2024 Ford Ranger Raptor

[wildbill23c]

May as well put an LCD big screen TV on the dash...that touch screen is ridiculous. Talk about 100% distracted driving. No wonder today's headlights are so bright, its to help overcome the night blindness from having those stupid touch screens glaring in your face all the time.

Disappointed that they dropped the longer bed and extended cab option. Its gonna be real hard giving up my long bed Ranger at some point, and they keep building these "Mid-Size" trucks with tiny ass beds on them.

Would be great if they'd put the 3L V6 in and leave the turbo shit off them. Oh and offer it in all trim levels not just that $60k+ truck. At that price I'd buy a new Super Duty LOL.

 

[wildbill23c]

I let a friend of mine who drives a 19 Tacoma drive mine the other day at lunchtime. He said he couldn't believe how much nicer it was to drive and responsive the ecoboost was. Might have converted him haha

I was never impressed with the Tacoma in the first place....one of several over-hyped trucks out there...wasn't comfortable, was cramped, very underpowered, and worse fuel economy than my 08 Toyota Tundra got...the Tacoma might do fine on flat ground but in the hills and mountains they are terrible. The interiors in Toyotas are always 20-30 years in the past, and continue that trend.

I'm still not sold on that ecoboost nonsense, they get worse fuel economy than my old V6 Ranger because they put a small engine in a mid-size truck and want it to do the work of a V6 or V8...so they threw a turbo on it, which sucks down the fuel anytime you want any of the power. I get 24mpg on the freeway at 75mph with my 87 Ranger....the new ones are lucky to hit 20mpg at those speeds.

 

[Robertmangrum.rm]

I was never impressed with the Tacoma in the first place....one of several over-hyped trucks out there...wasn't comfortable, was cramped, very underpowered, and worse fuel economy than my 08 Toyota Tundra got...the Tacoma might do fine on flat ground but in the hills and mountains they are terrible. The interiors in Toyotas are always 20-30 years in the past, and continue that trend.

I'm still not sold on that ecoboost nonsense, they get worse fuel economy than my old V6 Ranger because they put a small engine in a mid-size truck and want it to do the work of a V6 or V8...so they threw a turbo on it, which sucks down the fuel anytime you want any of the power. I get 24mpg on the freeway at 75mph with my 87 Ranger....the new ones are lucky to hit 20mpg at those speeds.

I run mine in tow mode basically all the time. Before winter started and I started warming the truck my avg. mpgs were 22.3. Now I sit at 18.8 but that's with the truck warming 10 to 15 mins and sitting in a car rider line running for abou 30 mins. I'm also running 305/70r17 ATs. I will have to say it's way way better on fuel than my old 4.0s.

 

[Robertmangrum.rm]

May as well put an LCD big screen TV on the dash...that touch screen is ridiculous. Talk about 100% distracted driving. No wonder today's headlights are so bright, its to help overcome the night blindness from having those stupid touch screens glaring in your face all the time.

Disappointed that they dropped the longer bed and extended cab option. Its gonna be real hard giving up my long bed Ranger at some point, and they keep building these "Mid-Size" trucks with tiny ass beds on them.

Would be great if they'd put the 3L V6 in and leave the turbo shit off them. Oh and offer it in all trim levels not just that $60k+ truck. At that price I'd buy a new Super Duty LOL.

My bosses new Super Duty was almost 100k last year.

 

[JohnnyO]

yeah.....and in the dyno cell cuts...all of the gas engines can fit....of course....not all of them can pass NVH or EPA requirements....but they can fit.


NVH....well....anything new has better NVH then my rigs....so not an issue.

i would rather have the overseas diesel raptor....and not the particular diesel and tune it came with....but it would be a good start. WAYYYY better mpg.






i looked at some used rangers and a jeep gladiator far out edition.....

if i buy a brand new truck...i can see it being the jeep if they can make it happen....it was the same price as my 150 at 75k..... the engines reliability leaves a bit to be desired. but i know people running on 35 in tires getting 20-21 mpg at 70 mph....and so far so good in the gladiators. i also know a few dodge pickup guys that went through hell early on....

best i can tell....the raptor will be the same price.

the jeep is much more capable as a truck...and a wheeler over a regular ranger....and i am too old to go do raptor stuff. pretty tough call.

because if i buy a new truck....the old ranger will be scrapped....and the b2 will probably be relegated to trailer status.

i would rather update my ranger and buy a CTS-V cadi with a manual trans ...or a c6-c7...or some sort of a hellthing.....unless i can get a decent cuda resto mod for the same price....


my son in law has plenty of crazy exotic stuff to play with....

i was offered a pretty good deal on a godzilla this week. but i dont think that will fly to good with the wife....

You can get a new or slightly used FX4 and ARB makes a front locker.
ARB also has better skidplates and some sweet bumpers, fender guards, and rock sliders.
Funny, my bud just sold his CTS-V with a manual. I've driven it, it's a hoot, like 565 hp.
Ludicrous speed.

 

[bobbywalter]

I was never impressed with the Tacoma in the first place....one of several over-hyped trucks out there...wasn't comfortable, was cramped, very underpowered, and worse fuel economy than my 08 Toyota Tundra got...the Tacoma might do fine on flat ground but in the hills and mountains they are terrible. The interiors in Toyotas are always 20-30 years in the past, and continue that trend.

I'm still not sold on that ecoboost nonsense, they get worse fuel economy than my old V6 Ranger because they put a small engine in a mid-size truck and want it to do the work of a V6 or V8...so they threw a turbo on it, which sucks down the fuel anytime you want any of the power. I get 24mpg on the freeway at 75mph with my 87 Ranger....the new ones are lucky to hit 20mpg at those speeds.

hmmm. driving a 80s ranger back to back with a current ranger is not even a comparison. one thing though... you can actually use the 80s bed even if you are a 5 foot 6 chick....that is about the only thing that is better. ride and drive are not comparable.....capacity as well. the new trucks are really good. longevity i dont hold out too much hope for....but time will tell.

put it this way.

you can put that modern powertrain in your old ranger and it will get 25 to 30 mpg and be a rocket ship.

and put your old v6 powertrain in a modern ranger and have a slug that will get 13 mpg.

so....what you are actually getting back to back is incredible.

in this regard...
a maverick lines up better with an old ranger.

and on the all around use...good luck keeping up with a maverick.


my f150 powerboost has been the cheapest family vehicle in regards to actual fuel consumed.

it runs a 13 second quarter mile and tows better then the 3/4 ton.

totally sold on the ecoboost platform for working daily.

 

[Roert42]

Ford 300i.

REEEEEE

best engine ever!!!!1!1!1!!!

Sorry, what were we talking about?