By on October 5, 2018

2019 Ford Ranger, Image: Ford

As the 2019 Ranger creeps closer to dealer lots, Ford has pulled back the curtain on the one remaining mystery surrounding the reborn midsize pickup: what to expect from its turbocharged 2.3-liter four-cylinder.

It’s the only engine available to Ranger buyers, and it’s mated solely to a 10-speed automatic. That’s five more speeds than one could get in the departing 2012 Ranger. Using the previous-gen model as a comparison, the four-cylinder 2019 Ranger makes nearly double the horsepower from the same displacement, and more than doubles the torque rating of its predecessor.

For this application, Ford didn’t endow the engine with quite the same output as the one found in the Mustang EcoBoost. The Ranger’s 2.3-liter makes 270 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque, which is a considerable leg up even from the previous-gen Ranger’s 4.0-liter V6. That mill made 207 hp and 238 lb-ft.

Going back 20 years, the 5.4-liter V8 found in the F-150 cranked out 220 hp and 290 lb-ft. Even the top-flight 5.4-liter V8 fell 10 hp short of the 2019 Ranger’s engine, though it bests the EcoBoost by 35 lb-ft. Direct injection and turbocharging truly works wonders.

The Blue Oval claims a towing capacity of 7,500 pounds when equipped with the optional tow package and trailer brake controller. Compared to the domestic competition, that’s 500 pounds more than a Chevrolet Colorado with the 3.6-liter V6, and 200 lbs less than a Duramax diesel model. Those two engines make 275 lb-ft and 369 lb-ft, respectively. A Toyota Tacoma V6 puts out 265 lb-ft.

Maximum payload for the Ranger is 1,860 pounds, which also tops offerings from GM and Toyota.

There’s still no word on what mill might power the off-road Ranger Raptor when it inevitably appears, but Ford still hasn’t officially announced the model for the American market. Maybe the Mustang EcoBoost’s 310 hp and 350 lb-ft could set up shop under the Ranger’s hood.

If the 2019 Ranger’s power sounds appealing, you’d best decide whether its price leaves you feeling just as good. Read about that here. Production kicks off later this year, with the Ranger making its way to dealers early next year.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

72 Comments on “Power Ranger: Ford Releases Specs for New Midsize Pickup...”


  • avatar
    Verbal

    “Going back 20 years, the 5.4-liter V8 found in the F-150 cranked out 220 hp and 290 lb-ft.”

    I think you mean the 4.6 liter.

    • 0 avatar
      TwoBelugas

      This.

      It’s just lazy writing either way to keep comparing the new wizz-bang forced induction direct injection with variable this-and-that timing engines and say “wow look how little power 20/30/40 year old larger naturally aspirated motors made”. Aside from the spark plug stripping issue, the 5.4 was/is a decent motor even in 2v form.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        The 4.6 V8 in my 2004 F150 Heritage made roughly 239 hp and a shade more torque than that (IIRC).

        I wonder if someone will make a “power programer” for this iteration of this engine? You could have some interesting engine tunes for the times that you are just commuting in it and hauling nothing.

        • 0 avatar
          TwoBelugas

          And that’s an easy 400k, maybe even 500k mile motor as long as you keep up the maintenance.

          When Toyota was making the hoopla about the 1 million mile highway cruising Tundra, I chuckled thinking how many 3-400k 2v motors I have seen that are still kicking after use and heavy towing in F150s.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            One must also consider the fact that the 5.4 was the lone gas offering in the F250 and F350. There are still plenty of those around too.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    The Ranger’s 2.3-liter makes 270 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque…

    Let’s not forget that there is only one engine choice so unlike the competition you don’t have to spend more money to get an engine upgrade.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Agreed, since they already charged the premium for the standard engine.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Meh one year after it goes on sale let’s see what the ATP is and then I’ll judge.

        If it is more than the ATP for a 4 cyl Colorado but less than the ATP for a V6 Colorado – I’d call that a win for consumers. (Comparing similar levels of equipment of course.)

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          ATP is great but I always look at how long an original owner keeps their vehicle.

          And all indications are that current Ranger owners kept their old Rangers for an eternity, or, until this replacement became available.

          My forecast is for brisk sales when it hits the dealers. More brisk than the sale of the replacement Colorado/Canyon, but falling just a hair short of annual Tacoma sales.

          All this of course unless some major catastrophic recall castrates Ranger sales.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            …My forecast is for brisk sales when it hits the dealers. More brisk than the sale of the replacement Colorado/Canyon…

            Not exactly sure how that will be possible as the Colorado/Canyon sold every one that hit the lot in the first year with some of the lowest time in inventory levels of any vehicle. For an extended period on the Colorado average time on lot was under 15 days and good luck finding a regular car stripper model. GM was selling everyone they made to capacity.

            I suspect the Ranger will match that – but the only way to exceed it is to carjack the carrier trucks enroute.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            APaGttH,
            I have to agree with on this one. I do think GM were quite good with production numbers as well.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        if they put the NA 2.5 in the base version people would mock it for being “underpowered.”

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        Well, you could pay a “premium” for the not-upgrade engine in a Tacoma. Tacoma starts at $25,400 with 159 hp, vs $25,395 for a Ranger with 270 hp.

        I love how the Ranger is SO EXPENSIVE but yet its right in line with the established players in the segment.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      But you also can’t get a “downgrade” to a normally-aspirated V6 engine, either. I bought a Colorado specifically because of this engine choice.

    • 0 avatar
      road_pizza

      I think the 2.3L in my father’s ’73 Pinto wagon made maybe 90 horsepower :D !!!

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        That’s about in line (no pun intended) with the HP out of the Ford 200 in our Owatonna swather. Actually, now that I think about it, 90 HP is being generous. I wouldn’t be surprised if after 40 years with only nominal maintenance it’s putting out 50.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @road_pizza: … and in ’97 it made 112hp. With newer technologies, the normally-aspirated version would probably get around 150-175 horses but Ford HAS to turbo-charge everything to get its “class leading” horsepower and torque. Turbos have been known to blow out and sometimes take the engine with them. They usually blow when under maximum load… like that 7500# towing limit.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Wasn’t the 97 a Mazda derived 2.3…not the old school Lima 2.3? If they got it to 112 that’s a serious jump for a motor they were phasing out. The twin spark ones were 90 hp I think and I believe they were the Pinnacle of the non turbo Lima motors. I could be wrong though. I also seem to remember a 2.5 based on this but that may have been a Mazda motor too. I know the tempo 2.3 was not this one.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            While I no longer have the window sticker (the new owner has it), the rated horsepower for the dual ignition in my ’97 was 112 horses. (Now that you mention it, it MIGHT have been a 2.4, but I don’t believe so. Certainly not a 2.5, though.) I think I still have a Haynes manual for it around here somewhere, but I’m not taking the time to search for it right now.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            the Lima engine was punched up to 2.5 (from 2.3) in 1998. in 2001 they changed to the Duratec 2.3, which is the Mazda-Ford DOHC engine. The Ecoboost 2.3 descends from the Duratec. the Duratec was increased to 2.5 liters in 2010, I believe, and remains normally aspirated to this day (still used in several Ford vehicles.)

            Lima: 2.0/2.3/2.5 SOHC
            Duratec: 2.0/2.3/2.5 DOHC, 2.0s have DI
            2.3 HSC: pushrod, basically a Falcon I6 with two cylinders lopped off. Used in the Tempaz and early Taurus/Sable.

            Ford has always been a bit weird about having multiple engine families with similar displacements. e.g. the 351W/C/M, the 390/427/428 FE existing alongside the 370/429/460 385 series for a while, and so on.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        It was likely less that 90. The efi models only had 88 iirc. That motor was in everything from pintos, mustangs, rangers, all the way up to the range topping turbo Thunderbirds and SVO Mustangs. Reliable as an anvil in all of my many experiences with it.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          the twin plug engine had a completely new cylinder head, with more angle between the intake and exhaust valves for better airflow. on the other hand that reduced squish area in the chamber, so they had to use dual spark plugs to ensure ignition reliability.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    I once owned a (used) stickshift 1994 Mazda 2.3L pickup truck, essentially a Ford Ranger, and it had two plugs per cylinder.

    Regardless, it was a dog but served one of my kids well throughout four years of college until it just d.i.e.d of High Mileage Syndrome.

    Fuel economy? There wasn’t any! It was so underpowered that you had to keep the pedal to the metal as you rowed through the gears and just to maintain highway speeds.

    Top speed? 80mph, depending on whether you had a tailwind or headwind.

    This new Ranger may sound appealing on paper but we won’t really know how great it is until it goes on sale here.

    All-in-all, there are still millions of Ranger owners out there who simply refuse to switch to Tacoma. That should be a fertile market for this new Ranger.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      So, old 4 cylinder Ranger was slow, and we won’t know how the new Ranger performs until we drive it.

      How incredibly insightful! You forgot to mention how the horrible performance of the dated and overpriced Tundra makes it THA BESTEST TRUK EVA!!!

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      HDC,
      I more or less own one of the “new” Rangers. Its 197hp and it WILL do 185kph or 114mph. That’s with huge rubber, lift, snorkel and a wrap around bull bar.

      So, how quick is a Tundra? 97mph.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        There have been some developments since last I commented and I haven’t had any truck since we left in May 2018 for Ensenada, BC, Old Mexico. My grandson in Fallbrook, CA bought my 2016 Tundra and is sending me $500 a month to pay for it.

        All my wife and I have these days is her Sequoia (company car) and my 1989 Camry V6 (grocery getter). And those stay parked whenever we are out of the country.

        On some trips we actually rented a large SUV, like an Expedition XL. Other places we go we have Limo service, coming and going, like at the Time-share Resorts we belong to.

        It didn’t make sense for us to keep all our vehicles parked, or in use by other family members, while we spend at least half of our time outside the US, or away from home.

        I don’t know if I ever need to buy another truck. We have so many in the family now that I can borrow, like my son’s F350 DRW I borrowed recently to haul a bed-full of Dry Wall.

        And since we spend a lot of time in Phoenix/Scottsdale/Surprise these days, we use the Sequoia to get there and then usually my wife and I kick back and let my brother and sister-in-law drive us around in their LS.

        I actually never took either of my Tundras to the max; Usually locked the Cruise Control at 85mph which was the highest speed it would cruise at.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          HDC,
          When I was in the Northern Territory I used to set the cruise at 160kph or 100mph. But, even the 3.2 diesel would suck some fuel at this speed. It used around 14 litres per 100km (17mpg).

  • avatar
    statikboy

    “One remaining mystery.” Still one left.

    It might have nearly twice as much power, but what’s the weight difference? The old Ranger was a compact, don’t forget, plus all the added safety regs since 2012 and I’m guessing more uplevel equipment.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      The old Ranger was NOT a “compact”, it was classed as mid-sized as of the early ’80s when it effectively replaced the Courier. And it weighed in around 4600 pounds (I had a ’97 Ranger.) Granted, the older ones were smaller than the new ones but that didn’t change their classification any.

      Problem is: Today’s mid-sized trucks are almost as big and certainly as powerful as those ’80s and ’90s full-sizers.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        what? I have what is probably the heaviest PN150 Ranger which was offered (2011 4×4 Sport Supercab) and that clicks in supposedly at 3606 lbs curb weight.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Ford (and to a lesser extent Chevy and Jeep) did self-classify their small pickups as “mid-size,” but that was only in comparison to the minitrucks being offered by Toyota and Datsun at the time. The Dakota was the first mid-sizer, and it was noticeably larger than the compact Ranger, S-10, and Comanche.

        I do have to congratulate you for including “almost” in your assessment of new mid-sizer’s to old full-sizer’s physical dimensions. They’re close, but they’re not the same size.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Doc: The only real difference in size between new mid-size and old full-size is their width. When taking the standard bed into account (then called the “short bed” vs the extra-cost 8′ “long bed”,) the new mid-sizers are as long and as tall as those 30-year-old full-sizers.

          I drove a full-sized Silverado today as a loaner while having some accessories added to my Colorado and it overlapped my parking space both front and rear… extending into the street AND over the sidewalk where I live… while my Colorado gives clearance at both ends with its 6’2″ “long bed.”

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Vulpine is correct that Ford advertised the Ranger as a mid-sized truck. I bought a new 1984 Reg. cab long box 4×4. It wasn’t appreciably larger than the so-called “compact” trucks. But, HEY… advertising is advertising.

  • avatar
    civicjohn

    So do I keep unloading my Ford position or do you think there are enough buyers out there to bring some $$ in the coffers?

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Ranger owners are fiercely loyal and it was the best selling compact pickup for many years, so yeah there will be a lot of people who will be interested in the new truck thanks to the big gap in production. How many actually buy a new one of course we will have to wait and see. I’m betting however that it outsells the GM twins combined and will be neck and neck with the Tacoma. I’m also betting on the highest ATP of the bunch, so yeah it should bring in some money.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Scoutdude – I wonder how many of those rabid fans will stay loyal if the only option is a turbo 4? Many of those loyal buyers are skinflint cheapskate buyers that bought the fleet spec no frills version.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Lou_BC: I’ll admit the ’97 Ranger I was driving had the small engine… dual ignition 2.3L… but was otherwise the XLT “luxury” edition with carpets, cup holders and an AM/FM/Tape in the dash. Not everybody was buying fleet spec. and I’ll admit when the heat came on, that thing became grossly underpowered. Only while air temp was below 90° did that little engine have any life in it.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “270 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque”

    I’d like to see both those numbers (optionally) 100 higher.

    The lack of PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER compared to the big guys is where mid-size trucks are the biggest letdown.

  • avatar
    Gedrven

    Consider no vehicle spec sheet complete without curb weight. Underappreciated by the general public, it’s the single most informative and important dimension for any vehicle.

    So… what’s it weigh? Or is the number too embarassingly high for Ford to disclose?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Even the old 16 valve 4.6 V8 would be the best thing that ever happened to a midsize pickup, you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Yeah yeah on paper you get a different impression, if that’s all you got to go on.

    You can Hot Rod a 4 cylinder to over 400 HP, and it wouldn’t beat the over all, hauling, or just hauling A$$ characteristic of the 4.6 V8, no drama, special care, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @DM: What was the factory-rated horsepower and torque of the engine you just named? I’m interested.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You have a good idea what their respective power levels are, older V8s verse new turbo 4 cylinders .

        Except you think that’s embarrassing for older V8s. On paper yeah. But consider how older class 8, semi trucks with 12 liters and turbo charged, had barely half of the output of current diesel pickups with around 6 liters.

        Is there really a replacement for displacement?

        But yet why haven’t we ever seen 6 liter, modern pickup Power Stroke, Duramax or Ram/Cummins in “class 8” trucks, not even entry level?

        Is it because 80,000 lbs would easily destroy the little engine’s bottom end, lugging the first hill, fully loaded, despite having more than enough hp/tq on paper?

        It’s the same thing current 3 liter diesels would face handling the up to 40,000 combined lbs of HD pickup’s max loads, even though older diesel, HD pickups had less hp/tq than today’s little 3 liter diesels.

        Do you understand not every is as simple as it appears on paper?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @DM: I understand what you’re saying and even agree with it…

          But you didn’t answer the question. What were the factory-rated horsepower and torque numbers of that 16-valve, 4.6L V8?

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “But yet why haven’t we ever seen 6 liter, modern pickup Power Stroke, Duramax or Ram/Cummins in “class 8” trucks, not even entry level?”

          because those engines would need a 30 speed transmission to do the job. 400 horsepower is 400 horsepower; what the torque curve tells you is what gearing you need to do the job you want.

  • avatar
    Groovypippin

    Not surprising and still leaves a big, untapped opportunity for some automaker – ala what Mazda did with the Miata in 1989 – to resurrect a true, simple, affordable, fuel efficient compact pickup truck. One that satisfies the suburban homeowner who is looking for something cheap, cheerful and handy and not the “young, dumb and full of cum” crowd who think everything needs 10,000 HP.

    The wait continues.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      The only way it would be noticeably cheaper would be if it was unibody and FWD-based. Any BOF RWD truck will be expensive to produce so priced accordingly.

      Yes, I’m sure somebody’s strip model 1988 Toyota pickup was cheap and so a 2019 version should be too…forget the fact that to market it in this market, it needs creature comforts, safety equipment, sound deadening, etc, etc. If they tried selling a stripped vinyl seat rubber floor special with no radio, no rear bumper, that’s loud and slow and uncomfortable, they’d be laughed off the market before the first 14″ tire hit the pavement.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “The only way it would be noticeably cheaper would be if it was unibody and FWD-based. Any BOF RWD truck will be expensive to produce so priced accordingly.”

        — Wouldn’t bother me in the least, if that was all that I needed. Sure, I bought bigger than I wanted but honestly my needs changed, demanding something stronger. I still didn’t buy a full sized pickup, even though I might have saved a couple $thousands if I had. Those things are just too bloomin’ big!!!!

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      The only way this works is if you also bring back a large, comfortable BOF V8 sedan or wagon in Brougham trim with a towing package to do all that other stuff my F150 now does in the same level of comfort. Course then I’d have to have 3 cars since I also need my fun to drive stick.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “resurrect a true, simple, affordable, fuel efficient compact pickup truck”

      The robots in the assembly plant probably cost the same to run slapping together an econobox as they do assembling an F350.

      The UAW/UNIFOR line worker doesn’t take a 50% pay cut to work on an econobox.

      Look around you, regular cab pickups are all but dead. Fleets keep that segment alive.

      I’m betting that there isn’t enough demand or profit margin for any maker to cater to that cheapo market.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    The GVWR is 6050 lbs., which makes it officially a Class 2a truck. This was certainly a conscious decision not unlike (but not quite identical to) the decision made in creating the F-150, Big 10, or D-150 40+ years ago. For those, it was for emissions, and for the Ranger it’s for tax breaks.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    My 2010 Sport Trac Adrenalin

    AWD 6 speed auto
    4 doors short box
    292 hp
    315 lb·ft
    20 mpg+ highway

    I get stopped all the time with folks asking where they can buy one.

  • avatar
    brn

    Why can’t I get it in Forest Green??? Come on, Ford!

  • avatar
    silverfin

    I have never owned a pickup but drive small ones (TATA and Hilux)for work all the time overseas. I would buy a 4 door Hilux but they are not available in the USA and not that comfortable. So the 2019 Ranger is my #1 choice. I “chatted” with a Ford rep and was assured that the 4×4 can be towed 4 wheels down behind my diesel motorhome (like my current 2005 Honda CR-V) with the transfer case in N. Power and torque are fine and I would give up some for higher MPG….can anyone speculate what the MPG might be as that is a critical decision point for me (it better be an significant improvement in the frugal F150!). I would never buy a GM product (poor build quality)and with the new Jeep Renegade issues and Chrysler “quality”(shrapnelling engines and sloppy steering boxes)I will pass. So…this will be our only vehicle and if the build quality, comfort and Australian/Mazda DNA are still evident should make an excellent all around vehicle for impending nomadic retirement which will involve light 4 wheeling, motorhome travel and other adventures.

    So….will it get 30 mpg (using regular gas) on the highway…sure hope so!

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Depending on how you drive it, silverfin, it may be possible. But its physical size and weight would suggest 25-28mpg will be more likely, even with such a small engine. To get that kind of mileage, you’re going to need to stay out of the turbo as much as possible, meaning that running 65mph when you want to run 75mph will make a notable difference. With the amount of torque available, I can tell you it will be difficult to keep the speed down because today’s cars and trucks just simply want to GO!!! I’m a heavy user of Cruise Control due to that very fact. I’d have more than my share of speeding tickets if I didn’t use cruise.

      I don’t agree with any of your arguments about GM or FCA quality, though I might disagree with some of their policies and decisions. In both cases (I own or have owned examples of both in the last 5 years) the cars have proven surprisingly durable and the Renegade in particular just wants to run as though it had a turbo under the hood (it doesn’t.) I can’t yet lay claim to any reliability or durability on the Chevy Colorado I just purchased but the 2002 Saturn Vue I purchased brand new still survives, my having put some 130,000 miles on it with no major repairs in 11 years before selling it to my Father in Law, who had to finally put clutch plates in at 140,000 miles (his son was a bit rough on the clutch and not exactly a great driver.) So, I disagree about the quality of the different brands.

      The Ranger looks like a decent rig. Aerodynamically speaking, good fuel economy should be there. Had they chosen a different drivetrain for their first outing or at least offered a choice between turbo-4 or NA-6, I might have waited another 2-3 months to buy. Sure, it claims the same overall load and tow limits as the truck I chose (100-200 pounds difference is insignificant) but to me the NA-6 is likely to be more reliable in the long run–and as you can see above, I keep my vehicles for the long run whenever I can.

      From there it falls to personal choice; what meets one’s needs and desires won’t necessarily meet another’s. I chose what best fits what I wanted from currently- and shortly-available trucks. I got tired of waiting for rumors and hints and delays by Hyundai, FCA and Ford. I would rather have gone FCA myself, considering my experience with the brand seems completely counter to reputation–over several vehicles–but the coming Jeep still leaves too many questions unanswered. They waited too long and still haven’t even hinted at anything more like their ’05 Gladiator concept, which comes far, far closer to what I wanted from Jeep than the supposed “Scrambler” with its full second-row seating. Hyundai still hasn’t committed to the ‘truck’ they showed three and four years ago and even now keeps teasing us with something larger–which isn’t what the people who liked the concept is going to want. Ford…. well, you already know my thoughts there.

      One thing about the Ranger, though. I think Ford is right about one thing: the new Ranger is going to impact their full-sized sales more than they’ll like. People are starting to get tired of these gigantic Road Whales™, as we can see from the increasing number of mid-sized sales over the last year. Yes, there will be a massive surge of Ranger sales in the first year, just as others here have projected. But I don’t think those sales will die down to GM’s levels for their mid-sizers. Rather, I expect the Ranger to stay at or very near the top, competing with the Toyota Tacoma for top spot for years to come. And if so, this could see the end of full-sized half-tons as we know them… replaced by mid-size as the full sized market moves into the ¾-ton and 1-ton rigs.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “One thing about the Ranger, though. I think Ford is right about one thing: the new Ranger is going to impact their full-sized sales more than they’ll like.”

        well, what’s worse? Cannibalizing your own sales, or letting your competitors eat you instead?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          In Ford’s case, cannibalizing their own sales would be worse, as it’s cutting the profit margin from the F-150 (roughly 50% for higher-trim models. Sure, Ford’s still getting SOME money by selling the mid-sizer, but if it cuts into full-sized sales, they could see a notable drop in profits.

      • 0 avatar
        silverfin

        About that FCA quality…..check out the latest QA disaster to befall the new Wrangler. I love the concept and capability of the Wrangler and even think that the new design is well thought out…but there is a huge disconnect from design to execution and if a car manufacturer cannot get the basic frame welds in the right place think what else they missed….Hopefully Ford has done better and the quality is there. Australians (and S. Africans)don’t suffer fools lightly in my experience down under (and that’s why there are few Jeeps there despite being the ideal terrain)and the endorsements the Ranger is getting there is one of the main reasons I think the Americanized Ranger may be my next vehicle. Time will tell.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Of course, everybody knows you don’t buy the first-year version of a new or re-designed model; they always have problems that have to be worked out, no matter the brand. Just look at the first-year issues for the aluminum F-150.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    The new Ranger will have the potential to rein in not only GM’s C twins, but the Tacoma. The Ranger in Australia has nearly equaled the Hilux. The Hilux is only in front due to fleet sales.

    Notice I stated “potential”. The US Ranger needs a 2.5 gas and a small diesel along with single cabs. Single cabs will sell, especially with a long bed or tray back and a 2.5 base model.

    • 0 avatar
      silverfin

      Thanks for the insight Big Al from Oz. I lived in Bundy (on our sailboat) for several years and know from experience for a Ford to come close to the Toyota Hilux in sales and reputation is a huge accomplishment for Ford. YouTube videos also are positive though Ford customer care is disparaged…hopefully the US Ford dealers are better (or the truck is so well made and reliable I will never find out)…Can’t wait for first owner reviews to start appearing in January…it did not take long to discover that the new Jeep Wrangler had some MAJOR flaws (steering box is crap and engine failures)that bring into question the rest of the vehicles durability and engineering. You wouldn’t know because no Australian would give up the proven Hilux for a poser Jeep in the outback.

  • avatar
    AK

    I’d rather have a Ranger with the 3.3 v6 from the F150. I recently drove one of those and it was surprisingly nice. Smooth and responsive.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ajla: And? “The Best and Brightest” is a collection of different people with different opinions about...
  • Corey Lewis: This is not a review, which is why it’s called Opinion.
  • Dan: If there’s anyone left in this country that hasn’t bought the marketing bullchit that they need AWD...
  • ThickBro: They are comparing a ’20 Altima to a ’15 Maxima. Yes its going to look older inside its time...
  • speedlaw: Subscribing to a feature in anything you own is ridiculous. The only thing worse is how this site has gone...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber