New U.S. market Ford Ranger: thoughts?

[Rangerx2]

Okay so I talked to a Ford salesman yesterday and he confirmed that the Ranger and the Bronco are returning to the American market sometime next year. So this is not simply the automotive press passing along recycled rumors as they are known to do.
We've all seen pictures by now of the new Bronco concept. It's a nice looking truck. The Ranger I imagine will be a North American version of the same Ranger that Ford has been selling overseas for quite a few years now. From what I've read, it's a nice truck and sales are quite good. It's a mid-size though, which means that the size and price will be in the same neighborhood as an F-150 short bed. (I moved to an 8 ft bed '150 over 10 years ago after my needs in a truck outgrew what my little Ranger could keep up with.) I have no word on what powertrains Ford would use in the Ranger, but I imagine it would be something they're already offering in their current line-up. How do you think it would sell? The salesman did say it will most likely be unit-body construction, which means very low GVWR's, but likely higher fuel economy. Now how many takers do we have?

 

[RonD]

The last generation of the Ranger was technically a mid-size, 1998 and up, even 2nd gen was mid-size IMO.

T6 International Ranger is full size, closer to F-150 size than to 3rd Gen Ranger size

I doubt I would buy one, I like the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Gen Ranger's size, larger didn't interest me or I would have gotten an F-150.
I don't like lowering my self into a car, or climbing up to get in a full size truck, Ranger was just right........for me

 

[wildbill23c]

I like the 80's Rangers, Bronco 2's and Broncos.

The pictures that have been circulating for years are beyond ugly...and the Ranger looks like you are stuck with a 5 foot truck bed....more along the lines of the Subaru Brat than a truck...maybe Ford is trying to bring back the Ranchero...because if not they totally screwed up the Ranger...wait they did that years ago when they quit making them here in the US LOL.

What many don't realize is the new "Ranger" won't be a Ranger at all, just another over-priced crossover SUV...think Explorer or Escape with a 3 foot truck bed...AKA Explorer Sport Trac.

 

[don4331]

Ford T6 Ranger w/ 7' bed.

Ya, they'll be as rare as gen2/3 with 7' bed, because the vast majority of customers want to transport people not stuff, so crew cab will be majority, but you can get the "World" Ranger with a real box.

Difference between a gen 1 & gen 2 is 5" of crash structure ahead of front wheels and that is never going away much as we might like the style.

I do wonder if someone will gamble on a small SUV based unibody truck ala Jeep Comanche (either the original or the prototype jeep teased with).

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The last generation of the Ranger was technically a mid-size, 1998 and up, even 2nd gen was mid-size IMO.

First gen sheetmetal will go on a second gen...

 

[stmitch]

The last Rangers no longer meet emissions or crash standards. They had terrible aerodynamics and the engines wouldn't compete with what's available today in power or fuel economy. The transmissions are severely outclassed by current products. It's time to accept that they're not coming back. They made millions of them though, so if that's what you want there are plenty of them available, and prices are dropping like a rock because nobody wants a small, no frills truck that gets outrun by 5000lb minivans.

The next Ranger is still several years off I'm guessing. They haven't even shown any design concepts. When it gets here, it will have the same tech and "features" that all other mobile living rooms with a bed now have. It wouldn't surprise me to see it be unibody/FWD based on something like the TransitConnect. That's really the only way it doesn't rob precious F-150 sales.

 

[hank857]

Really not interested in the new 'ranger'. From what I have read other than new and a high price not much better than the 94 I have now. you will have lots of electronics and flash but........... I would like to have a 4dr so I can carry grandkids, but have you priced a used sporttrac? They want as much used as new import.

Mileage will be 1-2 better than I get now, my emissions are well below the acceptable standard and as far as having no power, well that may be true of the 4cyl, and 3.0 but I have the 4.0 and it will pretty much blow the doors off a 5000lb minivan since most who drive them dont really exercise any power that might be available imo.

So yes some may opt in but many who have the older ones will hang on to them till wheels fall off. If I need to move a lot of stuff well thats why I also have a F350, but the ranger is the DD and does all the chores needed for in-town stuff with ease that the 350 can do but takes more space to do it with.

 

[Blown]

I got no place for the new Ranger. I went from full size Bronco's and an F150 to my Ranger and do not want a larger vehicle.

I got to say the new Colorado looks good but I bet it is about the same size as the new Ranger.

 

[gw33gp]

I agree, I prefer a smaller pickup like our NLA Rangers. Unfortunately, the old style is what killed them. Most people today in the market for new small pickups want something more up to date and slightly up-sized. Any vehicle that doesn't keep up with the latest trend will not be competitive and will be dropped.

I will wait and see what Ford brings out for the new Ranger. I am hoping it will appeal to most buyers and will be a size that I can work with. It must also have good off-road capability for me to be interested. Many people frown on the latest changes that were made to the NLA Ranger such as independent front suspension and more. I have found the suspension on my 02 is very capable off-road and meets my needs. I have about another 100K miles before I need to consider replacing my current Ranger. Hopefully, that will be enough time to determine the capability of the new Ranger.

 

[Rangerx2]

I agree that it will most likely be just as tech-laden as everything else on the market today, but let's not forget that Ford knows how to build and sell a truck to American consumers. In other words, Ford knows what we want in our trucks. I'm confident that they're going to build it to be a capable truck that is worthy of the Blue Oval. If it is going to be uni-body construction, my guess is they're doing that for fuel economy purposes. I wouldn't be surprised to see it with an aluminum body, either
As to whether or not I'll buy one, I'll wait and see. I'll see what my needs are in a pick-up at that time. I really like my '150, but do I need the full-size truck anymore? That's a question that I've been asking myself lately. Ten years ago I needed it, now I hardly ever use the bed anymore. It's more of a DD than a work truck. In fact when I bought this current ride back in the spring, I thought about getting another used Ranger. But 2010-11 4x4 Ranger's in my area are selling for just as much as an F-150 4x4, and most have much higher mileage! My 2012 F-150 with the 3.7 V6 has more power, but gives me better fuel economy than the old 4.0 SOHC would have.
But I am starting to see a lot of Colorado's and the various import mid-size trucks. As a Ford fan, I'd love to see Ford be able to grab a piece of that market. But keep in mind, that whatever they do will have to fit within CAFE regulations. If I do buy a new Ranger, I'd get one with the Supercab and the longer bed, 4x4, hopefully a manual transmission, and a nice powerful V6.
I'd like to see them re-make the 80's Ranger too, but that ain't gonna happen! I miss my 86 that Dad taught me how to drive on 25 years ago, and then he passed it on to me when I was 17. I had a lot of fun with that little truck, and would like to find one just like it to restore. But unfortunately the 80's are not coming back to Detroit.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

but let's not forget that Ford knows how to build and sell a truck to American consumers. In other words, Ford knows what we want in our trucks.

Their treatment of the Ranger in the past does not support this.

It received one major modernization between 1993 and 2011... and then they killed it due to lack of sales because the truck buying public doesn't want a compact truck.

No, they didn't buy Ford's truck because Ford rarely gave it any love. It is amazing it sold as well as it did. When it died it was a 13yo truck through and through... and a lot of it was older than that.

 

[stmitch]

Mileage will be 1-2 better than I get now, my emissions are well below the acceptable standard and as far as having no power, well that may be true of the 4cyl, and 3.0 but I have the 4.0 and it will pretty much blow the doors off a 5000lb minivan since most who drive them dont really exercise any power that might be available imo.

Your 4.0 isn't blowing the doors off of a new minivan if that minivan driver is motivated at all. Almost every brand offers engines with 275hp or more, and the transmissions are much improved. 0-60mph in the high 6-low 7 second range is common. Most 4.0 SOHC Ranger's I've seen do that 0-60 sprint in 9ish seconds.

I'd also wager that fuel economy in a new Ranger could be much improved vs your 4.0 SOHC. Seems like most 4.0s average mid to high teens for fuel economy. Your 4.0 engine has 20 year old tech in a body with 25 year old aerodynamic designs, and it puts the power through a 30 year old transmission design. Things have come a long way since most of the old Ranger stuff was developed.
A new Ranger with the "big engine" would have to get mid 20s or better to be competitive in the current market, and that's a significant improvement over the 4.0. A smaller, economy minded engine would hopefully be 30+mpg. Hell, my 01 duratec/5 spd truck gets 30mpg with terrible aero and improper gearing. Give it direct injection, variable valve timing, a properly designed 6-10 speed transmission, and greatly improved aero, and I could get close to 40mpg out of it for sure.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'd also wager that fuel economy in a new Ranger could be much improved vs your 4.0 SOHC. Seems like most 4.0s average mid to high teens for fuel economy. Your 4.0 engine has 20 year old tech in a body with 25 year old aerodynamic designs, and it puts the power through a 30 year old transmission design. Things have come a long way since most of the old Ranger stuff was developed.
A new Ranger with the "big engine" would have to get mid 20s or better to be competitive in the current market, and that's a significant improvement over the 4.0. A smaller, economy minded engine would hopefully be 30+mpg. Hell, my 01 duratec/5 spd truck gets 30mpg with terrible aero and improper gearing. Give it direct injection, variable valve timing, a properly designed 6-10 speed transmission, and greatly improved aero, and I could get close to 40mpg out of it for sure.

The first gen had almost 500 hours of wind tunnel testing, was the most aerodynamic compact truck on the road in its day... and is a brick today.

For how efficient 4.0's are most get around upper mid teens. 16-17mpg, mom's '94 Explorer was 15-16mpg reliably.. 2wd Rangers's can flirt with 20mpg. My lifted first gen with a 4bbl V8, a 3 speed automatic and mud tires dragging a grille guard/lights and rollbar thru the air gets 11mpg turning 2700rpm at 60mph. I am pretty sure OD would get me into 4.0 mpg territory, if not in the range pretty dang close. By all rights that shouldn't be possible against a fuel injected V6 in a stock truck.

That is one of the reasons I went with an F-150 isntead of a new Ranger in 2005... same mileage (5.4/scab/4wd vs 4.0/scab/4wd) so why not?

 

[Rangerx2]

Their treatment of the Ranger in the past does not support this.

It received one major modernization between 1993 and 2011... and then they killed it due to lack of sales because the truck buying public doesn't want a compact truck.

No, they didn't buy Ford's truck because Ford rarely gave it any love. It is amazing it sold as well as it did. When it died it was a 13yo truck through and through... and a lot of it was older than that.

I will agree with you there. As an example, in 2010, I looked at a then brand new 4 cylinder Ranger in an attempt to get a truck with better fuel economy than my 4.2 liter V6 F-150. For all purposes, that 2010 Ranger was basically the same truck as my previous 1995 Ranger. Ford was selling a 15-year old truck, and wondering why people weren't lining up to buy one!
If and when they do bring back the Ranger to the U.S. market, I hope Ford does it right, and then keeps it ahead of the competition.. The only reason why the last Ranger still sold as well as it did after about 2004 was simply because of its quality. Buyers knew they were getting a top-notch truck!
By the way, the main reason I didn't buy that Ranger then is because the savings in fuel would not have been enough to offset the higher truck payment after trading in my 2006 '150, which wasn't paid off yet.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Wont see me lining up for one.

A techy, unibody, over complex, independent rear suspensioned "truck" with a bed smaller then the cab? No thanks.

Bring back manual trannys, I beams, and locking hubs, and a full ladder type frame, we might talk.