim, a mid-level XLT, and fancy-pants Lariat. Chrome, Sport Appearance, and FX Off-Road packages will be available. There will be two cab configurations: SuperCab or SuperCrew.

Let’s talk about that FX4 Off-Road package. More than simply paint and wallpaper, the FX4 will have a Terrain Management System similar to what’s found on the F-150 Raptor. There are four distinct drive modes: normal, gravel and snow, mud and ruts, and sand. The system is able to shift on the fly to automatically change throttle responsiveness, transmission gearing, and vehicle controls. This will tailor traction, driveability, and performance to different terrain and weather conditions.

The off-road toys don’t stop there on the FX4, as it also introduces Ford’s new Trail Control technology. Like cruise control for the highway but designed for low-speed and rugged terrain, Trail Control takes over acceleration and braking by sending power and braking to each individual wheel, allowing the driver to focus on the task of steering. Ford says it can be set anywhere between 1 mph and 20 mph. Power is distributed through Dana Trac-Lok differentials with an available electronic-locking rear diff (standard on in the FX4 package).

Inside, former Ranger owners will think they’ve transported to another dimension, with the old truck’s phone-booth inspired styling wholly purged from the pickup. A center stack features an 8-inch touch screen for the available SYNC 3 system, which will deploy Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Facing the driver is an instrument cluster packed with dual LCD productivity screens for real-time vehicle, navigation, and audio information. That’s a long way from the poverty-spec Rangers of old.

A full suite of on-road driver aids will be available, including lane keeping and automatic emergency braking. USB and AC outlets will pepper the interior on certain trims while an available B&O PLAY premium audio is specially tuned for the Ranger’s cab.

The Ranger’s power dome hood and raked grille shows off an athletic profile, with short overhangs surely contributing to good approach and departure angles. The Ranger name is hammered into the tailgate and a frame mounted steel bumper allows for a trick integrated trailer hitch receiver. That tailgate (and the hood) will be aluminum, by the way.

American interest in this segment have risen steadily in the last three years, as most players recorded higher sales and those who didn’t were largely flat. The Tacoma leads the way with nearly 200,000 units sold. The relentless march of full-size truck prices surely drives demand for smaller trucks, as does the desire to not drive a Dreadnought-class pickup in urban areas. Production begins late this year at Ford’s Michigan Assembly Plant.

TTAC will have plenty of boots on the ground at NAIAS to bring you more pictures and details from the show floor.

[Images: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

120 Comments on “Power Ranger: Ford (Re)Introduces Its Midsize Pickup...”


  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    2.3 EB? I hope the Raptorised version gets a 2.7EB. Or, will Ford use the tweaked 2.3EB in the Ranger Raptor?

    • 0 avatar
      tnk479

      I couldn’t care less about the “Raptor” version. High speed off road? No thanks. I would bet that 98% of Raptor buyers never use it that way and buy it because it looks cool (and it does).

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Zekas

      Truck means durable. If they haven’t fixed the head gasket issues, nothing else matters (remember the Ford vans with the exploding V-10 motors? No? Lucky you). As Porsche owners learned with the IMS debacle, some companies won’t fix problems, especially when a car or truck is out of warranty.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    What about a Diesel engine? If a 4 banger is my only choice then I’d be inclined to wear a bow tie.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Lou,
      I believe a 2 litre diesel will be offered in the initial Ranger Raptor rollout, followed by the EB version coinciding with the US Ranger rollout.

      This is not looking promising.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @Big Al – Ranger Raptor would be sick with the current Raptor drivetrain. The F150 Raptor should get a version of the new GT500 engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Lou,
      I read from a good source that an Aussie Raptor Ranger is running around with a 3.5EB in it.

      I’d rather a 2.7EB over even the performance 2.3EB.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      They should bring back the Lightning.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      “The F150 Raptor should get a version of the new GT500 engine.”

      This X 100, especially at the prices the new Raptors are starting at up here. As much as I want to replace my ’12 Raptor with a new one, and the new one is nice, I can’t get behind the 3.5 TT in it.

      OTOH, this new Ranger is a good looking truck, I’d never consider one but it looks great.

  • avatar
    dusterdude

    Wow, I’m not usually a pickup guy, but he new Ranger looks good! ( at least in pictures) ..

  • avatar
    raph

    I dig it and would probably look into this if I were in the market for a truck.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “Ford reached into its corporate cupboard and hauled out a 2.3-liter EcoBoost inline-four that has been appropriately beefed up for truck duty.”

    Sad!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Agreed.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      Why, it’s estimated to make 75 ft-lbs more torque than the GM V6 in the Colorado. It’s powerful and efficient.

      The Ranger Raptor is expected to get the 2.7L, which makes 325hp/400 ft-lbs torque in the F150, not sure what the Ranger Raptor will make. But’s its probably too powerful a motor for lesser Rangers to have.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        SD328l,
        I’m hoping for the 3.5EB in the Ranger Raptor. But judging how these are being rolled out it seems the 2.3EB might be the engine.

        …………………………………..

        (If you are listening Ford get your engine choices correct in Australia. You ain’t got a V8 ute anymore. So a grunty Ranger is needed.)

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The Holden designed GM 3.6 DOHC is not intended for or suited for truck duty. That’s what GM really thinks of its so called small truck customers.

        Oh so you want that 4.3L LV3 V6? Sorry going to have to step into a Silverado sir. But please take this booby prize 3.6L for you 9/10ths of a Silverado for more money.

        Pricks.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          28 Cars,
          Many pickup engines are not “truck” engines. The Coyote? Or most V8s.

          As you call them “truck” engines are really car engines with a different tune.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    My S-10 was small. This small truck is larger than a Clinton Era “Jelly Bean” F-150. The headlights are a tad Toyotaesque but overall not a bad looking truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Um. No! I posted the specs for a GMT400 and a 2017 Silverado along with a Colorado on another thread. Why does that fallacy continue?

      • 0 avatar
        gmichaelj

        I think my favorite size (on the outside) for this segment is the out-dated Frontier. The 2WD version looks especially well suited for loading and unloading.

        Overall, I think the Ranger’s appearance is good. The engine choice surprises me in that I thought they’d have thrown in the NA V-6 and maybe an NA I-4 for the pest control / pool cleaner / parts delivery guys. Glad to hear it will have 10 speed transmission.

        Wonder what the base price on an XL Super Cab will be.

        • 0 avatar
          gmichaelj

          Oh well, looks like an affordable Ranger is not in the cards (from Motor Trend):

          “Ford now sees the Ranger buyer as different from the F-150 buyer. The Ranger owner is an urban dweller who drives his truck to work—not for work—and uses it to play on the weekend with his toys in the bed in back. It is not about affordability but more about size, scale, and fuel efficiency, says Eckert. Nor is it about chasing the competition.”

          So its a Urban Cowboy Poser Pickup.

          Why can’t I bold or underline – is this not a feature on this site?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            gmichaelj,
            So is your average half ton buyer.

            I wonder how many non turbo V6 half ton buyers will turn to the Ranger?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Lou,
        These are at least 6″ narrower inside. From a rear seat perspective, the neeest ones offer a little less than the back of a Ram.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      This Ranger does look pretty big – agreed.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I like the looks, as far as it goes. That’s saying a lot for me because I really don’t like Fords. The problem is that I can guarantee it’s going to be too big on the outside and very probably not big enough on the inside… Nissan, Honda and Toyota all have a problem with not enough driver leg room, something the C-twins finally got right last year.

    I have no problem with the 2.3Turbo, though it’s going to be hard to stay out of that turbo on normal driving, which means it’s going to be hot EVERY time you drive and you do, still, need to cool it down with about a minute’s worth of idle speed before shut down; I see too many people just kill the engine as soon as they hit their driveway and I’ve watched more than one destroy their turbo as a result (especially bad when one of them claims to be a mechanic and couldn’t understand why his turbo died in his new (to him) Ford truck.)

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Vulpine,
      I have the Mazda BT50 which is a Ranger dressed in drag. I’m 6’1″ and there is room for a person 6’6″ to fit.

      I’m amazed you are worried about this issue when you expect a crew cab Fiat 500.

      Do you think your miniature ute is a Tardis?

      • 0 avatar
        arach

        I’m 6’9″ and I can’t fit in a Chevy Silverado standard cab… certainly not an S10 or late ranger.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          You sure about that? I’ve seen some tiny cars fit some very tall people. If that Silverado isn’t big enough for you inside, it’s because they’ve crowded it with too much bling and forgotten that not everybody is the same size. I’d bet you could fit inside a Fiat 500 with ease and still have head room and leg room left over.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      340k on the Turbo installed at the factory on my dad’s Ford. No cooling down procedure has ever been followed.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I find that hard to believe, since even on late-model turbo vehicles, the manual says to give it a short time of cool down… like 30 seconds or so at idle. Even older turbo manuals recommended no less than a full minute at idle. I will acknowledge that design changes may make that cooling more efficient but going from hot to off usually isn’t good for the bearings, if nothing else.

        What kind of bearings do modern turbos use? What kind of lubricant? Yes, I’ll acknowledge improvements but I find a rig with as many miles as you claim… difficult… to believe. It may simply be that you don’t see what he does as any kind of ‘special procedure.’ Your dad may have gotten the routine down to where switching off is the last thing he does before getting out.

  • avatar

    Looks better then the GM twins (week maybe equal to the ZR2 version). I think the front end is better then the Taco but the Taco is overall better proportioned. Despite being dated the frontier is still the cleanest design of the bunch.

  • avatar
    eiafuawn

    My problem with the mid size truck segment, which I consider myself a fan of, is this: you go in wanting to buy the mid size, and leave the dealership realizing that you can have a comparable full size for thousands less.

    Sure that Ranger FX4 looks pretty nice, but after realizing that the crew cab XLT F-150 is actually LESS than it, how many people who choose to buy it? I really want to buy a Colorado Z71 here in Toronto given its size advntage and moderate fuel economy savings, but I can easily get a Ram or F-150 crew for thousands less with far better towing and comfort advantages.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      For some people, Less is More. Sure, you can buy full size for relatively cheap but can you do the same things with a full size that you can with a small truck? Can it go to all the same places without worrying about tight quarters? Do you really want something so big you can’t even fit it in your garage… or in your driveway in some cases? What about on-street parking, where it proves its massive size by hanging out three feet into the driving lanes with the front tire against the curb? Or will you back in and totally block the sidewalk?

      Sure, economically speaking, there may be an advantage… if you aren’t in the least concerned about overall size. But if you have ANY concerns about size, then full sized is simply too large and now mid sized has gone the same way. Quite literally, pickup trucks need to lose three feet of overall length and they could comfortably lose one foot of overall width for 99% of owners. And by no means do they need to be six feet tall or taller unless they’re specifically rigged for off-road (I don’t mean soft road or logging trail) running.

  • avatar
    gespo04

    Looks good to me! My only complaint is that it sounds like there is no single cab configuration. This is a shame, since I don’t think any of the other mid-sizers offer that anymore. Toyota used to, but discontinued it after it’s last refresh of the Tacoma. Does Nissan offer single cab?

  • avatar
    Jeff Weimer

    Clinton Administration?

    Try *Reagan* Administration (1983). The 1993 “redesign” was more than a refresh, but far less than clean-sheet – many major parts (interior, engine/transmission) carried over.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      The cab and frame where heavily updated in 1998, and I do believe old Bill was still in office.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        The big shift for ’98 IMO was moving away from the stupendously durable but crude riding and somewhat hard-to-keep-aligned Twin-I-Beam/ twin-traction beam (4wd) front end to the short-long arm independent front end first seen in the ’95 Explorer. The F150 switched to this in ’97. These are nicer handling/riding but prone to prematurely wearing ball joints. Even so, they are still quite resilient. The typical scene in rural Mexico when I was there for work was seeing a dusty and dented 2nd gen Explorer bouncing down a cobblestone road, with like 3 degrees of negative camber on the front end indicating a totally shot front end. But they can stay driving like that for years it seems. Conversely something like a gen 1 Toyota IFS which will stay nice and tight quiet and aligned for 150k, but then the lower balljoint lets go suddenly while driving in dramatic fashion lol. Pick your poison I guess. Notably, the old pre-SLA rangers are popular with the pre-runner crowd out West. Apparently they are excellent for modifying for long travel and taking massive stress from repeated jumps.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I like the way it looks but 4 cyl only?

    The should have at least offered the naturally aspirated V6 even as a base engine just to see what the take rate is. I know that the full size Ford buyers have embraced the EcoBoost 6 in the F150 but 4 cyl turbo only Ranger just seems like a bridge too far.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      I was surprised at the lack of powertrain options as well. I’m not expecting to see a manual transmission (sadly), but I thought for sure there’d be a NA motor there, the current F150 3.3L V6 to be exact.

      That aside, I think it looks great, much better proportions than the Colorado. So no aluminum body this gen then, I’m curious how the curb weight compares to the Tacoma/Colorado/Frontier. I guess in a perfect world the bedsides wouldn’t be as deep, but that’s just where we’re at these days.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      I’m sure we’ll see other engine options. However with the current need for power, we won’t see a true entry level option like a 200hp 2.5L. It’d be a perfect motor for those looking at a truly basic truck.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Perhaps Ford is going to stick with the 4 cylinder as a way to manage costs, similar to how Hyundai abandoned the 6 cylinder in the Sonata starting in 2011.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Damn handsome truck. Tacoma, eat your heart out. If this were available when I purchased the 4Runner last year I would have given it serious consideration whereas the Tacoma received none.

    Curious as to how the 2.3 performs in this application and what an FX4 model will ring in at.

  • avatar
    Dan

    The shrew lost, the economy is booming, fracking gas will be cheap until the end of time, and they went and ruined it with a freaking 4 cylinder anyway?

  • avatar
    jeanbaptiste

    Finally! My wifes 2001 Sport Trac is starting to show it’s age and it’s past due for replacement. While I tried my darndest to get her into a f150 (which are screaming deals btw) she is only comfortable in something this size.

    I’m not unhappy about the 2.3, at least it’ll have power. I was hoping for something that would be as simple as the 4.0 that has served us well but perhaps the torque/hp/10-speed will win her over.

    Now I just have to wait for Job 2 and for incentives to hit.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      This is quite a bit bigger than a 2001 Sport Trac.

      • 0 avatar
        Adam Tonge

        It’s almost exactly the same size as the 2nd gen SportTrac and not that much bigger than the first generation.

        Wheelbase: SportTrac – 130..5 in / Ranger -127.0 in
        Length: SportTrac – 210.2 in / Ranger – 211.0 in
        Width: SportTrac – 73.7 in / Ranger – 72.8 in
        Height: SportTrac – 71.6 in / Ranger – 71.5 in

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Yeah, but compare that size to the first-generation Ranger.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            And the first gen was a midsize? Nope. Apples to oranges. The question here was its size compared to Ford’s last midsize 4 door truck, with EcoBoostFlex ringing in with misinformation as usual.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            I wouldn’t do that because this is much bigger than the first generation Ranger.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            The first-generation Ranger was classed as “mid-sized”, as it was larger, notably larger, than the Courier before it (if you don’t count the f-100 Ranger trim.)

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Nope. First gen Ranger was compact. If you wanted a midsized truck back in the day you got a Dakota.

        • 0 avatar
          jeanbaptiste

          Thanks for that comparison. Definitely a truck that can fit in a garage AND carry 4 people in reasonable comfort.

          Where did you find the specs of the new ranger? I’m curious about the weight.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            I’m using the T6 Global Ranger crew cab measurements. I don’t expect the US version to have much of a change in dimensions.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I wouldn’t bet on those dimensions, Adam; Ford clearly stated they designed the American Ranger for their perceived (but not actual) Ranger market. It WILL be bigger than the Global model, almost certainly. Look how much the Colorado grew from its Global version.

          • 0 avatar

            Lol, if you’ve seen the photos of the Euro Ranger I’ve put here previously (which is even the same COLOR as this American one), you’d know they’ll be exactly the same size.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Show us the numbers, Corey. US version vs Euro version.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            It will be the same size. There are frame changes and the body panels are the same. The biggest changes are the grille, unique engine/transmission, the interior, and better fit & finish/panel gaps.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Kinda pointless. And it’s clear Ford doesn’t really take the Ranger return seriously.

    A 9/10ths truck that will not get much better fuel economy that the F-150, will be too expensive (fully loaded lariat should be no more than $35K), etc.

    And only offering the problematic and thirsty 2.3L EgoBust? The one thing Ford got right was the 10-speed that they co-developed with GM.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    Ford sells more Fusions than Toyota. So why are they cancelling the Fusion? Assume they sell 100k, is Ford still making more profit than selling twice as many Fusions?

    It seems like a mistake to me to walk away from the Fusion.

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      “Ford sells more Fusions than Toyota. So why are they cancelling the Fusion? Assume they sell 100k, is Ford still making more profit than selling twice as many Fusions?

      It seems like a mistake to me to walk away from the Fusion.”

      This gets the award for non-sequitur of the day.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      It would be a mistake to say that the Fusion outsells the equivalent Toyota, it doesn’t. But, then again, you’ve stated in the past that all Cadillac cars are rebadged Opels, so…

  • avatar
    deanst

    I’ll probably never buy another Ford, or a pickup, but this thing has some appeal. Of course, it needs a diesel and a manual…….

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Again, just a pickup. Nothing interesting, not in cabin, not in rear

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      There’s a large contingent of American buyers who do not need, or cannot afford, to buy a full-size F150. Some HOA restrict pickup truck parking.

      I know one guy who still runs around in a Chevy LUV. It’s what he needs.

      Another guy I know took an old VW Bug, chopped away everything behind the doors, manufactured a flatbed in its place, and uses that has his little pick-me-up.

      Different strokes for different folks.

      So I think it is appropriate to have Ford come out with this midsizer, like GM came out with their midsizer. Why leave the whole market to the best-selling Tacoma?

      Now all we need is for Fiatsler to bring back the Dakota, with a V8.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Why leave an entire market segment untouched? Even you admit you know someone still driving a Chevy LUV… If you go to Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and probably any part of the mid- to deep South, you’ll find so many aging, truly SMALL pickups still on the road it’s ridiculous! Why have the OEMs abandoned a remarkably lucrative market? People are making these old trucks last as long as they can because there is NO suitable replacement on the market.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Vulpine, I’m all about CHOICE. As in “The More, The Merrier.”

          But the OEMs ultimately abandoned this midsize market because they could not beat Tacoma in sales.

          IOW, it was not profitable for the OEMs to continue to offer a midsize pickup truck.

          My BFF still drives a ’93 S-10 Tahoe ExtCab 4.3L, considered a SMALL pickup.

          But if you look at today’s Tacoma and GM offerings, small they’re not. They are bigger than my first 1962 IHS 4-door flightline truck I bought used.

          And neither will this new Ford be small.

          I’d like to see Dakota with a V8 make a comeback. Now that would be another choice. If the Demon sells, and the SRT versions, why not a V8 midsizer with a 340 or 318 cubic incher.

          They’d sell. Like hotcakes.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            How ’bout just bringing in the Chevy Tornado, the Ram 700, heck, even the Fiat Strada?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Fiatsler has been known to do unorthodox power train installations like the SRT 300 5.7, the Durango SRT 5.7, the Demon and that scary SRT8 Grand Cherokee.

            So why not a Dakota with a beefy V8?

            They’d sell everyone they’d make. And sell ‘m at a premium. Just like the ones I mentioned above.

            But since we’re at this juncture, how about a RAM SRT8 with that beefy 6.4L normally aspirated monstrosity?

            I would consider it, in addition to another Tundra 5.7.

        • 0 avatar
          mzr

          Or perhaps they’re poor and that is all they can afford? What makes you think that these people would drop what they have and run and buy a new vehicle if those darn car companies would just produce what they want?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Any excuse to say nobody wants ’em, eh?

            You do realize these are mostly clean trucks I’m describing in the South. My own was a one-owner truck with extremely low mileage and it’s a near-perfect size for me, though I wish it had the extended cab.

            I don’t have to climb up to get in, I can reach over the sides to access nearly anything in the bed and I don’t have to lift boxes or whatever up to chest level to load anything through the tailgate. I can even see over the roof while standing flat-footed on the ground. It is a convenient size for me. And I am by no means alone with hoping for a brand-new truck at approximately the same size or smaller. I simply don’t need nor want anything physically larger.

            People complain that I’m trying to take choice away from them by demanding smaller trucks but in reality the choice has already been taken away from me by the OEMs going to these bloated Road Whales™!

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Never in the History of the Ranger did engine choices overlap with the F150. I do think it will happen with the mini Raptor and the Bronco though.

    I’m on the fence here. Obviously they are trying to carve out a niche for the truck that doesn’t encroach on F150 sales. That makes sense. Looks like more of a “lifestyle” truck vs the Orkin Man trims of the old Ranger. The Bronco will be key to making this work.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    4-cylinder only, not sure how that will go over. No regular cab configuration, not a huge demand but kills most fleet opportunities (the good fleet, not the bad rental vehicle fleet) and yes I’m aware Toyota killed a regular cab configuration. Beautiful truck, love the lines.

    TTAC readers are educated, the average buyer out there is a dullard on technology, and you know it. I really have to wonder if the 2.3 under the hood will be an immediate turn off for the, errrr, “less educated,” who will immediately connect it to the 2.3L of yore (not that they will think it is the same engine, but think it must be based on the same engine because 2.3 and 2.3 and 2.3). Remember, most still think the 2.3 turbo in the T-Bird, Mustang, and Merkur is the same engine as the 2.3 under the hood of the Ford Tempo, and the 2.3L NA found in secretary spec Mustangs of yore.

    Face it, car buyers are generally speaking, really stupid.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I’d like to see Ford bring back their old inline-6 truck engines of the nineteen sixties, with all the improvements of 2018, like fuel injection, DOHC, 4-valves per cylinder, maybe even 2-spark plugs per cylinder.

      Long stroke, hi-torque, stump-pulling Ford truck engines.

      Even a Tacoma is better with a V6 than a four-banger.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        How much engine does a truck need?

        I have to say that my 4-cylinder/manual Tacoma doesn’t need any more engine. Even when towing 2500 pounds up the Eatern Seaboard, I had all the engine I needed.

        But, to quote Bob Dylan:

        “She knows what you need, but I know what you want”.

        8 lead payments to go on my Taco lease, I’m very interested in the new Ranger…

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          You’re 4-banger Tacoma pulling a 2500 pound trailer would be VERY unhappy in the Rocky Mountain states, or the west coast under the same conditions.

          I wouldn’t make it a habit to lug a trailer over our mountain passes in a 4-banger anything. It might do it fine, but I’m definitely shortening the life.

          Eastern seaboard duty isn’t all that hard unless you’re out in the Blue Ridge, Smokeys, or going up the side of Mount Washington in New Hampshire.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            You’d never get out of second or third gear at altitude, and there is a good chance that the auto-tranny would overheat unless you have a separate auxiliary cooler for the transmission.

            My grandson drove his dad’s old 4-cyl Tacoma in the Camp Pendleton area for many years and at sea-level his mpg and FE was atrocious, especially with a Jetski in the Bed or hauling gear for fellow Marines.

            No such complaints or worries since he bought my 2016 Tundra.

            And surprisingly enough, he has sent me $500 a month regular as clockwork to pay for it.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          “How much engine does a truck need?”

          I’m not sure but would you sign on for an underpowered 1/2 ton? Don’t answer that!

          No, it’s the lack of V8 power/punch that kills the segment, and you’d think there would be some kind of savings at the pump for all your suffering but no.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Ha ha! Brings to mind when Federico, my construction foreman, in the nineties bought a new Chevy CrewCab Long Bed V6 in El Paso, TX.

            Yup, they actually made them like that back then. All standard equipment. Aside from AC there were no other options.

            The first time he tried to go up US82 with five fat illegal-alien laborers and a bed full of construction stuff to a jobsite near Cloudcroft, NM, he never got out of second gear going up the mountain.

            It didn’t take long for him to trade that dog in for something with a substantial V8 engine, like a 1-ton 3500 Duallie.

            Still drives that beat up old critter to this day. Awful mpg. And nobody cares.

    • 0 avatar
      jeanbaptiste

      I have to wonder if the people that are buying new trucks now even remember what engine ford had in their new cars 35 years ago. I would bet not. Sure, automotive journalists will keep trying to remind you that there was a 2.3 turbo before but i bet 95% of new vehicle buyers either weren’t alive then, don’t remember, or are smart enough to know that it’s not the same thing.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      The displacement of 2.3L makes me think of the 2.3 HSC, and I don’t fall into the category you alluded too. I have no doubt people at Ford raised the same concern, changing it would have been wise. Its not as if it wouldn’t have been the first time a displacement wasn’t 100% accurate (302 being 4.9L and all).

      I also believe the motor choice and cab limitation are one of those “can’t threaten F-150” things. Ford has learned nothing from GM and its Corvette policies.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Does Ford put displacement badges on anything these days? I don’t think they consider selling 2.7 liter and 3.5 liter trucks to be worthy of fender and tailgate callouts.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    8 years of engineering to go from 2011 Australian T6 Ranger to 2019 USA T6 Ranger. They look nearly identical. Same hardpoints. Different bumpers. Different engine. Modified frame.

    Well, better to have this Ranger than nothing.

    Please bring regular cab long bed model to serve fleet needs and the few truck buyers that still need a basic pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I mentioned that above about regular cab trucks. Toyota also walked away from the regular cab Tacoma for fleet duty.

      I believe Nissan and GM are the only game in town for that class of vehicle. The sales are relatively small which is likely why they aren’t making the offering, and they likely prefer you to buy an XL trim F-150 instead.

      There is nothing small, compact, or midsize about any of these trucks (Ranger, Tacoma, Colorado, Canyon). The ancient Frontier is likely the only thing close to what most think of a midsizer.

  • avatar
    Mickiemac1

    The 2019 USA Ranger is almost a carbon copy of the Aussie model. I referenced the following:
    http://www.caradvice.com.au/601051/2018-ford-ranger-xlt-review/

    The only difference might be some trim/features – other than that it sure looks the same. I am interested in one of these as my 2014 F-150 KR is a bit bulky at times. It is a super nice truck but if the 2019 Ranger ‘Lariat’ model has enough luxury features I would seriously consider swapping the KR for a Lariat.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    This looks like the return of the Ford Explorer Sport Trac. The Ranger may sit a little higher, but I’m otherwise not seeing much of a difference in form.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    Bah. Too many doors. No bench seat. No manual. Box is too small. Box bed is too high off the ground. Don’t need AWD. Don’t need bells and whistles. This will never work for bulk delivery, light hauling, or a lawn care business. Chances are, it’ll cost 8-10 grand more than the old Ranger. It’s… it’s just a fancy-schmancy commuter vehicle!

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed on the bed height – it’s ridiculous.

      The old Dodge/Mitsubishi D-50 was the truck you’re describing. Good work height, manual, great for light duty hauling.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        There’s a very clean rust free ’90 Mitsu Mighty Max for sale up near Ft Wayne Indiana on facebook, 103k miles, stick shift, a refurbished barn find that the seller went as far as buffing/polishing the paint on. Looks mighty tempting at the $2500 asking price to be honest. Reading all of these recent pickup threads and starting to already think of gardening season while I sit cooped up has got me craving a truck, the “usable” old kind.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        The Mitsubishi Sport was the truck I had (Mighty Max was their base version with 4WD). Make that an extended cab (even if it did lose a foot or so of bed) and it’d be almost a perfect size.

  • avatar
    spookiness

    Sigh. I know the ship has sailed, but it needs 2 less doors, more bed length, and needs to be scaled down in size about 15/100ths.

  • avatar
    ajla

    A lot of people in this comment section should go check out the current Frontier before it’s gone.

  • avatar

    So likes I been sayin’, this one is exactly the same as the European/world Ranger. Shock and awe!

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/01/qotd-do-you-think-ford-ruin-new-bronco/

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    No V6 is a deal killer.

    Looks great from the back. Looks OK from the side. From the front, below average.

    I could live with the looks if a V6 ( no turbo ) was under the hood.

  • avatar
    doug-g

    Looks like the new RAM from the front.

  • avatar

    Looks really good. One thing I never understood is why American cars have so much darn chrome!

  • avatar

    Price?

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    Nice addition to the Ford line up. However, I don’t think a refreshed T6 bodes well for the companion Bronco being more than a refreshed Everest.

  • avatar
    donk1

    Unfortunately, the US won’t be getting the 147kw 470nm 5 pot 3.2 TD version or Ford Connectivity services that we get in Oz. The US market is predominately heavily geared for Petrol/turbo petrol engines, whereas we are heavily skewed for diesel. The diesels a ripper, with 9l/100km or under fuel economy. So out of an 80litre tank means around a 900 km touring range. Pretty good for a near 2tonne Ute.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      The diesel is supposed to be added to the line up later on. There is a US emissions spec unit available in the Transit. Remember GM didn’t launch the diesel version of its twins until a few months after the gas engine trucks were available.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        I’m more interested in the the oil burner, but as is this new Ranger has more HP and TQ then my ’02 Dakota 4.7l V8 (230 HP / 295 TQ) so it would handling my towing needs. Just seems/looks about 10% too big but haven’t checked all the dimensions.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Additionally this engine in the Mustang tune makes about the same Tq and about 50% more HP. Now in most case Ford’s truck version of an engine usually shifts the tuning to increase the peak torque and/or lower the point where that occurs at the sacrifice of a little of the Peak HP.

  • avatar

    Remember when Ford dropped the Ranger and part of their study was that folks who needed a cheap truck would just buy a stripped F150 or Transit Connect and folks who were buying it just as a cheap vehicle could pick up a Fiesta? Well I’m literally that buyer. I have a nice as I want it ’15 Fiesta Hatch S (crank windows, manual transmission). I really enjoy the car actually even though I’m 6′ and not as skinny as I used to be. I’ve been waiting to see what this Ranger would offer as a replacement. I do live on a farm, so a small truck would be helpful (thousands of pounds of chicken feed have been hauled in my Fiesta… only a few hundred at a time). My income job puts me on the road plenty. Still, I’m not seeing much of a base cheap truck option here… So when it comes time to replace the Fiesta… if I stick with blue oval (which I’d like to), I’m up to the F150. Bigger than I’d like for daily use… but maybe I’ll be making more money by then. The Transit Connect really doesn’t offer a better value for the dollar over the F150 and the wagon versions aren’t even close to cheap. IDK…. for me, Ranger seems to miss the mark. Not that Ford makes much money off me when I buy these cheap cars, but it mattered enough for an official comment when then dropped the Ranger and replaced with the Fiesta/F150/Transit Connect options. I know nobody cares about my personal story, but it goes with past Ford statements on the topic.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: This, eventually (theoretically) battery cost will settle at a affordable price for acceptable range. At that...
  • dougjp: A waste of time and talent. Instead after all these years has anyone listened while countless upscale...
  • Hummer: “Here in BC, my F350 insurance alone was 1900/yr. And that was with a full 43 % safe old fart discount.”...
  • trackratmk1: Assuming for a moment that widespread electrification comes to pass, what are the differentiators going...
  • jacob_coulter: Less taxes are not the same thing as a handout.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States