Ford Announces The Return of The Ranger in 2019 - TRS's 20TH Anniversary

wildbill23c said:

$20k seems far more reasonable.

Click to expand...

They could very well make a stripped down 20k Ranger to compete with the 'base' 20k Colorado. That Colorado is a manual 4x2 4-cylinder extended cab, with vinyl seats, steel wheels, and deleted rear seats. But it does have a backup camera, 4 wheel antilock disc brakes, side curtain air bags, stability control, and a power adjustable driver's seat.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

They are only making one wheelbase so standard cabs will not be offered.

Click to expand...

Elsewhere around the world, the regular cab is offered on same wheelbase with the 7' box, so it is certainly possible.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Think about it though, the old Ranger was aerodynamically a brick and with a NA 4cyl it could flirt with 30mpg. 40mpg with improved aero and powertrain shouldn't be that far out of line 10+ years later.

Click to expand...

2011 Ranger EPA mileage for the 2.3 manual 4x2 was 24 mpg. (Remember, EPA mpg is the combined city and hiway) And the 4x4s with V-6 were a dismal 16 mpg. You're needing a 100% increase to get to 40mpg assuming you are selling equal numbers of both.

Note: The Fiesta only gets 31 mpg on the EPA test which tells you how crazy the gov't requirement is for 2020.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

I think a lot of the size is Ford is just throwing a facelift on an existing design to save money and see for real if there is a market there.

FWIW my local O'Reilly's has two extended cab Frontiers for delivery vehicles.

Think about it though, the old Ranger was aerodynamically a brick and with a NA 4cyl it could flirt with 30mpg. 40mpg with improved aero and powertrain shouldn't be that far out of line 10+ years later.

Click to expand...

Ahemm, cough, cough...
they are in parking spots previously occupied by Rangers, cough cough

don4331 said:

2011 Ranger EPA mileage for the 2.3 manual 4x2 was 24 mpg. (Remember, EPA mpg is the combined city and hiway) And the 4x4s with V-6 were a dismal 16 mpg. You're needing a 100% increase to get to 40mpg assuming you are selling equal numbers of both.

Note: The Fiesta only gets 31 mpg on the EPA test which tells you how crazy the gov't requirement is for 2020.

Click to expand...

Ew, combined puts a different spin on it...

pjtoledo said:

Ahemm, cough, cough...
they are in parking spots previously occupied by Rangers, cough cough

Click to expand...

Rangers/S-10's... mostly Rangers though. Just saying when provided with no other options fleets will by extended cabs.

Kinda makes more sense in a way, most of what they deliver doesn't like the elements anyway. Carquest uses minivans (they had a Ranger between vans but it was t-boned and replaced with another van)

The Transit Connect seems to be the most popular replacement for the Ranger in fleets. Although I have seen Frontiers and new Colorados. I've even seen some Nissan Versas used as parts store vehicles.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, I'd expect numbers similar to the current offerings in the mid size truck class. The new Colorado gets 18mpg city/ 25hwy. Those aren't incredible numbers on the surface, but when you consider that they also have more than twice the hp and they weigh about 1000lbs more than the Rangers that could tickle 30mpg and it starts to be more impressive.

Obviously, if they wanted to make the most fuel efficient truck possible, they could do better, but for a truck that large with 300+ hp they did alright.

priceman142 said:

They could very well make a stripped down 20k Ranger to compete with the 'base' 20k Colorado. That Colorado is a manual 4x2 4-cylinder extended cab, with vinyl seats, steel wheels, and deleted rear seats. But it does have a backup camera, 4 wheel antilock disc brakes, side curtain air bags, stability control, and a power adjustable driver's seat.

Click to expand...

Not bad options for a base model truck. I was surprised what my 08 toyota tundra base model has, power windows, locks, etc. Pretty standard features across the board I believe now. Funny though my 08 base model truck has dual climate controls...yet the new tundras its part of an upgraded option package in the SR5 and Limited LOL. Upgrading isn't always a good thing .

Vinyl seats would be nice as well as a vinyl floor...although with the electrical stuff in newer vehicles I'm not so sure that you'd want to do the old spray out the interior trick that you could do on old trucks LOL. But I think the vinyl floor and seats would be great for a work truck. The backup camera would be nice for hooking up to trailers, but in a base model ranger I wouldn't be towing with it anyways.

Stability control, traction control, anti-lock brakes, etc. Can the traction control/stability control be disabled so you can actually get moving in snow/ice? This is now a problem in every vehicle made now, no you really aren't stuck the vehicle is just too stupid with its "safety" features that it won't move out of its own way in snow/ice LOL. I know with my Tundra a couple presses of a button and I can disable the traction control, and stability control, do the newer fords have that ability to get you moving in slippery conditions?

wildbill23c said:

I know with my Tundra a couple presses of a button and I can disable the traction control, and stability control, do the newer fords have that ability to get you moving in slippery conditions?

Click to expand...

GF's Edge has a button to kill TC, newer ones you hit the button to kill TC and hold it to kill SC (on certain models I think)

I wish there was a toggle switch to just leave TC turned off. I have never experienced anything with SC, it sounds like it might have merit but I am pretty sure I can do better on my own than TC can. The one time I experienced it it did far more harm than good.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

GF's Edge has a button to kill TC, newer ones you hit the button to kill TC and hold it to kill SC (on certain models I think)

I wish there was a toggle switch to just leave TC turned off. I have never experienced anything with SC, it sounds like it might have merit but I am pretty sure I can do better on my own than TC can. The one time I experienced it it did far more harm than good.

Click to expand...

I'm 100% the opposite:

TC on wife's Escape made the AWD as good as the 4WD with locking differentials in my Ranger at the expense of brakes getting rather warm. You could hear the ABS pump running but you hardly felt the braking while the Escape was pushing though bumper deep snow.

SC on other hand is PIA. Escape starts to skid on ice, I counter steered and stop the skid; then the SC control kicks in and slams on the brakes when I am already wanting to accelerate away. The SC doesn't detect the skid, it detects my reaction to the skid and reacts to that. If you drive real smooth, you can set up skid and get out of it without tripping the SC. And while you can push the disable button, it comes back on the next time it thinks needs to save you.

My 19 year old son was really impressed the 1st time I did drifted the wife's SUV, course then he had to comment that his Mustang did it much better which got both of us in trouble.

Going to my aunt and uncles in a snowstorm at night I turned a mile too soon. Was cruising along about 40mph and went by a house. I thought "that isn't supposed to be there, I need to turn around" and wham, the gravel ended, it went to a mud road and the car desperately wanted to go into the left ditch. (it had been raining all day and switched to snow that evening so it wasn't sticking) Me being used to my junk eased on the throttle (car lost speed fast when it hit mud) to power out of it and back on to the road... which it did but then TC cut power on me so we drifted back to the ditch and it gave power back to me just in time to pull us back out and then it took it away again. About three cycles of this it clicked what was going on and as it cut power the last time I slammed on the brakes so I wasn't in the ditch and neutered the @!*& traction control. Just straddled the edge of the ditch at the worst, the right side never went off the road. With the mud dragging/hitting the car and in the heat of the moment I don't remember hearing any ABS noise. Did a 5 point turn in the middle of the road and drove out without much hassle. Of course when we got back on gravel the tire light came on because I had stabbed the front left sidewall with something while trying to keep it out of the road ditch. So I got to change a mud packed tire on a muddy gravel road in a snow storm in the dark to boot.

Not sure how mine would have done jumping into mess in 2wd at that speed (Edge is AWD) but they would have put up a much better fight not hitting themselves in the face every other swing once in 4wd.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

GF's Edge has a button to kill TC, newer ones you hit the button to kill TC and hold it to kill SC (on certain models I think)

I wish there was a toggle switch to just leave TC turned off. I have never experienced anything with SC, it sounds like it might have merit but I am pretty sure I can do better on my own than TC can. The one time I experienced it it did far more harm than good.

Click to expand...

It does more harm than good, it cuts power and you can't do anything at all. When I hit the gas I need the vehicle to move not cut power. Hit a mud hole with traction control & stability control turned on and you'll just sit there because the nannies cut power and you can't move.

Good to know at least with the fords you can disable it for those cases. I don't think its ever completely turned off, even in my tundra if you get crazy the nannies still will intervene.

I do notice that in 4WD they are less intrusive, and in 4Lo far less intrusive but they're still there.

For the most part I don't really need 4WD, a few times in the winter maybe but otherwise don't use it very often at all. Now this past winter was a totally different story, had my truck in 4WD for a solid month, most the 4WD has been used in any of my 4WD's LOL. However, most years we get snow its not enough to need 4WD and a 2WD will do just fine, its those odd years once in a great while that we get a good pounding with snow that makes having that 4WD option very handy LOL. But, in reality I'd get by with a base model 2WD ranger.

That's all we know so far. Ford didn't show off any pictures of the Bronco, but it did say the Ranger would be based on the current Euro-spec model, which is the truck you see here.

I was reading this morning that the new Bronco is going to basically be the Everest...so much for any hopes of a true offroad vehicle.

wildbill23c said:

I was reading this morning that the new Bronco is going to basically be the Everest...so much for any hopes of a true offroad vehicle.

Click to expand...

Théy have said that from the beginning...

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Théy have said that from the beginning...

Click to expand...

Depends on what article you run across. One says Everest, one says nope it'll be based on the Ranger.

The one I read on Yahoo yesterday I should have saved a link to because it was pretty comical.

It said the new Bronco will be smaller than the Bronco 2 but bigger than the original Bronco. How the hell does that work. Even the Bronco's from the 60's were bigger than the Bronco 2. The original Bronco's actually fit between the Bronco 2 and the full size F-Series based Bronco's. So how do they figure the new Bronco to be larger than the bronco but smaller than the bronco 2 .

Same article does say a possibility of Dana solid axles and a removable top...not sure how they'd pull that off with an Everest....wait...guess it would just be a sawzall job like a few have done with their Bronco 2's LOL.