mini-compact-midsize ?

[Mickey Bitsko]

Hi guys... been looking, google trs, frf, and not finding any consistent info on our trucks, generally, what do y'all feel our Rangers are size wise?

I think they are midsize. I have owned many 70' vintage 150's and 250's , compared to todays 150/250 trucks they were much smaller in stature, don't know if the payloads are any higher/lower.
My 00' four door is larger than a 98' tacoma i owned 10 years ago, and they are visibly larger today and cost a helluva lot more.
just curious

 

[JoshT]

I'm not even sure what those terms mean anymore. Current F-150 is a full size, but to me it looks enormous compared to previous generations. So compared to todays trucks what do those terms really mean?

First gen Rangers were compact pickups. I'd call all of them compact, because with the exception of the regular cabs they stayed almost the same in size for the entire run. The The 93+ rounded body make the later models appear bigger, but there wasn't much change in wheel base, width, or other dimensions. Looking at the extended cab versions a 1983 Extended cab and bed would bolt directly onto a 2011 chassis of the same configuration.

Going on measurements alone, (if same body layout) your 2000 Ranger would be almost the same size as the 98 Tacoma. The Tacomas later grew into the mid-size they are today. I'm sure if any effort were put in keeping ranger in production that they would now be a mid size as well.

 

[enjr44]

I think it depends on what you compare them against.

Say, compared to today's 150 (Ford's smallest full sized) they are really small/compact. Compared to a 1951/2 F-1 (IMO the best looking Ford pickup ever made) my FX4 is almost exactly the same size. So it would have been considered full sized back then.

 

[RonD]

The Ford Courier came to US/Canada around 1972 with a 1.8l engine, it was considered a Compact Truck, it was built by Mazda and imported as a Ford Truck.
In 1983 Ford introduce the Ranger as it's compact truck, and stopped selling the "Ford" Courier in 1982.
Ranger grew in size over the years but was still a "compact" truck, and there are "mini" trucks imported here.
F-150 is called a Full-size, but an argument could be made that a 2-door regular cab is a mid-size when compared to other trucks.

Curb weight would be a good way for classification
Ford Courier was 2,500lbs
Ford Ranger was 2,800(last model was 3,700, 4x4 supercab 4-door)
F-100 was 3,400
F-150 regular cab 4x2 is 4,700
F-350 regular cab is 6,000

"Mini" trucks are about 1,500lbs

 

[Mike Tonon]

I had an 87 2wd reg cab long bed with 25" tires and I'd consider those compact. But my 07 4x4 reg cab long bed with 30" tires, I consider a mid-size or close. Somewhere around 96, the regular cabs were lengthened a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4dYyaX5N0E

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

I had an 87 2wd reg cab long bed with 25" tires and I'd consider those compact. But my 07 4x4 reg cab long bed with 30" tires, I consider a mid-size or close. Somewhere around 96, the regular cabs were lengthened a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4dYyaX5N0E

Thanks guys, very savvy perspectives.
In the video , the 83' regular cab long bed the narrator called the new ranger a mid size, I have parked next to I'm guessing, 2012 + tacoma and the difference in size is negligible . The 96+ 150 is really not all that much larger either..imo

 

[RonD]

The growing size of the Ranger is why Ford ended up dropping it.
Ford sales were going down for compact/mid-size Rangers since early 2000's
There were just more imports splitting a shrinking market, and the imports were getting larger as well.
So they either went bigger with the Ranger or went home, they went home, lol.

Bigger would just split sales for the F-150's

International Ranger(BT50, now T6) is very close to F-150 in size and weight, and that would have been the next step for the Ranger, and Ford doesn't import the T6 because it would split sales of F-150's, also would need to get safety and emissions tested which is expensive.
(curb weight of BT50 was 4,000, T6 4,200lbs)

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Thanks guys, very savvy perspectives.
In the video , the 83' regular cab long bed the narrator called the new ranger a mid size, I have parked next to I'm guessing, 2012 + tacoma and the difference in size is negligible . The 96+ 150 is really not all that much larger either..imo

The newer Tacos look bigger on the outside but I don't think they are much bigger on the inside.

Dunno where you are going with '96 being similar size as a Ranger, every fullsize I have driven from dad's '80 F-350, 96 F-250, my '02 F-150dd and newer ones are quite a bit bigger than my '85.

 

[pjtoledo]

Don't forget the idiots in the EPA, they pretty much define what is what.
I seem to recall on my 2000 & 2005 the window sticker said compact truck, so be it, and God help the pitiful sole who challenges the EPA.


Perry

 

[pjtoledo]

The growing size of the Ranger is why Ford ended up dropping it.
Ford sales were going down for compact/mid-size Rangers since early 2000's
There were just more imports splitting a shrinking market, and the imports were getting larger as well.
So they either went bigger with the Ranger or went home, they went home, lol.

Bigger would just split sales for the F-150's

International Ranger(BT50, now T6) is very close to F-150 in size and weight, and that would have been the next step for the Ranger, and Ford doesn't import the T6 because it would split sales of F-150's, also would need to get safety and emissions tested which is expensive.
(curb weight of BT50 was 4,000, T6 4,200lbs)

Safety standards and fuel economy had a hellofalot to do with the Rangers demise. It needed a complete re-design, and that was just too costly for the market at the time.

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

The newer Tacos look bigger on the outside but I don't think they are much bigger on the inside.

Dunno where you are going with '96 being similar size as a Ranger, every fullsize I have driven from dad's '80 F-350, 96 F-250, my '02 F-150dd and newer ones are quite a bit bigger than my '85.

I'm saying the 1996 f-150 doesn't look all that much bigger than the same year ranger, then around 2004 the f-150's start growing and haven't stopped.
Thats jus my observation .

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm saying the 1996 f-150 doesn't look all that much bigger than the same year ranger, then around 2004 the f-150's start growing and haven't stopped.
Thats jus my observation .

80-96 is the same carcass
97-03 is the same carcass
04+ is basically the same shell with numerous facelifts and tweaks.

97-03 is taller but feels similar to drive as the previous generation. The newer F-150's feel huge, small windows and a super deep box probably don't help.

 

[Kiba]

Hi guys... been looking, google trs, frf, and not finding any consistent info on our trucks, generally, what do y'all feel our Rangers are size wise?

I think they are midsize. I have owned many 70' vintage 150's and 250's , compared to todays 150/250 trucks they were much smaller in stature, don't know if the payloads are any higher/lower.
My 00' four door is larger than a 98' tacoma i owned 10 years ago, and they are visibly larger today and cost a helluva lot more.
just curious

Depends... the original (first gen) Rangers were fairly straightforward compacts, definitely not midsize, definitely not mini. After that they are somewhere between compact and midsize (compact and a half, if you will) but the terms became skewed and twisted as manufacturers (Ford, GM, Ram, Toyota, and Nissan) bloated their trucks to enormous proportions. What ten years ago was a 1500 class truck is now "compact"; what was a 2500 is now a 1500, and what was a 3500 is now a 2500.

The market does not want the kind of trucks we own according to the bean counters; modern truck buyers want huge passenger compartments, tons of unecessary gadgets and automatic everything.

I do think our Rangers are the real successors to the trucks of old though; simple, no frills, utilitarian, can be had either basic or with a simple line of options, choice between standard and automatic, choice between economical inline motor and powerful V (sans two cylinders from the old ones).

The cab of my '99 (stick, inline four, no power, radio) looks like a modern version of my grandfather's '72 F250. That's why I like it, exactly what a basic truck is supposed to be- simple, economical, cheap, hot-roddable if you want to. Everything you need and not a pinch more.

They don't make trucks like this anymore; although the new Colorado is supposed to have a similar options package to our Rangers available so you could feasibly get a basic truck if you wanted. Who wants a GM though?

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

Depends... the original (first gen) Rangers were fairly straightforward compacts, definitely not midsize, definitely not mini. After that they are somewhere between compact and midsize (compact and a half, if you will) but the terms became skewed and twisted as manufacturers (Ford, GM, Ram, Toyota, and Nissan) bloated their trucks to enormous proportions. What ten years ago was a 1500 class truck is now "compact"; what was a 2500 is now a 1500, and what was a 3500 is now a 2500.

The market does not want the kind of trucks we own according to the bean counters; modern truck buyers want huge passenger compartments, tons of unecessary gadgets and automatic everything.

I do think our Rangers are the real successors to the trucks of old though; simple, no frills, utilitarian, can be had either basic or with a simple line of options, choice between standard and automatic, choice between economical inline motor and powerful V (sans two cylinders from the old ones).

The cab of my '99 (stick, inline four, no power, radio) looks like a modern version of my grandfather's '72 F250. That's why I like it, exactly what a basic truck is supposed to be- simple, economical, cheap, hot-roddable if you want to. Everything you need and not a pinch more.

They don't make trucks like this anymore; although the new Colorado is supposed to have a similar options package to our Rangers available so you could feasibly get a basic truck if you wanted. Who wants a GM though?

Thats good ^^
I haven't looked at a comparison chart ranger vs colorado, but the overall sheet metal makes colorado look larger.

 

[Shoddy Cologne]

I agree that rangers are the real successors to the old trucks. My 57 f100 is roughly the same length and only slightly wider than my 2000 regular cab ranger. Neither of them have ac or power windows/locks. Lol

Sent from my LGL16C using Tapatalk