By on March 28, 2018

ranger base

Look at the truck shown above. Blacked-out grille and bumpers, old-school phone dial steel wheels of a reasonable size, and an honest, hardworking cleat system on the outside of the bed. I’d drive it and I’m pretty sure you would, too. Raise your hand if I’m correct.

Hear that Ford? Approximately 100 percent of the American public TTAC readers would sign the note on a base model Ranger. The SuperCrews you showed us in January were a good start, now stop teasing us with overseas mini-Raptors and please whip up a base model.

Keeping with Ford’s naming tradition, I’m dubbing this the Ranger XL.

The truck you see here is Thailand-spec, one which is physically in the ballpark of what we’ll get in this country when the Ranger appears later this year, perhaps around Thanksgiving. In January, the company showed us XLT and Lariat trims jazzed up with an FX4 package.

Prices for the base Ranger start at 559,000 of the finest Thai Bhats, equalling approximately $17,900 American dollars at today’s exchange rate. That’s squarely in the wheelhouse of other base model midsizers already on sale in these parts, such at the Colorado. If Ford can translate the Ranger’s Monroney as well as we hope it translate its styling, it’s gonna give the establishment a run for its money.

Air conditioning and a barrel of places in which to charge devices are standard in the base Ranger, as is Bluetooth connectivity. Sticky vinyl covers the bench seat. When the truck reaches our shores, it’ll likely include other features like a backup camera and cloth buckets. I also spy a sliding rear window.

It’s best to ignore the engine choices offered overseas, as those two diesel engines will likely be lost in translation. Ford’s already confirmed the 2.3-liter EcoBoost; the F-150’s 2.7-liter V6 would be wonderful.

The chances of a standard cab as shown here is slim, as OEMs ‘round these parts would much rather hawk higher-margin SuperCrews loaded to the gills with options. Can’t hurt to dream, though, and it is my opinion that there is more of a market for stripped-out base trucks than manufacturers might think.

Witness the proliferation of little kei trucks being used by hardworking farm hands who don’t necessarily need to fire up the Super Duty every time they go to town, for example. These regular cab base trucks might be low-margin, but I maintain there is some demand. Will we ever see one again? Probably not.

ranger flatbed

And if all that’s not good enough for ya, check out the base model flatbed. It costs about $500 more than the base Ranger, bins the audio system, and adds rear disc brakes. The suspension is fundamentally different, too, trading ox-cart leaf springs for coils and a Watt’s linkage.

An educated guess puts the new Ranger in American showrooms around the time we’re carving turkey for this year’s Thanksgiving dinner. History (and my stint at a Ford store 15 years ago) teaches me dealers will start taking orders about three months prior to that date.

Will there be an Ace of Base model? We can only hope.

[Images: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

116 Comments on “Ace of Base: 2019 Ford Ranger XL 4×2...”


  • avatar
    dividebytube

    Ah, the cleat system. My “first” vehicle, well it was my mom’s, 1984 Nissan truck had these. Very useful for tying things down in the bed, usually with some cheap-o clothesline.

    I miss that truck, even though it rusted easily and liked to drop mufflers like they were free.

  • avatar
    NoID

    I would still rather buy a crew cab Fiat Fullback or Toro with a Ram pasted onto the hood. Bonus if they sell it in some kind of obscene MOPAR colors.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    I like the styling, not overwrought or too angry.

  • avatar
    threeer

    There may be *some* demand, but not likely enough here in the US to seriously consider offering such a low-content small(ish) truck. We just like ’em bigger and blingier here.

    • 0 avatar
      Ko1

      You’re right. I can name three customers who went with the four cylinder extended cab GMC Canyon and only one of those is the absolute stripped out base model with a manual trans. Everyone else wants the crew cab 4×4 with either the V6 or the BabyMax.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I didn’t go for the Colorado because of what they did inside… plus making it much too large.
        I wanted to… Believe me I wanted to. But they destroyed the two things I really wanted in a “smaller” truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Well, we do know that Ford will offer a version of the Ranger that’s called the XL. But it seems we’ll have to take it with an extended cab at the very least. We’ll have to see how that works out. When I see Chevy Colorados driving around with extended cabs, they just look odd – proportionately all wrong.

      I agree with Matthew. I think there’s a bigger demand for a base version of this truck than many believe. If nothing else, certain trades don’t require full-sized trucks and companies aren’t going to buy optioned-up Rangers for their fleets.

      And I’m with Vulpine. I almost bought a Colorado but pulled back for the same reasons. I want a basic, honest compact truck.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        CAFE 2025 and California CARB are going to dictate the cab configuration and footprint of these things much more than consumer preferences.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Please explain your reasoning, and remember, the footprint of a regular cab midsize Ranger with a 7.5′ bed is identical to a SuperCab/6′ or SuperCrew/5′.

          • 0 avatar
            TwoBelugas

            Um, perhaps it’s because supercabs and crewcabs have more margin on them than regular cabs, so the larger cabs make more sense to the manufacturer if they have to pay the same penalty, regardless of what the fleet and small business buyers want?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yes any losses from base stripper RCSB fullsizers can be easily absorbed/subsidized by their luxo “big brothers”.

            Midsizers clearly don’t have that “luxury”. But I think there is an argument to be made (to CAFE/CARB). They obviously don’t understand the physics involved here.

            A shorter wheelbase on a pickup, doesn’t translate to better fuel economy, vs its longer pickup versions.

            All other things equal, wind resistance is a huge factor for the segment, negatively impacting fuel economy of all wheelbases about the same.

            In fact the shorter wheelbases likely produce more turbulence. Why base fuel economy standards on how much sun they block?

            A smaller engine for smaller trucks seems to have an even greater “negative effect” on fuel economy when it comes to pickups, as we’ve seen with midsize pickups, hence the demise of RCSBs in the class.

  • avatar
    brettc

    Very nice. This is the natural progression of the old Ranger to new. Not too flashy or expensive.

    It would be great for fleets and cheap people if they actually did offer it in ace of base form with steel wheels and hose-out interior. We’ll see if they actually do offer it in a non-tarted up trim.

  • avatar
    notwhoithink

    I like it. Give me an inexpensive base model Ranger with an 8 foot+ bed and you’ve got a sale.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Unless you’re counting the Ranger trim level on the F-Series, there’s never been a Ranger with a bed longer than about 7’3″. And 8’+? With all due respect, that would be an insane (and inane) expectation even on a full-size truck. You’d need to get a ’60s one-ton with a nine-foot bed or a Chevy Longhorn for something like that.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      notwhoithink,
      You buy a trayback ute. This gives you a bed thats a lot more usable than a normal bed.

      Even in this size vehicle, more usable space than a full size.

  • avatar
    d4rksabre

    Are there really plans for these to come with a front bench and column shift?

    Because that would get me very interested.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      What was the last smaller-than-full-size truck to come with a 3-person bench that could fit all 3 comfortably? That may help answer your question. There is physically not enough width inside a midsize cab for more than two across comfortably in the front row.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Since most of us have no intention of loading three full-sized people in the front row, that argument is bogus. Two adults and a kid? Yes. An adult and two kids? Yes. But not three full-sized adults.

        And since my family is two full-sized adults and a dog, it doesn’t matter anyway. The area behind the front seats belongs to the dog and anything else I care to toss back there.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        my neighbor’s 2009 Ranger has a bench seat and a column shifter, and seats three across fine. But all three of us were under 300 lbs each so YMMV.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          By “fine,” do you mean comfortably? And for how long? The compact Ranger had 54.5″ of shoulder room and 52.7″ of hip room, but it wasn’t divided evenly for all occupants. The middle “seat,” if one could even call it that, is about 12″ across. I’ve got a 30″ waist, and that’s too narrow for me. This is also ignoring the presence of the transmission tunnel.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Make it an extended cab and you have my interest. I’m looking forward to seeing one in person because I really want to update from my 21-year-old Ranger (still ultra-low mileage.)

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Well the Super Cab is a model they intend to sell in the US, while Ford has so far stated that the featured regular cab model will not be sold in the US.

  • avatar
    road_pizza

    I’d be on one of those like white on rice. Do it, Ford.

  • avatar
    gtem

    Woah those are some huge tires for a RWD variant. It looks like it might have a more rational bed-side height than the RWD Colorado(?)

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      gtem,
      The global Ranger (and BT50) come as High Rider and Low Rider. This base model is a low rider.

      I would like to see this with the XLS trim and a 2.7 EcoBoost and Ford can call it the Ranger Tremor. XLS trim is XL with carpet, cloth seats, chrome grille/mirrors and a different rear step bumper.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    We’re stretching things to discuss vehicles that aren’t even in production yet, and have no published road tests (that I’m aware of).

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      We have them and they come with a 2.5 gas engine.

      Mazda’s iteration of the XL, the XT starts with a 2.2 TD, bur are more expensive.

      This XL takes on the “Ace of Base” Hilux.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    A $17,995 Ranger RC would cannibalize too many Focus and Fiesta sales, a lose/lose for Ford, win/win for consumers.

    But I’d suggest a 19,995 Ranger regular cab with the extended cab, at about $20,195.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      The Fiesta is likely done for in our market, and I’d bet the Ranger carries a higher margin than Focus.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Well the Fiesta will be off the US market by the time this is available, and the Focus will be getting nailed by Donny’s tariffs on Chinese goods. Ford has no interest at all in selling those two cars here, they probably lose money on every one sold.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      If the regular cab would price out at $19,995 then the Super Cab won’t be had for less than $20,995 which I suspect is what you may have intended to type.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        I meant have the prices close, basically pricing the regular cab around $20K with the “extended cab” almost a “no cost” upgrade.

        Orkin would be first in line, since the “extra cab” is dead weight, forced by all midsize pickups. and of it’s a short bed (RCSB), they could use the improved turning radius/arc for squeezing behind houses, pools/sheds/trees and whatnot.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          I’m not sure that RCSB is possible, given CAFE. If Orkin had to choose between two “too-long” midsizers, would they rather have a regular cab with a 7.5′ bed, or an extended cab with a 6′?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            If all things equal, many commercial buyers would still prefer a regular, or “day cab” for various reasons.

            For “pest control” especially they only want the driver in the cab. And an extended cab encourages reclining/napping on the job.

            Many drivers allowed to drive their “work trucks” to and from home, aren’t allowed to haul, pickup passengers/family/kids, which many do anyways.

            But a 7.5 ft bed on a regular cab, midsize would be silly long.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Well waddaya know, DM finally understands why I like COMPACT pickups!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Oh, I’ve always understood the “why”. I just don’t get why you can’t adapt/flex like everyone else does.

            If the F-150 was custom built for me, it’d certainly be smaller or bigger, taller/shorter in a few areas.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You can’t just ‘flex’ an F-150 around a corner the Jeep Wrangler (or the OLD Ranger) can make in a single maneuver. I’ve seen too many full-size owners try… and fail.

            Just today I parallel-parked in a spot far too small for the average full-sized truck and even most late-model (2015+) midsizers.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Yeah in life we all face “trade-offs” F-150 wheelbases are ideal for their respective cab/bed configurations.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “F-150 wheelbases are ideal for their respective cab/bed configurations…”
            —- But they’re still too wide and too tall AND too long for the places I drive–which are decidedly rural in many cases.

            I don’t LIKE having to drive on the grass verge at the edge of a ditch when meeting another vehicle the same size going the other way. The odds of dropping the right side into the ditch grow too great over time when you’re facing drivers who refuse to share the road.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            How can they be too wide/tall for where you drive? Cow paths? Medieval Villages? In side goldmines?

            Certainly not legal roads! Or how do school buses get in? Trash service? Power and utilities?

            Most drivers are inept and the streets provide for that. If streets in this anywhere in this hemisphere were really that tight, no one could get around.

            And we’re talking no more than 6″ all the way around, Ranger vs RCSB F-150.

            People absolutely need lots more space around them to drive than the actually need or use.

            You’ve said some purdy goofy things before, but I had to lol on this one!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Obviously, DM, you don’t drive where I drive. Some roads are barely 12′ wide (with shoulder stripes to help guide the snowplows) and corners can be quite tight. You see, some of the areas in which I drive still use horse and buggy as regular transportation (and don’t you dare say anything about their religion!)

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Oh and never mind *Rescue*! Fire trucks, Ambulances, police…

            FedEx, UPS, the list goes on.

            AND ON AND ON AND ON!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yeah 12′ plus is much more realistic. But having to drive off the shoulder to let another car pass, we’re talking “bike paths”, sidewalks or built for golf carts.

            I mean seriously. Public/Gov services have to be able roll their industrial trucks right up to your door, (then be able to pull away or turn around) and I know you’re gonna counter with claiming you live in 200+ year old development, while you’ve said it’s condo.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            False, DM. And I didn’t say “12- plus”, I said 12′-. And full-sized pickup trucks are themselves very nearly 7′ wide, meaning a meet will have them totaling no less than 14′, putting BOTH trucks on the verge if they’re being courteous to each other. Some full-sized owners won’t give way to anyone, not even another full-sized truck. Our world is full of selfishness.

            And you are now officially under warning of a report. You did not need to make that last insult.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I’m “Officially under warning of a report…”??

            OK!

            Anyway, I’m sure you weren’t sure and looked up the official *code*. 12 ft is “per lane”, meaning 24′ total.

            I shouldn’t have to explain this…

            Think of the Rescue equipment alone. 10 ft would be the absolute minimum. Even then, Big trucks, buses etc, are slightly over 8 ft, almost 10 ft at the mirrors.

            Yeah you’re being silly. Or grossly confused?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Again you make unreasoned assumptions; by no means was I saying, “per lane”. I was talking about the edge-to-edge width of the roads that I frequently drive. Big trucks, buses, etc. do NOT drive on these roads. Even milk trucks making pickups at local farms avoid these roads because the turns are too tight for them and the trees hang low enough to smash out the cab’s windscreen. The roads I’m talking about tend to run between farm fields and are not by any definition a “major road”, though they do qualify as the near 1 million miles of paved roads in that state. Some of these roads still have old, wooden, covered bridges on them.

            It seems you’re the one who’s confused; because you think all roads are like the ones you’re used to. I’ve lived all over this country and driven nearly every kind of road. There are some roads where a full-sized pickup causes more problems than it’s worth to attempt to drive them. Especially if you expect to meet other traffic on that road.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            OK, you’ve now discovered the legal minimal “width” of streets, so are you admitting you have to travel “illegal” (private) streets.

            Or exaggerating? Or confused? Or 1,000 year old castle? Haven’t taken your meds?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Who said anything about “private” streets? These are state and county serviced public roads. Again you prove you know nothing but want us to believe you know everything.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You speak with a fork tongue!

            How exactly can the county/state *service* these “public roads” you speak of when they’re so narrow you can barely get an F-150 through them??

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            That’s for me to know and you to find out, “little boy.” Maybe some day you will learn that you do NOT know everything.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s so silly. You’ve got a strict HOA, but subpar illegal “streets”, having to lug your own trash to where trash trucks can fit.

            What kind of trailer park are they running there???

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            *snerk* :D :D :D

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            DM, you really need to get out more. This conversation peaked my curiosity, so I just went outside and measured the width of the utterly typical Florida suburban side street that I live on. 18′ from edge to edge. And that is absolutely typical of this area – maybe even a tad on the wide side. Parking allowed on both sides with no restrictions. Garbage and fire trucks just go right down the middle.

            Narrower than this is certainly not unusual in New England. Not everywhere is the wide open spaces of Colorado.

            I find it hilarious how you think what is “legal” is consistent from place to place.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Thank you, krhodes1. I’m glad to see that some people here actually understand the problems of driving in some areas.

            JSYK, Pennsylvania has a reported million miles of paved roads through the state and I travel between Maryland and central Pennsylvania a lot. I tend to avoid major highways because they are so crowded any more and usually end up saving time by taking one- and two lane county and state roads instead (routes are more direct, too, compared to the US highways.) And yes, snow plows will clear those one-lane highways and even some dirt roads in the state, where other access is considered either impossible or too round-about to reach easily. (This includes dirt roads that bypass paved roads that easily ice over on steep hillsides.)

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Really! With cars parked just one side would make it a “One Way” street. Parking on both side would make it a “NO Way” street! Unless of course your firemen/rescue/trash service etc are on bicycles!

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Wanna bet it will be more like $25K and $27K?

  • avatar
    Middle-Aged Miata Man

    Real truck tires! Look at those sidewalls! Woof.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Are they even going to bring us the “regular” cab?

    I’m waiting to see what the crew cab 4×4 XLT costs.

  • avatar
    JMII

    Looks good. But the base model wouldn’t cut it for me.

    But if Ford is listening… I’ll take mine with a diesel engine, an extended or crew cab configuration and a short bed. 2WD automatic with enough gears to maximize highway towing mileage. This needs to fit in my garage so hopefully its actually “mid sized” plus not raised off the ground for no reason. Cloth seats are fine, backup camera, cruise control, satellite radio and of course A/C is all I require. Those seem like base level items these days. Once last request – no white, silver or black, I’d be thrilled with light blue, tan or even olive green.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Mazda’s BT50 XT, Ranger clone comes with diesel, but not Ford.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        Is that coming to the states? I’m guessing no. The Ecoboost will likely be just fine in the Ranger. I’d just love to have the bonus torque + MPG you get with diesel for towing applications.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          I doubt it, unless the US uses that new twin turbo 2 litre Ford diesel with 215hp and 368ftlb of torque.

          The 3.2 I say is on it’s lasts legs, it’s a very reliable old engine, it’s the closest engine that’s not a V8 that feels like a V8 of old to drive, except you get 30mpg.

          The torque delivery is very linear and amazing from the 5 cylinder is great at low and middle rpms. The engine is very much “commercial” in specifications and not so carlike. I love it especially on the highway where it flattens mountains at high speeds and off road.

  • avatar
    TW5

    I hesitate to state the obvious, but the single cab pickup is dead in the United States because of CAFE. Extending the wheelbase an extra two-feet to accommodate a rear cab space has no appreciable fuel economy penalty, but it drastically reduces the mpg threshold the vehicle must meet for CAFE. Those stock tires would also never fly in the US market because they hurt fuel economy compliance.

    Don’t long for new products the government has outlawed or is in the process of outlawing. It will only end in tears.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I just found 56 regular cab F-150s and 113 regular cab Silverados within 100 miles of my zip code.

      Good to know the outlaw effort has been so effective.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I did notice the school district is looking for new plow trucks and they spec-ed “extended-cab, 3/4 ton, 6.0+ gas V8”. I thought the extended cab requirement was a little odd.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        TW5 is not wrong though, single cabs are dead with midsize trucks, and full size trucks are barely viable because the 8 foot bed configurations stretches the wheelbase out to 140 inches or longer and thus makes CAFE happy.

        Toyota is already done with single cabs on Tundras and Tacomas, Nissan was dragging its feet on regular cab in the new Titans hoping to herd the buyers into supercabs until the buyers started grumbling, and even then the cheapest one is MSRPed at 30k, for a regular cab. Expect to see less and less single cabs on the lot in the coming years from the big 2.5.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Ford was stretching the wheelbase long (NPI) before CAFE was a thing. The 1997 F-150 put both the RCLB and SCSB on a 139″ WB to cut costs. Dodge took it one step further in 2002, putting all their Rams on 3 wheelbases (120, 140, 160″). I just don’t see what the big deal is.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @FreedMike

        Fullsize trucks have a longer wheelbase; therefore, less regulatory pressure, at the moment. But the fullsize single cabs will eventually die, too. Anything shorter than 145 inch wheelbase will be discarded. Long-wheelbase MIDSIZE trucks are nearly that big already.

        And if many fullsize trucks are deemed “too small” by CAFE footprint regulations, imagine the implications for Tahoe/Yukon, Wrangler, 4Runner, etc which all have a shorter wheelbase than extended cab midsize trucks.

        People don’t understand the upheaval on the regulatory horizon. An act of Congress will be required to stop this madness.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Right, that’s why Ford actually shortened the wheelbase on the ’15 F-150. Because the big bad gubmint is forcing us all into longer wheelbases.

          https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
          https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

      • 0 avatar
        SaulTigh

        I call the regular cab, short bed configuration “stubbies” and my GMC dealer always has 6-7 of them at any given time. Honestly don’t see many in the wild, where the crew cab Denali rains supreme.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      TW5,
      The US Colorado comes with this wheel base.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        No, it doesn’t, BAFO. Stop letting the government pull the wool over your eyes.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          FredMuke,
          US Chev Colorado Wheel Base 128″
          https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/chevrolet/colorado/2018/specs/colorado-crew-cab-short-box-2-wheel-drive-wt-392496

          This Ranger
          Wheel Base 3220 mm = 126.771654″

          https://www.carshowroom.com.au/showrooms/ford/ranger/2018/AA000GG9B2

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @ Big Al from Oz

        I’m not sure what you are referring to, but the only thing you need to take away from CAFE, if you don’t care to read the regs, is that less than a score of today’s models and variants will survive as-is under the new regulations. Some will not survive at all.

        Regarding fullsize trucks, the average American expects a fullsize truck to be roughly 7′ wide. There is no reason to make the truck shorter. The fuel economy standard increases more rapidly than the fuel savings generated by less mass. Furthermore, the manufacturer makes considerably less money, while generating penalties. Earning less money and increasing regulatory costs is bad business.

        Short wheelbase trucks are under immense pressure, even if you are not aware of the fact. In all likelihood, regular cab trucks will not survive. In the case of the Ranger, Canyon, Colorado, Frontier and Tacoma, they are already dead in the US.

        That’s not a coincidence, and without major changes to the regulations, the same paradigm will eventually hit fullsize trucks. It will hit other segments and vehicles, as well.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          • “Regarding fullsize trucks, the average American expects a fullsize truck to be roughly 7′ wide.”
          —- Why? There’s no practical reason for a pickup truck that wide. 6′ maybe… giving a 5′ wide tailgate. There’s is literally no reason it needs to be larger.

          • “There is no reason to make the truck shorter. The fuel economy standard increases more rapidly than the fuel savings generated by less mass.”
          —- That depends on too many factors. However, losing that added foot of width would improve overall fuel economy by reducing frontal area by no less than 15%.

          • “Short wheelbase trucks are under immense pressure, even if you are not aware of the fact.”
          —- That really, as I said, depends on too many factors. I’ll grant that if you’re running a full two row cab, it’s going to be longer. The wheelbase, however, does NOT need to be a full two feet longer. It also doesn’t need to be so ridiculously tall; a bloomin’ 10″ ground clearance on a vehicle NOT LIKELY to ever go off-road is, in my opinion, stupid. Pulling it down to 6″ or 7″ would again save 10% or more on frontal area, improving its overall economy, especially with a properly mounted air dam able to give a bit if dragged over an unusually tall curbing or speed hump.

          • “In all likelihood, regular cab trucks will not survive. In the case of the Ranger, Canyon, Colorado, Frontier and Tacoma, they are already dead in the US.”
          —- But fewer than 20% of owners actually NEED the full second-row seating and could get by just fine with an extended cab–just as they did for almost 30 years before crew cabs became a ‘thing’.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            1. Re: Width. The maximum allowable width of a vehicle without clearance lights is 80″ (6’8″, not 7′), which is what full-size pickup trucks have been since 1961, minus an inch or two. Why did they adopt this width? Because it allows for three adults to sit side-by-side without feeling squished, and also because at the time full-size cars were 80″ wide. They can’t and won’t get any wider.

            2. Re: Length. Another way to look at it: regardless of whether there’s a good reason or not, there’s no _good_place_ to make the truck shorter. Front overhangs are a lot more than they used to be because of crumple zones, and would still be present regardless of how large or small the truck is. Personally, I’m happy with the extra 2″ of front overhang a new F-150 has vs. a jellybean F-150 if it means that this doesn’t happen: /watch?v=_i5EmJBaGeQ Hood length isn’t so easily altered, either, given that new pickups have only a few inches between the front door and the fender. Rear overhangs have actually gotten shorter as the rear axle is pushed farther back; to reduce them any more would require chopping the bed. Generally speaking, cabs can’t get shorter, for reasons discussed in #4 below. Thankfully, extended and crew cabs also haven’t been getting significantly longer since they established their current lengths 15-45 years ago.

            3. Re: Height/Ground Clearance. I can agree with you to a point here–not necessarily that pickups all need to get lower, but that we should have more choice for height than just “sensible,” “on the tall side of sensible,” and “ludicrous.” Give us a “sport” model that’s actually got a lowered suspension. Some people (not me, but w/e) really like the look of a low-rider pickup.

            4. Re: “Needs” and cabs. Here’s the thing: we can’t really argue from necessity when it comes to vehicles, because if we all had the vehicle we “needed,” it’d be a Model T or a Model T pickup. The whole world could “get by” on that. Secondly, once one has a taste of the comfort and convenience of a larger cab, and provided the length hasn’t proven bothersome (which it hasn’t in most of flyover country), it’s almost impossible to downgrade. It would be business suicide for any company to voluntarily downsize its cabs.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Vulpine

            We are talking about what regulations compel.

            We have footprint-specific regulations. The most lenient fuel economy standard happens at 75 sq ft in 2025. That’s about 145″ x 74″.

            Right now the 122″ wheelbases exist because the most lenient standard happens at about 65sq ft, and it’s only 19 mpg sticker. The regular cab short bed F-150 makes 19/25 with the 3.3L V6. It’s compliant. By 2025, the same truck will need to make about 27mpg combined. It’s not going to happen without expensive powertrain upgrades.

            Why spend money making the this configuration compliant when you can simply eliminate the regular cab standard box. The crew cabs have better margins and the standard is only 23mpg combined.

            This basic regulatory framework is going to kill many sacred cows.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “We are talking about what regulations compel.”
            —- True

            “The most lenient fuel economy standard happens at 75 sq ft in 2025.”
            —- Reasonably true, if you’re talking cars. Can you show us the chart? And don’t forget, that specific CAFE ruling, like the one before it, is intended as a fleet-wide reference, meaning that the smallest car meeting those regs actually assists the largest in meeting its goals. That would also explain why Chevy and Ford in particular are now putting out electrified vehicles while FCA (until recently) was aiming for more smaller cars to counterbalance their larger ones.

            “That’s about 145″ x 74″.”
            —- False. Not only that but unrealistic. Not one truck is only 145″ long (remember, it’s SHADOW, not frontal area they’re regulating.) Your argument would have the truck only 12′ long and no less than four inches narrower than they currently run. The typical full-sized truck today is 230″ x 80″ or nearly double the size you state at 128 sq ft. A Fiat 500, by comparison, is 62 sq. ft.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            TW5,
            The US ought to kill CAFE, along with it’s different design standards, or at least allow UN vehicles on your roads and remove the much outdated Chicken Tax.

            This will allow the US to build and export vehicles with big ass engines in little vehicles, but also allow vehicles in.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Vulpine

            “And don’t forget, that specific CAFE ruling, like the one before it, is intended as a fleet-wide reference, meaning that the smallest car meeting those regs actually assists the largest in meeting its goals.”

            Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way anymore with the new attribute (footprint) regulations. In the old days, Ford sold Rangers to offset inefficient F150s. The NHTSA decided the trend of providing smaller compliance vehicles was deadly and they wanted to create disincentives. The Ranger will have its own specific fuel economy target based upon the wheelbase of the variant in question, and that fuel economy target will necessarily be much higher than the F150, since the Ranger is a smaller truck, and it will have a footprint considerably less that 75 sq ft. The good news is that manufacturers can transfer credits across class lines. In other words, the C-Max can help keep the V8 F-150 alive. Previously, the credits remained in class.

            “False. Not only that but unrealistic. Not one truck is only 145″ long”

            Wheelbase. Footprint is wheelbase x average front/rear track. That’s the attribute they are regulating.

            People really need to get up to speed regarding CAFE. They have no idea how many products are about to be regulated out of existence. If they live on after 2025, it will require immense spending to generate enough credits. Perhaps the most dead of all vehicles is the two-door Wrangler, which will be required to make 37mpg sticker by 2025. Bye Wrangler. You had a good run.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I suggest you re-read the rules, because the 2016 rules clearly reference the previous CAFE as an extension and tightening of the older one. I bothered to look it it which is why I answered the way I did.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          TW5,
          I’m wasn’t talking CAFE and I do understand how CAFE operates very well. I thought you would of assumed so as I follow many regualtions/tech barriers around the globle.

          I’m talking actual vehicle dimensions. This Ranger sits within a poofteenth of the Colorado.

  • avatar
    Russycle

    I’m not a truck guy, but I like this. A lot. I don’t want the hassle of navigating a behemoth through city streets, don’t have a yacht I need to tow. This thing could really work for me.

  • avatar
    Chiefy

    I SO WANT THIS TRUCK! (Yes, I’m screaming.)

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    It’d be great to see these, but outside of the densest cities, there’s no real case to be made for RCLB midsize or compact trucks in the US. Yes, they’re easier to drive around, but neither space nor fuel is currently at a premium, so why would fleets want an uncomfortably small cab if they’re not getting a full 8′ bed?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Drzhivago,
      Aussie cities are no different to US cities and we have alot more open space.

      We have lots of V8s and fuel cheap enough.

      We have no use for a full size. Why do you state what you had?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        I don’t know if you’re qualified to speak for Australians, but my OZ friends bought a newer F-150 to drive around when they come to stay with me a few times a year.

        They didn’t want to keep borrowing mine, so I store if for them, drive it around town to charge the battery, but now they’re buying classic old F-100s/F-150s to ship back to OZ as a side-business.

        As it turns out, there’s quite a high demand in OZ for US fullsize pickups. As you know Ozzies are more than happy to pay $150,000US or more for converted new Ford/GM/Ram/Toyota fullsize.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          DenverMike,
          Please furnish a link supporting your paradigm on the amount of US pickups sold in Australia. It amounts to maybe a thousand or two out of a 1.2 million vehicle market.

          How much is a 2017 Mitsubishi Triton, 2017 Mazda BT50, 2017 Nissan Navara, 2017 Toyota Hilux in the USA? Do they exist on your roads, or are they banned due to technical import barrier? Find out the prices of these in the US for on road use.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The point is US fullsize pickup imports are extremely limited thanks to the extremely expensive (forced/required) RHD conversion. Btw, the US doesn’t require LHD and it’s the only major car-market to allow either.

            But don’t kid yourself, they’re very much in demand in OZ, but way out of reach of everyday OZ buyers. Even used examples in OZ, a few years old command ridiculously high prices, with the highest “retained” resale value, this side of super rare exotics.

            Your OZ Mazda(ford), Toyota and Nissan would be redundant and overlapping to the midsizers we current have or will have in the coming year.

            The Mitsubishi? Well we had the Mitsu Mity Max/D50s and sales became dismal after the 80’s Mini Truck Craze, circling the drain all the way up to 1996 when Mitsu finally put it out of its misery.

            Btw Mitsu pickups were always imported from Japan then Indonesia, but never built it the US… Please explain that one!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            DenverMike,
            Where is your link regarding US fullsize sales in Australia. You made the claim.

            Where is your price list for the few global pickups I mentioned above for their onroad US pricing?

            Again, you are trying to diverge from the original discussion.

            Please provide information supporting your paraDiMs.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Why are you suddenly asking non pertinent, stupid questions to sidestep the obvious?

            I never made claims of specific volume, just “high demand” (that’s also obvious!).

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I keep telling my Fellow Americans that but for whatever reason they feel that they MUST have the biggest and strongest, even if they’re only DIYing it.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          In flyover country, we buy by the pound. And with the current rebates, everyone gets “a heckuva deal” on a full-size. Even if they do only carry themselves and the missus 90%, fuel is cheap and the roads are wide.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            When you started out buying gas at 25¢ per gallon, fuel AIN’T cheap!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Vulpine,
            I read so many comments on these sites on how great it was back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

            They forget how simple life was back then and the cost of cheap stuff we take for granted now.

            How much was a computer in the 60s, or a Smartphone, or even a 75″ TV with internet?

            How much did you earn and what was the price of the vehicle you bought? A Base of Ace vehicle now would of been a high performance, superbly equipped vehicle back in the days of yore.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    I’d drive one but certainly wouldn’t buy one for personal use. I could see it being great for many fleet purposes though. But the real money is in the retail business where everyone wants an extended or crew cab.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    If I were to buy a truck (yeah, right) that trayback in white would be right up my alley. A proper working truck, the right size. White because Florida sun. Preferably with a hose-out interior.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      krhodes1,
      If you like Florida, around Miami’ish, the southern tip, come move to Brisbane, Gold Coast or Sunshine Coast in sunny QLD and you can have one of these or a choice from any US and 15 other pickup manufacturer.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Yeah we’re limited to just 7 brands of pickups, but the Chinese and Indian pickup you do have in OZ, hardly anyone buys, and no one has to wonder why.

        Except we’re not constrained to midsizers alone. What’s that like??

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          paraDiM,
          Did you not a few comments above state we have fullsize pickups? So, how are we constrained to midsizers alone?

          Man, you really are in the spectrum.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yeah, again they’re out of reach of everyday buyers and snatched up by cashed up ranchers.

            And most “new” US fullsize pickups “available” in OZ aren’t even official “imports”, but shipped over as “used” pickups, RHD converted (at terrific expense) and have no factory warranty or dealer support.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            DenverMike,
            Where is your information and links? We go through this process often.

            The US tried to sell fullsize in Australia but failed due to quality issues and pricing.

            Why would you buy a vehicle with less capability unless you are towing for a 1/3 more, using twice as much fuel?

            You must realise our current midsizers sit right in the middle of US 1/2 ton capability at around 6 000kg GVM. US pickups sit between 5 000kg and 7 000kg GVM.

            You must start looking at the whole picture on why US pickups never took off in Australia and Aussies love V8s. So, it isn’t the engine, it must be the vehicle, ie, quality and capability.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I’m rather surprised you didn’t mention, yes they were US Super Dutys, except built in Argentina with some locally sourced parts, and with a shoddy RHD conversion.

            Really not quite the “Super dutys” we have in the US. Then the OZ gov decides to not allow the diesel, in a land that’s obviously diesel obsessed.

            What did you think was gonna happen next?

            You have basically the same midsizers as we have in the US, physically. A harder suspension only plays a minor role in defining “capacity”, payload/towing.

            Except you live in an automotive “Wild West”.

            You have no US DOT/NHTSA “equivalent” keeping capacity rational. US ratings are extremely conservative by comparisons and tightly governed.

            Your payload ratings especially, are left entirely up the sense of humor of the manufacturers that build them. And dangerous when followed to the limit.

  • avatar
    Mike-NB

    I really, really, really like this truck and I’m not a truck guy. If this were available for around the predicted price I would seriously consider buying one as a third vehicle for the household fleet.

  • avatar
    brn

    Give me a 6500lb max towing capacity without having to spend $10K on options and you’ve really got something.

  • avatar
    outback_ute

    “And if all that’s not good enough for ya, check out the base model flatbed. It costs about $500 more than the base Ranger, bins the audio system, and adds rear disc brakes. The suspension is fundamentally different, too, trading ox-cart leaf springs for coils and a Watt’s linkage.”

    They are talking about rear disc brakes and coil spring suspension for the Ranger Raptor, otherwise all Rangers have rear drums and leafs. Note that the Rangers pictured aren’t the Ace of Base, they both have the higher suspension essentially the same as the 4×4 models. Base 4×2 versions have lower ride height and much smaller tires.

    Plus base Rangers are called the XL.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I’ve always wondered why we don’t have factory flatbeds here, even to sell to fleets. They are so practical for so many uses.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I would buy one of these regardless of the ride quality. Perfect sized trucks for Home Depot and utilitarian purposes. Price this truck at 17k with a manual and few options and I would buy it. I also like the tires with the bigger sidewalls that are more durable and don’t blow out as easy. Just having a bigger traditional sidewall would give it a better ride.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Yeah. The Americanized version is slightly larger than the Global version from what I’ve read… more along the size of today’s Colorado.

      My problem now is that the wife and I have started talking (again) about getting a towable RV and my old Ranger doesn’t have the power to pull one while the Renegade is only rated to 2000#-2500#. I may be forced to upgrade to larger than I really want and so far my choices look slim. GM screwed the floor of the extended cab with that big, plastic, “storage pocket” seat base and none of the others really make a long-legged driver comfortable behind the wheel (seat doesn’t move back far enough.) I certainly don’t need OR want a full second row; the only passenger back there ever will be a 50# dog (assuming I can get him to even try to jump up there, considering how tall 4×4 trucks have become. Heck, dog already has trouble jumping into the cab of my 4×2 ’97 Ranger!) I’m waiting for a first-hand view of the new Ranger before I make any decisions and keep my eyes open for something as useful but smaller than the others.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–Agree about the floor of the extended cab Base Colorado. The extended Colorado might be the closest truck to what you need and want except maybe the new Ranger. I don’t know if you could realistically go smaller than an extended cab midsize truck especially since you plan on getting a tow able RV. Any smaller then you probably won’t be able to tow.

    r

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Like I said, Jeff, I’m at least considering the Ranger. Ford’s full-sized extended cabs have a relatively clean floor; I hope they do the same for the Ranger.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Fordson: Some makes just should never produce SUVs…this is one of them. Look at the Maserati car in the group...
  • FreedMike: Toyota. Why do you think they haven’t invested in EVs?
  • redapple: Who will buy Tesla? GGM?
  • forward_look: Once I bought a ’74 (?) Colt/Mitsubishi for $100 that had the strut towers rusted out. I welded...
  • thelaine: Tick tock

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