The 2019 Ford Ranger is yesterdays F-150

[fastpakr]

I guessed 1200 on the Instagram page. If that's a winner, there will be some ridiculous pumpkins in my front yard soon.

 

[Uncle Gump]

If winning the pumpkins was the "prize"... I would have never put in a guess. What on earth you gonna do with 1200 pounds of pumpkin?

 

[fastpakr]

An excellent question. Hopefully get my truck finished up and use the engine hoist to throw them in the bed.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

If winning the pumpkins was the "prize"... I would have never put in a guess. What on earth you gonna do with 1200 pounds of pumpkin?

One word;
trebuchet.....

 

[Ranger850]

If winning the pumpkins was the "prize"... I would have never put in a guess. What on earth you gonna do with 1200 pounds of pumpkin?

That's a lot of.pumpkin pie. If you home brew, maybe pumpkin spice beer.

 

[sgtsandman]

I think its best to agree to disagree here. Yall are excited for the new ranger which is understandable, and i dont wanna be a buzzkill.



Just saying, just because it stacks up on paper doesnt always translate to the real world.



But, if we are honest, just like 90% of people who buy trucks nowadays, we dont really truely know if they can live up to the hype because 9/10 people never haul more then their kids powerwheel.

I ordered it because I would rather have a crew cab Ranger over a crew cab Frontier. Plus a friend of mine works in commercial sales and I would rather give the commission to a friend than a stranger.

I have some doubts about the powerplant and hope I don’t live to regret going Ford over the proven Frontier.

I already have a 2011 XLT 4X4 for use and abuse if the 2019 is found wanting. The 2019 is replacing an old, underpowered gen one Honda CR-V, so the demands and expectations for replacement aren’t high. I just needed a four door 4x4 as a replacement.

I guess we’ll find out together how good or bad it will be with me being the guinie pig.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jim Oaks]

If winning the pumpkins was the "prize"... I would have never put in a guess. What on earth you gonna do with 1200 pounds of pumpkin?

Make a boat.

If the professor could have grown pumpkins, everyone could have been rescued off of the island sooner.

 

[bobbywalter]

I think its best to agree to disagree here. Yall are excited for the new ranger which is understandable, and i dont wanna be a buzzkill.

Just saying, just because it stacks up on paper doesnt always translate to the real world.

But, if we are honest, just like 90% of people who buy trucks nowadays, we dont really truely know if they can live up to the hype because 9/10 people never haul more then their kids powerwheel.

i am real suspect of chosen metallurgy of he chassis. they really fugged up the last gen ranger somewhere 94-95 on. the hangers and rear frame sections of the friggen things may as well have been made of cardboard.

but those same trucks in a non corrosive environment smoke their predecessors in everything except mpg.




i also do have reservations and suspicions of the powerplant. even with understanding how it makes the power...which really takes the stress off of the engineering marvel...

but...having owned and used 4 cyl ecoboost. they are ridiculous in how they work... your assumption it is a high winder speaks all the truth needed to know...you dont know..a 3.5 falls on its face at 5 k....makes stupid torque from 1500rpm to that 5 k though.....the 2.3 is not good for 7 grand either.

with that said...no. this is not some simple agree to disagree.


i have driven every kind of ecoboost...in our family every version of it exists. they are faaaaaaar from perfect...that start stop shit on the escape makes you want to drive it off a cliff...

thankfully....tuning brings them into what ones ideals are.


if you drive on interstate 75 or 23 any weekend of the year...50-75 percent of the suv minivans and pickups are loaded for bear from northern michigan to southern florida. across 80, 40 or 10......same thing down 77,79,95, 65.... same thing. i frequent those roads and its been that way the whole time.

so. you really are amazing

 

[rusty ol ranger]

if you drive on interstate 75 or 23 any weekend of the year...50-75 percent of the suv minivans and pickups are loaded for bear from northern michigan to southern florida. across 80, 40 or 10......same thing down 77,79,95, 65.... same thing. i frequent those roads and its been that way the whole time.

so. you really are amazing

I truely dont understand how this pertains to anything.

That being said my 87 Ranger has the 1600lb payload package. Youd think with it being "new" and "improved" they could beat a truck of the same species built more then 30 years earlier? Right?

200lbs aint shit man.

Either way, ive owned, worked, and rode these old trucks, hard. And continue to do so today. Im sorry but untill i start seeing this new crap prove itself (and im talking all trucks, not just the ranger) my thoughts on the matter wont change.

Im not talking about towing some 5th wheel 80mph down the interatate either. Im talking about bouceing thru ditches carrying 1000lbs more then rated capacity, dragging loaded corn wagons thru axle deep mud, traversing bumper deep water....

You know, truck stuff.

 

[bobbywalter]

I truely dont understand how this pertains to anything.

That being said my 87 Ranger has the 1600lb payload package. Youd think with it being "new" and "improved" they could beat a truck of the same species built more then 30 years earlier? Right?

200lbs aint shit man.

Either way, ive owned, worked, and rode these old trucks, hard. And continue to do so today. Im sorry but untill i start seeing this new crap prove itself (and im talking all trucks, not just the ranger) my thoughts on the matter wont change.

Im not talking about towing some 5th wheel 80mph down the interatate either. Im talking about bouceing thru ditches carrying 1000lbs more then rated capacity, dragging loaded corn wagons thru axle deep mud, traversing bumper deep water....

You know, truck stuff.

we have much in common...we both prefer v8's and old iron...

but uhhh...a modern truck does everything you listed better and more comfortably so i am at a loss to what your getting at. i work mainly in the oil field these days....we destroy trucks like no other. its just the way it is.


i dont understand why you think midsize / mini truck payloads would be expected to be equal to a one ton or have to exceed 1200 pounds for the average user. the tow rating is killer though for sub fullsize...and i suspect it wont be any different then a 351 ho at 7500 pounds for most situations...but unladen is where that difference is... its a mid sized truck which exceeds yesterdays full size stuff handily.

and it should. so really its no big deal. this thing is what i would expect. not really impressive for the tech involved.

like i stated in an earlier post....this truck factory equipped will destroy any factory bullnose working in the same place. it will do more work in worse conditions stock for stock. its got a tube frame for shits sake. 4wd traction control system thats off the hook and a locker if shit gets real.

any modern half ton in the conditions your speaking to with the same tires...easily out do the old trucks....literally run them into the ground.

you take any ranger from the 80's and with the same load...or add 1000 to the new one for that matter..no way it can touch this thing..


i drive an antiquated pos 88 ranger as my main personal vehicle. its purpose built to my goals/needs. it runs on an array of fuel. it can easily be configured to operate with no electricity needed to get out of a jamb.

experience dictated those goals, i need to be confident in arrival.

i am also just fine driving a 79 ford anywhere. with all of its factory interior glory...fresh seats of course.

naturally...i would put a 6.5 or a duramax... possibly a cummins in it so i could afford to drive it in the configuration i would prefer.

and to prove i agree newer isnt always better..

the ecoboost 3.5 would not be a good fit because it would not meet the economy the duramax would. not even close...i dont think it would top 17. 20 plus with a d max no issues though. seen it done.

i base this on real world use. lifted eb 150 that equalled what a 79 would be=17 mpg real world. real world d max 78 k3500 on 37's...22 mpg at 70...


great for me...but the new trucks are better and stronger in any case stock for stock...

its not an opinion. it is physics..

 

[rusty ol ranger]

we have much in common...we both prefer v8's and old iron...

but uhhh...a modern truck does everything you listed better and more comfortably so i am at a loss to what your getting at. i work mainly in the oil field these days....we destroy trucks like no other. its just the way it is.


i dont understand why you think midsize / mini truck payloads would be expected to be equal to a one ton or have to exceed 1200 pounds for the average user. the tow rating is killer though for sub fullsize...and i suspect it wont be any different then a 351 ho at 7500 pounds for most situations...but unladen is where that difference is... its a mid sized truck which exceeds yesterdays full size stuff handily.

and it should. so really its no big deal. this thing is what i would expect. not really impressive for the tech involved.

like i stated in an earlier post....this truck factory equipped will destroy any factory bullnose working in the same place. it will do more work in worse conditions stock for stock. its got a tube frame for shits sake. 4wd traction control system thats off the hook and a locker if shit gets real.

any modern half ton in the conditions your speaking to with the same tires...easily out do the old trucks....literally run them into the ground.

you take any ranger from the 80's and with the same load...or add 1000 to the new one for that matter..no way it can touch this thing..


i drive an antiquated pos 88 ranger as my main personal vehicle. its purpose built to my goals/needs. it runs on an array of fuel. it can easily be configured to operate with no electricity needed to get out of a jamb.

experience dictated those goals, i need to be confident in arrival.

i am also just fine driving a 79 ford anywhere. with all of its factory interior glory...fresh seats of course.

naturally...i would put a 6.5 or a duramax... possibly a cummins in it so i could afford to drive it in the configuration i would prefer.

and to prove i agree newer isnt always better..

the ecoboost 3.5 would not be a good fit because it would not meet the economy the duramax would. not even close...i dont think it would top 17. 20 plus with a d max no issues though. seen it done.

i base this on real world use. lifted eb 150 that equalled what a 79 would be=17 mpg real world. real world d max 78 k3500 on 37's...22 mpg at 70...


great for me...but the new trucks are better and stronger in any case stock for stock...

its not an opinion. it is physics..

Diesels are overrated atleast IMO unless you start talking about "modern" era diesels. A good 460/454 will out snort a 6.9/7.3Idi/early stroker/6.5/6.2 anyday. And as a bonus start on a -10* morning.

The reason i say these things about the new trucks is this...
1- They sit stupid low to the ground.
2- Way to many electronics to get wet/fry.
3- No manual hubs, no manual 4wd, no manual trans....you know...stuff i know is going to function when i need it to.
4-Fancy touch screens and other BS that is way to easy to screw up with muddy gloves, whatever....

Need i go on?

Plus, yes, 7500lbs is great. But lets look at this...

My 32Ft TT weighs 7200 lbs. So im gonna go buy a new ranger to tow it. First time out realize that i dont have nearly enough truck (b...bb....but the dealer said its rated for 7500), and whind up sideways on my side on. I75 because i thought i had enough truck (on paper, i did)

Now, behind the 85, it may be a little hairy. But i towed it with my 77 3/4 ton and other then the killer 3.07 gears it was pretty stable. So while the 85 is rated the same, the extra stability makes a better tow vehicle. Power isnt everything. And like i said, at 185hp that old 351 can accomplish just as much (prolly more TBH) then thwt EB at 260. Why? Because torque is just that other number that doesnt matter.

 

[fastpakr]

Hold on. Can we start with point one and how absolutely insane it is? The 2wd new ranger has tremendous ground clearance. Far more than any previous version. I crawled and rolled all over the place under them on Monday. Tons of room underneath and easy to work on.

 

[Jim Oaks]

My TT is 33 feet from the tongue to the rear. I would never dream of trying to pull it with a Ranger. Hell, I probably wouldn't tow it with an F150. This thing is heavy, and I don't ever max out a tow vehicle. That's where people get themselves in trouble.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Everything newer is taller than the older stuff...

Weight is a concern of mine. I pull a lot of stuff that isn’t really that heavy that can have quite a bit or not much tongue weight.

New trucks don’t play fair, my brothers newer std cab shortbox 3.5EB is more stable towing than my scab even with a cast iron block V8 for counterweight.

I really don’t know how it will shake out but it is a concern of mine on the Ranger. My ‘85 will do it but my f150 is better. Which one will the new truck be closer to or will they use their crazy voodoo and come out better than both?

 

[sgtsandman]

My dream truck is a 70s series crew cab Highboy but I sure as heck wouldn’t depend on it being my only form of transportation. Not without a LOT of work being done to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk