2019 Ford Ranger Reveal

Groover wrote:
I expect the Ranger to be a great truck for some applications but after seeing how high the bedrails are I just went out and bought a used one for use around the farm. I need a truck bed that I can access from the sides. If I am going to have to load it from the rear anyway I might as well get an SUV. At least that way I would not have to reach over a 20" long tailgate to get stuff in or out and I would be out of the weather while doing it. If Ford ever decides to offer a low version of the truck I may get very interested. A bed with drop sides like the Japanese mini trucks have would be very uselful though I would still like the sides lower.

Maybe there will be a bed delete option so you can use an upfitter for a flat bed or utility bed. My opinion is that work trucks are much more useful with a flat deck using folding or removable sides than a pickup bed.

RobertRyan wrote:

ppine wrote:
I bought a new Ranger in 1986 with a 3.0 liter engine and a 5 speed. It had an extra cab with a 7 foot bed. I took that rig all over Wyoming and it performed well. The cab was a little small, but okay with the seat tilted back. I s;ept in it a lot with a canopy and hauled two canoes on the roof. It was a great truck but not great for towing. I am happy to see a Ranger again but would really like to see one with a 3 liter diesel.

New Ranger is Colorado sized so not as small as the old Ranger.
Global Ranger gets to 4900lb basr weight. Do not know about the US vetsion suggest considerably lighter

A couple of the articles I have read state the new Ranger is smaller than the Canyon/ Colorado. They didn’t say by how much.

I expect the Ranger to be a great truck for some applications but after seeing how high the bedrails are I just went out and bought a used one for use around the farm. I need a truck bed that I can access from the sides. If I am going to have to load it from the rear anyway I might as well get an SUV. At least that way I would not have to reach over a 20" long tailgate to get stuff in or out and I would be out of the weather while doing it. If Ford ever decides to offer a low version of the truck I may get very interested. A bed with drop sides like the Japanese mini trucks have would be very uselful though I would still like the sides lower.

RobertRyan wrote:

Just like Ford said it was not going to put a Diesel in the F150. There will be a diesel
in the Rangerand other engine options. Ford is very much playing catch up in tne US.

As of right now, those are just assumptions unless you can post a link of Ford stating otherwise. If this little 2.3L can get over 25 mpg highway and close to 300 hp and 350 lb-ft, why would they need to put another engine in it unless it was for a special edition like a Raptor version.

ShinerBock wrote:

rjstractor wrote:

x2. The only things the new Ranger shares with the old are the manufacturer and the name. I agree that the 3.0 Lion diesel would give great performance and mileage in the Ranger, but with the F150 being the big cash cow for Ford I think if you see a diesel in the US Ranger it will be more comparable with the 2.8L 4 cylinder diesel used in the Colorado/Canyon.

Ford(or any manufacturer) can't build a compact truck like the old Ranger due to CAFE footprint requirements. If this 2.3L gets an EPA of greater than 25 hwy and makes close to 300 hp and at least 350 lb-ft, then I don't think we will see any diesel versions anytime soon.

Just like Ford said it was not going to put a Diesel in the F150. There will be a diesel
in the Rangerand other engine options. Ford is very much playing catch up in tne US.

rjstractor wrote:

x2. The only things the new Ranger shares with the old are the manufacturer and the name. I agree that the 3.0 Lion diesel would give great performance and mileage in the Ranger, but with the F150 being the big cash cow for Ford I think if you see a diesel in the US Ranger it will be more comparable with the 2.8L 4 cylinder diesel used in the Colorado/Canyon.

Ford(or any manufacturer) can't build a compact truck like the old Ranger due to CAFE footprint requirements. If this 2.3L gets an EPA of greater than 25 hwy and makes close to 300 hp and at least 350 lb-ft, then I don't think we will see any diesel versions anytime soon.

rjstractor wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

ppine wrote:
I bought a new Ranger in 1986 with a 3.0 liter engine and a 5 speed. It had an extra cab with a 7 foot bed. I took that rig all over Wyoming and it performed well. The cab was a little small, but okay with the seat tilted back. I s;ept in it a lot with a canopy and hauled two canoes on the roof. It was a great truck but not great for towing. I am happy to see a Ranger again but would really like to see one with a 3 liter diesel.

New Ranger is Colorado sized so not as small as the old Ranger.
Global Ranger gets to 4900lb basr weight. Do not know about the US vetsion suggest considerably lighter

x2. The only things the new Ranger shares with the old are the manufacturer and the name. I agree that the 3.0 Lion diesel would give great performance and mileage in the Ranger, but with the F150 being the big cash cow for Ford I think if you see a diesel in the US Ranger it will be more comparable with the 2.8L 4 cylinder diesel used in the Colorado/Canyon.

Looks like the Lion engine will go in the Global version. In a 2.7 version was in the Australian Ford Territory. 3.2 Diesel in the current Ranger has lubrication issues.

RobertRyan wrote:

ppine wrote:
I bought a new Ranger in 1986 with a 3.0 liter engine and a 5 speed. It had an extra cab with a 7 foot bed. I took that rig all over Wyoming and it performed well. The cab was a little small, but okay with the seat tilted back. I s;ept in it a lot with a canopy and hauled two canoes on the roof. It was a great truck but not great for towing. I am happy to see a Ranger again but would really like to see one with a 3 liter diesel.

New Ranger is Colorado sized so not as small as the old Ranger.
Global Ranger gets to 4900lb basr weight. Do not know about the US vetsion suggest considerably lighter

x2. The only things the new Ranger shares with the old are the manufacturer and the name. I agree that the 3.0 Lion diesel would give great performance and mileage in the Ranger, but with the F150 being the big cash cow for Ford I think if you see a diesel in the US Ranger it will be more comparable with the 2.8L 4 cylinder diesel used in the Colorado/Canyon.

RobertRyan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
That was easy. Now Ford and GM DO NOT DESIGN DIESELS IN THE US They lack the expertise

Of course you think that. You hate us Americans and think we can't do anything right.

Paranoia is a trait that few Americans share with you. I suppose it maybe something you need to be an industry Troll. Your a good one for FORD

Huh?!? I don't even own a Ford. Just because I called you out on false statements you made for a certain brand doesn't mean I am a fanboy for that brand. It just means you should probably stop posting false information in your attempt to throw dirt on the US because someone might call you out on it.

Troll I do not care who pays you at least you have admitted who currently does. Your various Alias's on on so many sites have made you one of the most prolific

Huh?!? :h

ppine wrote:
I bought a new Ranger in 1986 with a 3.0 liter engine and a 5 speed. It had an extra cab with a 7 foot bed. I took that rig all over Wyoming and it performed well. The cab was a little small, but okay with the seat tilted back. I s;ept in it a lot with a canopy and hauled two canoes on the roof. It was a great truck but not great for towing. I am happy to see a Ranger again but would really like to see one with a 3 liter diesel.

New Ranger is Colorado sized so not as small as the old Ranger.
Global Ranger gets to 4900lb basr weight. Do not know about the US vetsion suggest considerably lighter