Topic: First Drive: 2019 Ford Ranger

[AutoTrader.ca]

Back from the dead.

Read more.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

So, the first sentence of the article references the old Ranger:

Resurrection can be a tricky business. Although nearly a decade dormant in North America after years of slow sales truncated its time on this continent

Gee, ya think those years of slow sales could have been because Ford hadn't updated the Ranger in something like 20 years, and it was still stuck in the early 90's?

[Gurgie]

While I like the exterior and can even get past the motor... the interior is just    This thing needs an interior refresh ASAP!!!!

[OliverD]

So, the first sentence of the article references the old Ranger:

Resurrection can be a tricky business. Although nearly a decade dormant in North America after years of slow sales truncated its time on this continent

Gee, ya think those years of slow sales could have been because Ford hadn't updated the Ranger in something like 20 years, and it was still stuck in the early 90's?

That's a common misconception but the reality is that the newer Rangers had almost nothing in common with the earlier ones. Over the years they had new interiors, the regular cab grew in length by a few inches, the motors were replaced, and even the frame was redesigned at some point.

[Seafoam]

So, the first sentence of the article references the old Ranger:

Resurrection can be a tricky business. Although nearly a decade dormant in North America after years of slow sales truncated its time on this continent

Gee, ya think those years of slow sales could have been because Ford hadn't updated the Ranger in something like 20 years, and it was still stuck in the early 90's?

That's a common misconception but the reality is that the newer Rangers had almost nothing in common with the earlier ones. Over the years they had new interiors, the regular cab grew in length by a few inches, the motors were replaced, and even the frame was redesigned at some point.

Still  it was the same basic design. Roughly the same size. I think why they slowed down in sales was due to the fuel consumption.The V6 engines burned just as much gas as a full size truck . Might as well get a full size. I like the idea of  a small fuel efficient pickup but am in the minority.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

So, the first sentence of the article references the old Ranger:

Resurrection can be a tricky business. Although nearly a decade dormant in North America after years of slow sales truncated its time on this continent

Gee, ya think those years of slow sales could have been because Ford hadn't updated the Ranger in something like 20 years, and it was still stuck in the early 90's?

That's a common misconception but the reality is that the newer Rangers had almost nothing in common with the earlier ones. Over the years they had new interiors, the regular cab grew in length by a few inches, the motors were replaced, and even the frame was redesigned at some point.

I had a 2006 Ranger, and while it was a nice enough truck for the price (the things were dirt cheap), it really was stuck in the 90's, especially the interior and exterior styling.  The 4.0 V6 had been updated in the early '00s when they changed it from an OHV engine to a SOHC configuration, bumping horsepower from something like 160 to 207.  That being said, it was still underpowered compared to something like a Tacoma or a Frontier. 

That generation of Ranger wasn't available with a crew cab, and the extended cab (like mine) had those little sideways-facing jump seats, making it completely unsuitable for family duties.  This was at a time when ALL the competition (Tacoma, Frontier, Colorado/Canyon) had real crew cabs available.  Refinement was terrible.  Forget about heated seats, or powered/heated mirrors, or anything, really.  The radio didn't even have an AUX jack.  Ford put literally zero effort into updating the old Ranger, and it definitely showed.  Driving experience kinda sucked, too.  It really didn't like going over 120kph, and the windnoise at any speed was horrible. Around town it wasn't too bad.  The motor was torquey, and if you liked the way a 90's midsize pickup drove, then it was great.

This was my truck:


Compare it to a 1998 Ranger, and other than the front end refresh, the engine, and some bits of plastic trim, it is identical. 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

So, the first sentence of the article references the old Ranger:

Resurrection can be a tricky business. Although nearly a decade dormant in North America after years of slow sales truncated its time on this continent

Gee, ya think those years of slow sales could have been because Ford hadn't updated the Ranger in something like 20 years, and it was still stuck in the early 90's?

That's a common misconception but the reality is that the newer Rangers had almost nothing in common with the earlier ones. Over the years they had new interiors, the regular cab grew in length by a few inches, the motors were replaced, and even the frame was redesigned at some point.

Still  it was the same basic design. Roughly the same size. I think why they slowed down in sales was due to the fuel consumption.  The V6 engines burned just as much gas as a full size truck. Might as well get a full size. I like the idea of  a small fuel efficient pickup but am in the minority.

LOL, I can definitively say that is not the case.  My Ranger did 10L/100kms on the highway, and around 15-16 in the city.  And, well, my Tundra is sitting in the low 20's, lol.

(I'm kidding, I know a lot of F-150's have equal or better fuel economy to my Ranger)

[ArticSteve]

Nice looking vehicle.  2.3 DI Turbo .... not feeling the long term reliability vibes on that.  This push for fake mpg is getting so old.  This vehicle would be perfect with Ford's 3.5 V6 NA motor.

[EV-Light]

I really like this!! I still have some doubts about that turbo engine but I’m waiting to see the test results...

My only issue right now is that price seems to be a bit off - by $4-5k compared to the Colorado....also, once you start going into $40s territory one is better off buying a full size truck imo. In fact I’ve seen fully loaded  F150s XLT this past summer going for as long as $38k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EV-Light]

Nice looking vehicle.  2.3 DI Turbo .... not feeling the long term reliability vibes on that.  This push for fake mpg is getting so old.  This vehicle would be perfect with Ford's 3.5 V6 NA motor.

Disagree...I would put the 2.7L on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Nice looking vehicle.  2.3 DI Turbo .... not feeling the long term reliability vibes on that.  This push for fake mpg is getting so old.  This vehicle would be perfect with Ford's 3.5 V6 NA motor.

Disagree...I would put the 2.7L on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An 'SVT Ranger' for the street with a 2.7EB would be kinda cool...

[ArticSteve]

Unless you had to pay for it.

[dkaz]

I really like this!! I still have some doubts about that turbo engine but I’m waiting to see the test results...

My only issue right now is that price seems to be a bit off - by $4-5k compared to the Colorado....also, once you start going into $40s territory one is better off buying a full size truck imo. In fact I’ve seen fully loaded  F150s XLT this past summer going for as long as $38k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then it's a matter of fully loaded mid size or near base model full size?

[ArticSteve]

PPl who want a mid size want a midsize.  PPl that come and look at a Taco don't want a Tundra regardless of the price difference.  This Ranger is really going to assist for Dealers in keeping customers.  Is it a conquest vehicle?  Possibly if it weren't for the 4 cylinder only. 

[dkaz]

Ppl? The 90's called, they want their internet slang back.

[ArticSteve]

I could type out "interested shoppers", but I'll be sticking with PPL. 

[dkaz]

I could type out "interested shoppers", but I'll be sticking with PPL. 

Kewl. TTYL.

[tooscoops]

a/s/l?

god... that brought back memories...

anywho, I like this size of truck... the look is what i would picture a new Dakota to look like more so than a ranger... but whatever.

[EV-Light]

I really like this!! I still have some doubts about that turbo engine but I’m waiting to see the test results...

My only issue right now is that price seems to be a bit off - by $4-5k compared to the Colorado....also, once you start going into $40s territory one is better off buying a full size truck imo. In fact I’ve seen fully loaded  F150s XLT this past summer going for as long as $38k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then it's a matter of fully loaded mid size or near base model full size?

It will really depend on discounts but one could be in a situation where both trucks would be $1-2k apart from each other....as we speak, F150 vs Ranger, both XLT, base....

F150- $45k
Ranger- $39k

But there’s only $3000 on the hood of the F150 now, typically that number is between $8k and $10k - so you see my point?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I really like this!! I still have some doubts about that turbo engine but I’m waiting to see the test results...

My only issue right now is that price seems to be a bit off - by $4-5k compared to the Colorado....also, once you start going into $40s territory one is better off buying a full size truck imo. In fact I’ve seen fully loaded  F150s XLT this past summer going for as long as $38k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then it's a matter of fully loaded mid size or near base model full size?

It will really depend on discounts but one could be in a situation where both trucks would be $1-2k apart from each other....as we speak, F150 vs Ranger, both XLT, base....

F150- $45k
Ranger- $39k

But there’s only $3000 on the hood of the F150 now, typically that number is between $8k and $10k - so you see my point?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As has been mentioned, some people don't want a fullsize truck.  They don't want to park a fullsize truck, maneuver one downtown, or fit it in their garage.  They also figure they don't need a fullsize truck, but they still want the utility of a small truck.  A midsize will do the job quite nicely, and they don't really care that it's almost as expensive as a half-ton. 

Those are the people buying Colorado's and Canyons, and those are the people to whom Ford will sell a buttload of Rangers.

The Tacoma, on the other hand, gets sold to a different clientele.  I see Tacoma's getting sold to a younger, more active type.  I think the Tacoma gets sold more on image to the mountain bikers, skiers, and wannabe thrill seekers of this world.