By on April 23, 2019

2019 Ford Ranger Lariat 4x4 SuperCab

2.3-liter turbocharged I4 (270hp @ 5,500 rpm, 310 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm)

Ten-speed automatic transmission, four-wheel drive

20 city / 24 highway / 22 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)

11.8 city / 9.8 highway / 10.9 combined (NRCan Rating, L/100km)

20.4 (observed mileage, MPG)

Base Price: $37,305 US

As Tested: $41,915 US

Prices include $1,095 destination charge. In Canada, Rangers are not available in Lariat SuperCab format.

You know you’re getting old when you start using phrases like “back in my day” on the regular. Indeed, as I’m rounding my fortieth lap of the sun, I find myself reminiscing entirely too much. And, considering this tidy second career I’ve picked out, it’s not surprising that my daydreams revert all too often to vehicles of my youth.

Back in my day (there it is) compact pickup trucks were everywhere. Every mainstream automaker had one – occasionally, it was a rebadged import, but it was an important segment in which to compete. The Ranger was just another player in a crowded marketplace.

These days, the compact pickup doesn’t exist in North America. The midsize truck is the new hotness, but even this segment is relatively immature. Ford looked at its overseas portfolio and saw a model that could readily be adapted – thus, the 2019 Ford Ranger seen here. Is the Ranger competitive with the stalwarts, or is it a matter of too midsize, too late?

2019 Ford Ranger profile

I’ll admit to a bit of cosplay while shooting these photos. I figured I’d put the Ranger in an environment that would appear familiar – that, and it’s not hard to find a new construction site in rapidly-growing Central Ohio. While this chrome-laden Lariat trim might not see as much jobsite usage as the more work-oriented XL and XLT, this SuperCab with the long bed is best suited to a driver looking to haul tools and cargo rather than a family.

2019 Ford Ranger front seat

For daily driving, the SuperCrew with four traditional doors and more rear legroom would indeed be much more comfortable. As it was, my (admittedly tall) tweenaged daughters complained about the cramped quarters in the second row, and I had to remind them to close the rear-hinged doors first before the front doors. Again, it’s not a complaint about the truck itself – it’s down to choosing the right option for your needs. I’d need the larger cab.

2019 Ford Ranger rear seat

For those taking their Ranger to the jobsite, the SuperCab is brilliant – it gives plenty of lockable storage space for expensive tools, as well as adding a longer six-foot box (versus five feet and change for the SuperCrew). No, you can’t fit plywood or drywall flat between the wheel wells (width there is 44.8 inches) but a few sheets will fit just fine either at an angle or above the wheels. Really, if you’re buying more than a few sheets of either drywall or plywood for a home project, you’ll likely get it delivered, so I wouldn’t make that a deciding factor. Likewise, the construction apprentice or journeyman driving the Ranger to work isn’t hauling a bedload of sheet goods.

2019 Ford Ranger interior

I wouldn’t hesitate to haul anything within reason with the Ranger, however. The 2.3-liter turbocharged four cylinder is perfectly suited to truck duty, with 310 lb-ft of torque available at 3,000 rpm, mated to a 10-speed automatic. Payload in the bed ranges from 1,560 lbs in the SuperCrew 4×4, to 1,860 lbs in the 4×2 SuperCab. My SuperCab 4×4 is rated for 1,650 lbs.

2019 Ford Ranger center stack

Driving the Ranger is an unfamiliar experience to those weaned on the full-size truck. Its compact dimensions means maneuvering in the city is a much more pleasant experience. I Rangered into the notoriously narrow cobblestone streets of Columbus’ German Village with absolutely no concerns about parking (I once tried a similar excursion in a full-size truck and vowed to never do that again). The Ranger has great visibility to all corners, and responsive steering to place the truck at ease.

Of course, one traditional truck trait carries through to the Ranger – the tendency for the rear to bounce a bit on the interstate while driving without a load. Three quarters of a ton of bed payload capacity means the rear is sturdily sprung to handle that potential – and when it’s hauling, the tail gets a bit nervous at speed.

2019 Ford Ranger gauges

When you go to buy your Ranger, be sure to specify the locking rear differential. All that turbocharged torque will light up the inside rear tire while cornering if you aren’t particularly cautious with the throttle. Further, if you’re using that towing capacity in any place with uncertain traction, whether a muddy field or a wet boat ramp, you’ll curse the day you decided to save a few bucks. It’s a $420 option, and worth every penny. My tester, despite the extra-cost paint, the chrome package, and the Lariat trim, didn’t have it.

2019 Ford Ranger front

Speaking of that trim and chrome – it’s a bit over the top for me, but it seems to be what people like. Look at the full-sizers: the top trims ooze brightwork. I’d prefer painted trim that still looks good after a few years. I’d prefer smaller, less-bright alloy wheels. But the rest of this Ranger is an attractive truck without too much styling silliness.

2019 Ford Ranger rear

If you’ve read other reviews of the newest Ranger, you’ll no doubt note a theme about the dated interior. After all, this basic truck has been for sale in other countries with few significant changes since 2011. But take a moment to consider WHO is telling you that the interior is dated – we’re auto journalists who sit behind the wheel of new cars every week. Chances are good that whomever is passing judgement upon the Ranger’s interior has recently piloted an Audi or Lexus.

Yes, there’s a good bit of hard plastic trim. Yeah, the button layout leaves some weird empty spaces on the center stack. But the Ranger works well. It’s functional, it’s solid, and it’s intuitive. Exactly what you want on frequently used control surfaces, right? It’s not an Audi. It’s not supposed to be.

About that price – as usual, media test fleets are laden with loaded vehicles, rather than the midrange volume models that fill the floorplan of your friendly local dealer. It’s hard to swallow nearly $42k for a midsize Ranger when a similarly-equipped F-150 rings the bell at around $48k. For my money, though, the value in a midsize is the ease of driving in an urban or suburban environment. You don’t give up that much in everyday capacity, but you gain confidence in being able to fit in a parking spot at Costco.

If I were to sign for a Ranger, I’d choose a SuperCrew 4×4 in Saber (a magnificent orange!) with the 301A package (SYNC 3, mostly), the $495 tow package, the $795 Technology package for the adaptive cruise control, a spray-in bedliner, and the locking rear differential. Delivered, it stickers for $38,015, and it’s a better truck for my needs.

2019 Ford Ranger screenshot

You can keep your full-size pickup trucks. I don’t need full-size capabilities. For a daily driver that can haul toys or chores on weekends, the tweener is where it is for me. And I’d be quite happy with the tweener Ranger.

2019 Ford Ranger rear quarter

[Images: © 2019 Chris Tonn, screenshot courtesy ]

Recommended

83 Comments on “2019 Ford Ranger Review – A Tweener...”


  • avatar
    Vulpine

    The new design ruined what could have been a good truck. First by putting the wrong engine into it and second by not letting the area behind the front seats have a flat–truly flat–floor without obstructions.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Do tell what the “right” engine for this vehicle is?

      It seems like a fine engine for a midsize pickup to me.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        The right engine would have been a normally-aspirated V6 with about the same horses. I just completed a 320-mile round trip in my Colorado, and even when including almost 40 miles of in-town driving at my mid-point, I got home with a full ¼ tank + of fuel and averaged 23mpg, going through foothills the first 40 and the last 40 miles. The truck fully demonstrated a 27 mpg capability on expressway the rest of the trip with such an engine. The new Ranger has proven it cannot make that kind of mileage.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          this was a federalization of an existing vehicle architecture. the Ranger does not have vee engines anywhere in the world and is likely not able to accommodate one, at least in current form. You’re asking (unreasonably) for a complete redesign.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Or the customer can buy a truck that is suited to our market.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Unreasonably?

            When a turbo four can’t even exceed a V6 version’s fuel mileage; I have to question what the builders were thinking. And by everything I’ve been reading, the only REAL difference between the Global Ranger and the US Ranger platform is the safety hardware. Ford already has a very effective N/A V6 they could have used.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Are you on the engineering team? How do you know the available V6 would fit? Besides the frame rails, firewall, cross-member, the V6 block/pan have to clear the existing suspension, steering hardware, brake booster, etc.

            Rest assured the upcoming, next generation for Rangers will accommodate a V6, and as other have mentioned (and on previous articles), no other markets demand (nor basically allow) a V6 (normal gasser) and the current platform simply wasn’t designed for one.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: “Rest assured the upcoming, next generation for Rangers will accommodate a V6, and as other have mentioned (and on previous articles), no other markets demand (nor basically allow) a V6 (normal gasser) and the current platform simply wasn’t designed for one.”

            — Thank you for making my point for me.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…Ford already has a N/A V6 they could have used…”

            How did anyone prove your (wrong) “point”? The V6 is far and away the obvious choice for North America, and it’s ridiculous to think it would not be offered, if it was physically possible.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: If you’re so dense you can’t understand my point (which is perfectly obvious when reading the statements in order) then I can’t help you.

        • 0 avatar
          ponchoman49

          After spending much time behind the wheel of my buddies 2 2015 Mustang convertibles, one with the 3.7 V6 and the other with the rude obnoxious 2.3 I would choose the 3.7 every time. Unless you run premium gas and drive like the gas pedal is an egg shell the 2.3 swills gas like a V8 and sounds like crap doing it. I would imagine this Ranger would be more pleasant with an engine like the 3.7

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    I really like this truck for whatever reason. I’d be interested if shopping.

    However, and this isn’t just a Ford problem, affordability is getting to be ABSURD in my book.

    Pricing here is high (granted, it is a truck so expect 5-10k off I suspect), and then look at say the new stickers on the new Mazdas….$28k for a 3 with a stick. Price other CUVs and trucks. It is getting just ridiculous.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      The Versa starts at $12,460 MSRP.

      I think you might mean “nice cars I want to drive are expensive”?

      There are affordable vehicles out there; they’re not enthusiast Mazdas.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        What say makes a compact Front drive Mazda worth $16k more than a compact front drive Nissan?

        Only enthusiast Mazda model is the MX5. The rest are front drive throw aways.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    I like the new Ranger. Not really a truck guy, but seems so much more reasonably sized than today’s full sized trucks. Looks decent as well. I would venture a guess that this Ranger and the Colorado/Canyon have a similar footprint of a F150 or Sierra of 25 years ago.

    Please start selling compact trucks too. People need more options so we can get some of these full sized trucks off the road.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Larger, in fact.

      The 1996 F150 is 197-235″ L x 79″ W x 71″ H, per the Internet.

      The new Ranger is 211″ L x 86″ W x 71-72″ H.

      (I’m honestly surprised it’s 86″ wide – my 2005 SuperDuty is only 80″!)

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        It’s 85.8 mirror-to-mirror. No mirrors is 73.3, folded is 77.8.

        Today’s F-150 is 96.8in wide with the “standard” mirrors and the F-250 is 106.

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        Ahhh, those were the days. Trucks hadnt reached clown sized proportions, they were more often than not used by people who needed them vs. as commuter vehicles, everything was still available with a stick. I remember driving my friend’s GMC with a 3 speed manual. That was the most challenging to drive manual transmission I have ever encountered, probably late 1980’s vintage.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The “…midsize same as old 1/2 tons” is a common wives-tale, well traveled.

      I understand the size of 1/2 tons can be overwhelming when you’re used to a compact 3-door, or something, so thank god for midsizers. They’re the perfect compromise for most Americans seeking a pickup for the first time. Figure most would never in a million years, own a 1/2 ton pickup (or Tahoe/Expedition/etc).

      But many still complain midsize pickups are too big and way too difficult to park at the mall, doctor’s office, etc, so there you go.

      It’s all relative, and if you drive a 3-axle dump truck 24/7, anything less than a 1/2 ton pickup would seem silly, goofy almost.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        There’s been humongous growth vertically, that much is undeniable.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          The height thing kinda is true, but really exaggerated, especially if you take GM 2500 HDs and up, out of the equation. They’re stupid high, but that’s just to keep their DEF tanks from running into the ground.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            “kinda is true, but really exaggerated”

            No it’s very real, like easily a foot higher bed-sides on 2WDs, comparing an old RWD ranger to a current one, or an old S10 to a Colorado. Makes a huge difference in being able to load/unload.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @gtem: Thumbs up on that one. Agree whole-heartedly.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Get a 2wd Tacoma or Frontier, they’re still low to the ground. The Ranger and Colorado/Canyon are “High Rider” 2WDs. That’s to simplify assembly and most prefer the higher stance and extra (fender) clearance for bigger tires and wheels.

            The crop of 1/2 tons, even 4X4s, are fairly low to the ground, and nothing to complain about, provided you’re at least 5’8″.

            All are a whole lot lower than the 2WD 2500/3500 HD GM twins (which I mentioned before) which are ridiculously high and even higher than the 4X4 F-250/350 and Ram 2500/3500 HDs, and they both have solid front axles!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: “Get a 2wd Tacoma or Frontier, they’re still low to the ground.”
            — But the roofline is still much taller than necessary, and that’s the point. Whether it’s 2WD or 4WD, they simply don’t need to ride so tall; you’re almost looking over the roof of their nearest “equivalent” CUV/SUV model that isn’t itself a 4×4 (as compared to AWD.) This is true of every brand EXCEPT Nissan.

            “All are a whole lot lower than the 2WD 2500/3500 HD GM twins (which I mentioned before) which are ridiculously high and even higher than the 4X4 F-250/350 and Ram 2500/3500 HDs, and they both have solid front axles!”
            — And that’s plain not true.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You’re talking in circles. Bed sides and floor height is “the point”. I’ve never seen a “roofline” on a pickup that’s higher than it needs to be, relative to the seat surface.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            If you can wear a “10-gallon hat” inside the truck, the roof is higher than necessary and simply adds drag. And yes, I’m complaining about my own truck, too. Oh, I have many reasons to like it, but its exterior physical dimensions are not among them.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            So the Chevy Colorado allows for a “10-Gallon Hat” in a normal seating position and 6’4″ driver?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “So the Chevy Colorado allows for a “10-Gallon Hat” in a normal seating position and 6’4″ driver?”
            — As far as I can tell… Yes. I have to raise the seat to have a comfortable view and I’m average sized and even _I_ could still wear a 10-gallon hat. My wife is six foot and she does not lower the seat all the way to the floor and has just as much room over her head as I. There’s enough room in there to have all four people flopping around like fish and not getting in anybody else’s way. (/sarcasm) Yes, the truck is too big, inside and out. And the Silverado feels like I’m in a “man cave” it’s so big inside. My wife’s former Fiat 500 could have almost fit inside and flopped around on the curves.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Forget about the 10-Gallon Hat, you need a Child Booster Seat (they’re on sale at Walmart). That’s if you truly have that much room above your head (clearly it’s exaggerated mama drama, as always). 10-Gallon Hats are overrated anyway. They’re probably no more than 32 ounces, after what your head displaces.

            But if your Colorado’s seats go extra low, don’t do that. That’s for folks up to 6’7″ or so.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “But many still complain midsize pickups are too big and way too difficult to park at the mall, doctor’s office, etc, so there you go.”

        And at barely 7 months old, my Colorado already has two notable parking lot dings on the driver’s side door and fender, despite being so “perfectly sized”. One of those I honestly don’t know what hit it (on the high side of the stamped-in fender flare) and the other on the door under the mirror, where somebody’s back door slammed into it and the person jounced out of the back seat of their car, leaving a long scar in the paint below the dent itself.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          You’re sort of in the same boat as the fullsize crowd, parking drama and whatnot.

          Totally worth it if ask me, and the more densely populated, and or high rent area, the bigger the challenge.

          Yeah the first dings and scratches hurt the most. But you’re lucky it’s a “truck”. They just add character, and no need to call your agent, set up a rental and whatnot, even for good size dents. If you use it for intended use, there’ll be more, lots more. Again, totally worth it.

          .

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            • 1983 Mitsubishi Sport pickup: No body dings during ownership;
            • 1990 Ford F-150: No body dings during ownership;
            • 1997 Ford Ranger: No body dings during ownership;
            • 2019 Chevy Colorado: TWO body dings in first 7 months!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Some of your past trucks are just as wide or wider. Aren’t spaces smaller? Especially at your retirement village? Plus thinner gauge body?

            Everyone else always got dings, since they’ve been making cars. I know I have, since I’ve been driving, no matter how small the car. Oh but you’re special…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM:
            — ONE of my trucks was larger than the Colorado–in width only. That was the F-150 and in every other dimension it was almost exactly the same size (height and length–with 8′ bed.) I still didn’t get parking lot dings in it.

            The Mitsubishi was the smallest, with the Ranger both taller and wider, though about the same length as the Mitsi. The ONLY physical damage on the Ranger was a stone dent off the rear tire that hit the inside of the panel, causing it to knock out a crease along the lower body between the tire and the bumper. No marks on either side from parking lot issues.

            Maybe it’s because drivers have gotten worse–or rather, they have become much more careless. People used to respect other people’s property in this country but I haven’t seen any real respect for years, now. Not online; not face-to-face.

            Think about it.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          So parking lot dings only happen to vehicles that are too big. That explains all the immaculate Nissan Versas and Toyota Yaris’ we see.

  • avatar
    ronald

    $42,000 seems like an awful lot for something meant to be utilitarian (and that looks it).

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    This is a Lariat tester, not an XL or XLT.

    (And nobody pays MSRP anyway, unless they special order, I think.)

    Ford claims they start at $24k, though the dealerships around here aren’t stocking anything that close to a stripper model, not even the “Work Truck” dealer.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      (And nobody pays MSRP anyway, unless they special order, I think.)

      — Mid-sizers don’t get discounts. Or at least, only $1k-$2k. Not like full-sized trucks. But people who want something smaller than full sized are proving themselves willing to pay more to get what they want.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Exactly. Consumers don’t have a problem paying lots more for them, so why shouldn’t midsizers be priced independent and higher than fullsize? They couldn’t possibly be as cheap to build, not even Tijuana Tacos.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          Vehicles are not sold by the pound, there is no reason why a smaller one should be cheaper. If smaller fits your needs better, pay the man and enjoy it.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            That makes so much SENSE!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Right. Still Toyota couldn’t price the Corolla higher than the Camry, similar trim levels and options, for example.

            That would go against the Vienna Convention, empirical formula or something.

            On paper, the Ranger is priced a touch below the F-150, across all trim levels, in basic forms. Then the story changes. The Ranger commands $4,000 for 4wd, for example, while the F-150 just hits you with $3,500 for 4wd, but probably just $2,750 or something, after rebates.

            Of course the closest Ranger replacement or equivalent to the F-150 Supercab is the Ranger Crew cab.

            The system of rebates and incentives, wildly swinging trasactional and false or exaggerated MSRP is really ingenious, and basically lures prospective Ranger buyers to F-150s if they’re receptive at all. If not, Ford still wins (almost as much).

  • avatar
    gtem

    ” be sure to specify the locking rear differential. All that turbocharged torque will light up the inside rear tire while cornering if you aren’t particularly cautious with the throttle.”

    Why would you ever be locking the rear differential while cornering? That would help induce breaking traction in a corner in the first place genius! Hence why all the drift kids weld up their diffs for hektik-skidz

    Locking rear diff within the context of a 4wd truck/SUV is purely for low-speed traction assistance in a tricky situation where you’re either “crossed up” hanging diagonal wheels in the air, or similarly in a muddy rut either with diagonal wheels or both wheels on one side.

    Someone who writes about cars for a living truly ought to know better, this is just sad, man.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      This same mistake (confusing an E-locker for a limited slip) has been made on this site multiple times and by multiple authors (basically every Ford truck review). I agree, it really is a bad look.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        GM V6 Colorado/Canyon with tow package has a true limited slip doesn’t it?

        • 0 avatar
          gtem

          It’s their classic spin-locker, if you’re talking about the standard GM on. It fully locks after detecting wheel slip (works mechanically off of centrifugal force), but doesn’t stay locked. Handy leaving a light in the wet and many other common scenarios, but in heavy offroad situations they have been known to grenade spectacularly. You also don’t have the control/predictability of a manually selectable one. Overall I like them though.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “GM V6 Colorado/Canyon with tow package has a true limited slip doesn’t it?”

          — Mine claims an e-locker but it doesn’t engage on tight turns… It does engage when the steer wheels are mostly straight and a wheel starts to spin

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            It’s not an “e-locker,” (electronically engaged) it’s purely a self-engaging mechanical system that uses centrifugal force generated by wheel speed differential (120rpm) to engage. Ford and Toyota and Nissan use user-selected, electronically actuated differential locks. Mitsubishi Monteros back in the day actually had pneumatically actuated rear diff locks with a compressor in the car, like an aftermarket ARB.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @gtem: Thank you. Obviously GM doesn’t make it all that clear in their promotional materials.

  • avatar
    gtem

    With my rant out of the way:

    Great looking truck with the chrome bumpers(!) and red paint and extended cab. I like the tan interior color as well, nice to not be in a coal-bin for once. The bed heights on these just look preposterous and awkward in person however. The Colorado is bad but this is even worse. The Tacoma and especially Frontier somehow avoid this look entirely.

    • 0 avatar
      210delray

      And the front bumper (maybe the rear also) is the real deal — chrome-plated steel, not plastichrome.

      Somewhat surprisingly to me though, the plastichrome grille on my 1998 Nissan Frontier still gleams after all these years — it’s the black portions that are starting to fade to yellow.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        Yep, good old chromed steel bumpers, can’t beat ’em. They rust from the inside out in the salt belt, so just spray them down with some oil based rust inhibitor and you’re set. Not susceptible to rock chips like painted steel, not weak like plastic. I watched a video on what it takes to remove that absurd airdam on the Colorado, if you go the route of removing the entire plastic skin to get at the fasteners (which are mounted facing down!), you will expose just layers and layers of fragile plastic crap: shrouds and other nonsense.

        My old Ranger had a simple chromed steel outer bumper, reinforcements on the inside, that bolt onto the frame rails. Simple, easy to replace if you get into a minor fender bender.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I can’t quite make out the tailgate, what model is this? /s

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I do have a real question, can the rear headrests be removed? I wouldn’t want two thirds (or maybe three/fifths) of my rear window to be headrests which will be seldom used (I was able to remove them on my Toyota, thankfully).

  • avatar
    CannonShot

    I’ve now seen a new Ranger or two driving around town. They’re really nice looking trucks. But they are massive–jumbo mid-size like the ColoradoCanyon. I parked next to a Canyon yesterday. The top of the bed was about even with the roof of my 2016 Civic. I’d like to think there’s room for a true compact truck in the market. I’d consider buying one.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      You want to feel tiny try driving a 67 Mustang around. You’ll be at eye level with the NISSAN badge on the TRUNKS of many current Nissan sedans. Ride height on everything has gotten crazy.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Everybody wants a commanding view of the road. Now everyone has a commanding view of people in sedans. If you drive an older car, you have a commanding view of a truck license plate, with the bottom of their bumper just above your hood. Whatever happened to bumper height limits – what was it – 14 to 18 inches?

  • avatar
    civicjohn

    I think it looks good enough to make an impact in the market, and with the new Lincoln SUVs and the Bronco coming, that’s a good thing.

    As I mentioned on several posts, I was divesting my F holdings. I couldn’t see how they could do anything right. But I didn’t get rid of all of my shares, and the stock has moved 15% positive in the last couple of months, so I’m not dumping the rest.

    Ford, just ship the heck out of the new Lincoln SUVs, get this truck out in volume, bring on the Bronco, do everything you can to get product out of the door.

  • avatar
    redapple

    “You can keep your full-size pickup trucks. I don’t need full-size capabilities. “”

    Some must have the full size. Like if you have a chip on your shoulder and need to impose your will with a brodozer.

    Need the monster PIG up truck to build a brodozer.

  • avatar
    nwfmike

    Have a Ranger Supercab Lariat on order. So ya, paid MSRP but 750 off with ROVP then got 1000 of coupon in mail and there is another offer out there I may be able to take advantage of for an addition 1500 to 2000 so *potentially* I will get the truck for a fairly reasonable price.

    Drove a couple in Asia and test drive one here in US. Nice vehicle.

    I need one for doing stuff around the house and will DD it. I have 0 problems with the inside or outside design. Works for me. Don’t really see the need for a fold down seat but then thats not anything I need to worry about.

    Engine… we will see. I bet I will get 27 on the commute. Doing truck stuff, dont care.

    My biggest complaint is all the electronic safety crap continuing to intrude on my driving freedom. Wish we could just force people who find driving difficult to take public transportation.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    I like the Gladiator best of the mid-sizers, but I’d want this cab and bed configuration. Which of course, Jeep doesn’t make.

    Not that I have any reason at all to buy a pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Wanting one is reason enough, despite what the haters may say.

      Of course, they only say anything about it when it concerns trucks. I dont see them complaining about people driving cars that are the wrong size, or have too much luxury, or get less than stellar fuel mileage, or that have capabilities the owner rarely (if ever) uses.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “Of course, they only say anything about it when it concerns trucks. I dont see them complaining about people driving cars that are the wrong size, or have too much luxury, or get less than stellar fuel mileage, or that have capabilities the owner rarely (if ever) uses.”

        — Then you’re not listening.

        • 0 avatar
          jack4x

          I will back John up on this one.

          On so-called “enthusiast” sites, my loaded F350 is reviled in a way my Viper would never dream of, and I am accused of being a “poseur” for owning one. That despite the fact that the truck uses more of its capability than the sports car in a normal week, and the Viper is more expensive, less efficient, infinitely less capable, likely to be less reliable, and so on.

          I’m never asked to justify the price I paid for the car the same way I am for the truck, I’m not accused of compensating for anything, there are no breathless articles written about how sports car prices are through the roof, I’m never asked why a Miata wouldn’t fulfill my sporty driving needs while getting better mileage or being smaller to fit in a parking space, getting leather seats in the Viper is not scoffed at the same way as it is in the truck, etc.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You’re ON a so-called ‘enthusiast site’, jack. How many people have reviled you here?

            Oh, I argue prolifically about people buying bigger than they need, I admit that, but I have never said you don’t NEED a pickup, you just don’t necessarily need as big a one as full-sized.

            If people stopped buying those huge Road Whales™ and started buying mid-size as their light-duty truck, then the bigger trucks would eventually revert to their old size, which is the modern ‘mid size.’ I expect when the true compacts hit the market, we’ll see a notable shift away from those egg-shaped crossovers.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            To their infinite credit, people here are polite enough not to insult me directly. That is not the case on every site.

            That said, I’m always struck by the difference in commentors attitude toward large, expensive, “wasteful” trucks, vs. toward fast, expensive, “wasteful” 2-seater sports cars.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Exactly which “wasteful 2-seaters” are you talking about? Miatas or Corvettes?

            Miata is a toy; Corvette is a mid-life crisis or retiree’s toy. Now, even I will complain about a Lotus or other “supercar.”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – You’ve never complained about a Lotus, Corvette or anything other than (non compact) pickups. That’s the greater point of this thread. But you continuously snivel:

            “…If people stopped buying those huge…”

            So if it’s too big for YOU, no one else can possibly find them exactly “just right” (actually millions annually), or even slightly too small, unless of course they’re lying to themselves or something? Are you nuts?

            People vote with their wallets, so enjoy your bitter tears. Automakers aren’t stupid (unless they listen to YOU).

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            @Vulpine,

            I own a Viper, which is not exactly a secret I’ve kept around here. I’m also 34 years old, so I certainly hope this isn’t my mid-life crisis. Don’t know if it’s your equivalent of a Lotus or not.

            Miata:Viper as Ranger:F350 for me is all I’m trying to say. No one suggests I’d be just as happy with a Miata as a Viper, so why would I settle for a Ranger or smaller when I wanted an F350?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: I remind you that I purchased what I considered the “best available” despite the fact that it’s not what I wanted. And that’s the problem; there are those who will always say, “Oh, nobody would want a truly SMALL truck! Everyone wants BIGGER! Bigger is BETTER!!!”

            So people get stuck having to buy what they don’t want because what they WANT is not available.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @jack4x: And why should I be forced to settle for a Road Whale™-sized pickup when I want something effectively Miata-sized? Hmmm?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    The bumper on this Ranger is similar to my 2008 Isuzu I-370 crew cab which has chrome front and rear bumpers. The bumpers are not solid steel the lower part is plastic where you cannot see it and the top part is plastic. Still it has chrome on the bumpers the most you are going to get in any current new vehicle. You are not going to find solid steel bumpers on any new truck there is always going to be plastic incorporated in the bumper design.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      I mean that’s as steel as my Ranger bumpers were, sure they still had a bottom plastic part and the rear had a plastic step on the top, I have nothing against that.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    This is the most positive review of the Ranger I have seen, aside from the pre-introduction fluff pieces most sites always run. In most reviews where it has been actually used for more than a short time it has come in for criticism of its dated design, subpar interior design and materials, compromises made to federalize it for the N.A. market, and the poor integration of many of its features as compared to its main competitors, the Colorado/Canyon and even the ancient Tacoma. This comes through most egregiously in the few comparison tests that have been done so far.

    I don’t know how to explain this review.

  • avatar
    retrocrank

    The truck I really would find useful, and would buy, is something like the ’61 Scout 4×4 that was my transport in the 70s. Simple, small enough, easy to fix, and durable as anything.

    But nothing is made like that anymore.

    I’ll keep looking for an early 60s Scout…….


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • someoldfool: If the problem with the Roadmaster’s horn is indeed the switch in the wheel on the air bag, what...
  • Adam Tonge: Yes they can be removed. You press the round button on the side of the headrest, the headrests will flip...
  • 28-Cars-Later: Oddly, I have seen more than a handful in these parts.
  • Adam Tonge: Ford wants you to lease a 2.7TT. That is where the incentives are at.
  • EBFlex: They’re not losing ground. Ford is shunning them by sandbagging their V8. There are the mouth breathers...

New Car Research

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States