By on August 8, 2018

Ford has been touting the upcoming Ranger since the Detroit Auto Show last January. Promising a 2.3-liter EcoBoost four and a 10-speed automatic, model and trim specifics about the mid-sizer from Dearborn have been scarce. Until yesterday.

Given that peek behind the Blue Oval curtain, you know today’s Ace of Base selection was easy.

Ford was quick to shout #FakeNews after the Ranger’s configurator first appeared, but this author firmly believes that far too many details were supplied on the briefly available build-and-price tool for it to be a mere test page. Sure, the mention of a Regular Cab configuration may have simply been a placeholder (or a glimpse into fleet availability) but trim and packaging specifics are surely very close to the real thing. Any pricing inaccuracies can probably be measured in tens of dollars.

Let’s work on the assumption that the information we saw yesterday is largely accurate. A base model Ranger XL SuperCab 4×2 starts at $24,300 before the inevitable $1,045 destination fee. For that princely sum, one is treated to 16-inch silver steel wheels that look just absolutely the Ace of Base business, wrapped up in 255/70/16 blackwall tires. The truck’s grille, mirror caps, and bumpers are all flat black, striking a rugged look in any of the five available colors.

Blue Lightning is shown here; four other greyscale hues are on tap. Saber, a new shade infused with Vitamin C, is only selectable if one pops for the $1,135 Equipment Group 101A. Leave it on the shelf.

Inside the base 2019 Ranger, owners will find entry-level stereo equipment bereft of SYNC but bearing a quartet of speakers. Cruise control is absent but surely you can manage to consistently depress an accelerator pedal, amirite? Cloth buckets are standard but masochists can select no-charge vinyl.

Smart shoppers will select the 2nd Row Seat Delete option, dropping the truck’s price by $240 and significantly increasing their Ace of Base cred. It appears the base XL SuperCab is the only trim in which one can bin the rear chairs. Do so and use the newfound lockable space for your gear.

Going unmentioned are the presence of air conditioning and power windows, although economies of scale virtually assure these two items will be present on all Rangers. If next week’s official pricing reveal shows their absence, then I’ll have to revisit today’s selection.

The lone extra-cost option on the base Ranger one should consider is the $420 electronic-locking rear axle. Mercifully available as a stand-alone item not requiring the selection of expensive packages, the ratio remains a stout 3.73 but wards off the indignity of a one-wheel peel.

Look for more details when Ford officially drops more details sometime next week.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Not every base model has aced it. The ones which have? They help make the automotive landscape a lot better. Any others you can think of, B&B? Let us know & feel free to eviscerate our selections.

This model is shown with American options, priced in American Dollars. Your dealer may sell for less.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

42 Comments on “Ace of Base: 2019 Ford Ranger XL...”


  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Nice looking rig.
    I wonder if the actual transaction prices will be cheaper than for F150s?

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      My guess is that in most popular configurations the Ranger will come in less then the F-150, but start to get creative with the options and you will surely get screwed

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    This 1999 F-150 looks sharp in that blue paint. I’d go for a wheel upgrade though.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Assuming it comes with AC as standard (I don’t care about power windows), I like it. The 2.3L with the 10A and a locking 3.73 should be stout combination in this class (although I’m still holding out hope for the 2.7L).

    I’d probably add back the rear seat, go vinyl, and add on a trailer hitch & bed liner though.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Base would be the only way I’d consider this truck. But, all things considered, I’d probably still prefer a Colorado or Frontier with a manual transmission.

      • 0 avatar
        jh26036

        I am very much a manual guy like everyone else here but the 4 bangers in both of those applications are just garbage. I rather have the 2.3/auto in the Ford if the prices are within spitting distance.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    That’s a great blue. And Ford does have some beautiful paint hues available but I rarely seem them in person.

    I love the Focus/Fiesta ST in Yellow. And my recently acquired 2014 Mustang has a beautiful Metallic Ruby color, and the Kona blue Mustang GT I recently sat in at the car dealership.

  • avatar
    salmonmigration

    With the turbocharged engine and 10-speed I think it might have class-leading fuel economy.

    This is a hell of a fleet truck. Can’t wait to see 20 white rangers with service bodies on my way to work every morning.

    • 0 avatar
      Middle-Aged (Ex-Miata) Man

      Yep. This seems to be an even more fleet-specific addition to the Ford lineup than the Transit/Transit Connect lines.

    • 0 avatar
      brettc

      I can see CMP (the local power company) running these in their shade of custom Orange. They used to run Rangers, but have been using Frontiers recently since the Ranger went away the first time around.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    Handsome truck, and I love the steel wheels. Funny how you miss something only when it’s almost gone, but there’s something honest about them.

    No cruise is a deal breaker for me however. I still have PTSD from a “4 states in one day” Uhaul drive from hell. My leg hurt for a week after from keeping the throttle buried for 13 hours.

  • avatar
    ernest

    I built a F150 and it came out with a MSRP of $31250 equipped the same. I suspect with discounts/rebates the two would be very close as far as OTD price.

  • avatar
    silverfin

    I like this XL Ranger as possible replacement for my ’05 CRV daily driver as I think I can solve my motorcycle rack problem by just getting a p/u like the Ranger and putting my med size Adventure bike in the (short) bed. Big issue is can it be flat towed 4 wheels down behind my diesel Class A Foretravel motorhome. The F150 can and has a knob accessible mode however this is in the 4×4. If I go Ranger will probably have to get the 4×4 so I have a Hi/N/Lo transfer case. F150 is just too big and Toyotas and the Ridgeline can never be flat towed 4 down…what to do?

  • avatar
    stingray65

    If you want a pickup with gasoline engine, you better run out and buy one before Tesla takes over the world. Big 3 tells us that money losing EV producers are the future for all of us whether we like it or not.

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      The Tesla T-150 pickup will have a 100,000 lb. towing capacity and a 357 mph top speed. The batteries will reach 80% after a 15 second charge. Production will begin next year and the target is 400,000 units per month. MSRP starts at $6,000. Buyers who find a hair plug in their glovebox win a dream date with Elon!

  • avatar
    R Henry

    If this Ranger is not significantly less expensive to buy and operate than an F150, why should I buy it?

    As I understand Ford’s decision to exit the small pickup market years ago, was based on the cold hard facts: Small pickups aren’t fuel efficient, are much less expensive to produce than their big brothers, and therefore can’t be priced much less. Small trucks can’t approach the towing and hauling capacity of the big boys, and the cabs are far less roomy.

    Unless you need small truck for very tight urban applications, they just don’t seem to make much sense in the north American market.

    • 0 avatar
      srh

      As a rural American with 6 jumbo garage bays, I agree. That’s why I’ve cycled through F-350s, F-250s, F-150s, and their Chevy equivalents.

      But if I were a city dweller and desired a pickup, I’d want something smaller. The garages there are much smaller, and street parking much tighter.

      So I guess I imagine for the same reason that some folks choose the F-150 over the far more capable (and larger) superduties, others will choose the ranger over the more capable (and larger) F-150.

  • avatar
    carguy67

    I really like the standard ‘Square Wheel Well Delete’ option (yes, I know it’s an oxymoron).

  • avatar
    brettc

    This thing looks like a modern update of my dad’s ’91 Mitubishi pickup. That’s not a particularly bad thing, as long as it has AC and gets better fuel economy.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    The Great Paradox once again reveals itself:

    Why buy a Ranger, even in skinflint trim, except in the most extreme circumstance, if a much larger and more capable F-150 4×4 2.7 liter or 3.5 liter with much more equipment and accessories is within spitting distance price-wise, or the much better equipped F150 is (GASP!) less expensive in real transaction price terms?

    • 0 avatar
      srh

      Is it really “extreme” to want to park your vehicle in your garage? For many people in urban settings that excludes the F-150.

      Is it “extreme” to want easy access into your vehicle? There are a lot of old folks who have a tough time stepping up into an F-150.

      And to extend your logic, why buy an F-150 when a more capable F-250 is similar price-wise? My girlfriend and I recently made this decision (I’ve traditionally mostly bought F-250s and F-350s for this very reason), and for her the superduty was just *too* big. I know people for whom the F-150 is just too big.

      So for me, I’ll take the F-150. But I live on 10 acres and have a massive garage and an even more massive shop. Surely city dwellers have different needs.

      • 0 avatar
        John Scott

        Exactly this! Since I don’t need a truck for work (being retired and all) and I don’t tow anything (or have the slightest desire to do so) owning a pickup is a choice of convenience – so ther is NO WAY I’m buying anything that won’t fit in my garage. And not a single full-size pickup will – all too tall to clear the admittedly low clearance door opening.

        • 0 avatar
          carguy67

          re: “… I don’t tow anything (or have the slightest desire to do so)”

          Get the tow package anyway. I have a ’96 Ranger and I wanted to tow something exactly ONE time and the extra grand or so would have been worth it to me. Also too, the tow package should come with a bigger/better transmission cooler, which can add life to your transmission even (especially) if you never tow anything.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          The standard/code garage minimum is 12’X24′ and a 8’x7′ tall door. If you mean to say it’s a tight fit, I’m listening.

          It’s been that way, that size since there’s been cars practically. Think tailfins and Continental kits.

          But for 2 or 3 million annual fullsize pickup buyers, US alone, it’s not a problem parking them indoors or leaving them outside.

          Probably most midsize pickups are parked outside all their life too, or under a carport. They’re trucks, or equipment, not collector’s items.

          It’s truly rare to see a pickup without yellowing headlights and peeling clearcoat by just a few years old. Or cars for that matter. No one’s bothered.

      • 0 avatar
        road_pizza

        I live in an apartment, this truck is ideal for me.Which is why I plan on getting one next year.

    • 0 avatar
      rocketrodeo

      I recently replaced a Ranger that I’d had for sixteen years with a full size truck, a doublecab Tundra. I miss the Ranger on a regular basis, mostly when I’m on a curvy road, and every time I fill it. Granted, I had installed a Roush handling kit and Bilstein shocks on the Ranger, making it handle acceptably well under most circumstances — but as nice as the Tundra is, it has next to no handling feel and it’s simply ungainly unless I’m on the open road. For folks who profess to appreciate subtle differences in performance and feel of various automobiles, it seems difficult to understand why they wouldn’t appreciate more efficiency, economy, and handling capability — to say nothing of driving pleasure — in the same price bracket as a truck that’s biased more to payload and towing capabilities.

  • avatar
    ahintofpepperjack

    Every vehicle sold in the United States should come standard with cruise control. With electronically controlled throttles, it costs nothing to “add” cruise control to a vehicle.

  • avatar
    Higheriq

    It was funny how the configurator listed a regular cab, but also had a rear seat delete option with it. Also funny was how the regular cab had a rear sliding window as an option, but the F-150 regular cab has NO sliding rear window option. I believe the Ranger configurator was a beta version.

  • avatar
    brn

    Can we get some information on towing capacity and how much I need to option this up to get decent towing capacity? People will want this vehicle to pull their boats and/or campers.

  • avatar
    saturnotaku

    Wake me up if they decide to federalize the Mexican-market Chevy Tornado. (I realize I’ll probably be sleeping longer than Rip Van Winkle here.)

    New AoB candidate: 2019 VW Jetta S? 6 M/T, alloy wheels, LED headlights, cruise control, 40 MPG highway EPA rating, 6-year/72,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty for an MSRP of $19,440.

  • avatar
    Johnster

    I’m a little worried about the long-term reliability of the turbo 4 in the Ranger. However, the turbo 6s in the F-150 seem to be reliable. The turbo 4 is a step above the standard 4s in the competition and seems more comparable to their optional 6s.

    If it weren’t for cruise control I would have probably lost my driver’s license years ago. I just find it really difficult to drive at (what is usually) an artificially low and unrealistic speed limit.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      The 2.3 is relatively new, so we’ll see. No reason to believe it’ll be a problem. As a general rule, inline motors are easier to work on than V engines, so it has that going for it.

      Agree on cruise control. It’s my “don’t get a speeding ticket” button.

      • 0 avatar
        road_pizza

        Actually, the Maverick 2.3L Ecoboost is an all new engine, my youngest brother works at the Cleveland Engine Plant and they’ve been running test builds on the Maverick for the last couple of months.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mcs: @Art Vandalay: I know the PDP11 well. Actually, the backplanes were wire-wrapped and not the boards. Learned to...
  • lstanley: Just wait until this technology also won’t allow your car to start until the windshield is replaced....
  • N8iveVA: More commercial applications for EV’s and a growing world population?
  • dukeisduke: Peter M. De Lorenzo over at The Autoextremist roasted this decision pretty well in “On The...
  • Art Vandelay: If you look at the “big-3” disasters at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukishima, I...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber