2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[Tex68w]

Ford has had freakish weird and random warranty issues. Not really any major design flaws, or laziness lately with their trucks. I think you can relax.

If you have an issue, take a deep breath and be thankful your not a dodge HD owner with a catastrophic transfer case failure. When those grenade they destroy the xfer case entirely, the driveshaft, shred the brake lines, fuel lines, and the wiring harness. Now that's a rough bit of bad luck.

My 1st year '17 is fine. The '17 SD's had track bar, pitman arm, issues. Moon roof drain hose, chrome door latches, tanks that read empty too soon (at least too soon for old farts, seemed normal to me), and a few bodies bolted on off center.

Keep in mind, a 1% warranty rate is 1000 internet nightmare threads.

My 2017 F-250 (diesel) required the tank to be replaced along with the sending unit and my body and bed were both way out of alignment, like how the hell could someone miss it way off. Stevie Wonder must have been on that assembly line the Friday afternoon mine rolled out lol. I would say that the tank issue was a design flaw that was overlooked and I am not sure how they missed it. Now it's not something that would leave you stranded on the side of the road with a catastrophic failure, but it was a major inconvenience when it came to your range, when to fill up and exactly how much fuel you had left. All of that said, Ford took care of each issue and recall/TSB without incident. In comparison my Ram has had a few "recalls" but they've all been software re-flash related, fairly easy and with little impact on the performance and reliability.

 

[Clutch]

Not cool. But ya'll wanted ecoboof torque. This is the price.

Some of us wanted a N/A V6 and a manual trans...meh, I'll stay with Toyota.

Honestly no a big deal. Changing the oil on on a 3.4l Tacoma or 4Runner is way easier with a tire off. That is with my arms at least (I'm 5'9").

Easier to take the skidplate off than the tire...no need to drag out the floor jack or impact wrench.

The 4.0's is where is at though, at least for changing oil.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Some of us wanted a N/A V6 and a manual trans...meh, I'll stay with Toyota.



Easier to take the skidplate off than the tire...no need to drag out the floor jack or impact wrench.

The 4.0's is where is at though, at least for changing oil.

I didn't like the cartridge style filter on the fjc, I think tacomas had a spin on though.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Pretty good towing comparison. Really surprised the Tacoma towed as well as it did, although it was revved to the moon.

 

[Clutch]

I didn't like the cartridge style filter on the fjc, I think tacomas had a spin on though.

They went to a cartridge filter on the 3.5. Kind of a pain in the neck, but at least you don't have to pull the wheel to get to the filter.

For how much I drive, change my oil every 5 weeks....see the Ranger being a real pain in the ********, just to do a simple oil service. Of course the manufactures don't even want you to change your own oil anymores... (lame)

 

[Clutch]

Pretty good towing comparison. Really surprised the Tacoma towed as well as it did, although it was revved to the moon.

Sooo...the Ranger is not looking like it is going to be leaps and bounds better than the Tacoma. Plus you can still get a manual trans in the Taco. The initial excitement of the Ranger has turned into a bit "meh" for me...

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Sooo...the Ranger is not looking like it is going to be leaps and bounds better than the Tacoma. Plus you can still get a manual trans in the Taco. The initial excitement of the Ranger has turned into a bit "meh" for me...

The Ranger had more power for sure, they had to limit it to 60mph. Driving position is better it appears. For how I would configure them the Ranger is a few grand cheaper on msrp. Basically a crew cab 4wd with e locker, I can get that with power windows/locks/keyless entry and still have vinyl seats and floors. Of course I am "dreaming" a bit, probably wouldn't buy either one. Resale would still tilt heavily towards the Toyota though so I bet cost of ownership is better with it.

 

[Dalko43]

Sooo...the Ranger is not looking like it is going to be leaps and bounds better than the Tacoma. Plus you can still get a manual trans in the Taco. The initial excitement of the Ranger has turned into a bit "meh" for me...

That's how the ecoboost F-150's started out: at first everyone ranted and raved how they were going to be so much better, and after they had been out for a little bit many people felt "meh" about them.

This TFL test demonstrated two things:
1) The Tacoma's new 3.5l is a real peaky engine that needs to be rev'd in order to produce good power (it's also loud as hell when working). That's largely the reason so many people complain about the engine and shifting response.
and
2) The Ranger's ecoboost engine offers significant advantages on paper, but those advantages aren't as definitive in the real world (mpg and towing time wasn't all that different from the Tacoma's).

The Ranger's backup camera and tachometer look pretty pathetic compared to the Tacoma's, but the Ranger definitely has more room (especially headspace). As long as it proves reliable over the longterm, it should be a decent contribution to the midsized market, but nothing grondbreaking based on what we've seen so far.

Edit: Does anyone know if the Ranger's ecoboost is direct injection or port + direct injection? I know the earlier F-150's had issues with direct injection hence why the most recent models have switched to direct + port. Just wondering if the Ranger will use the same injection strategy.

 

[Clutch]

The Ranger had more power for sure, they had to limit it to 60mph. Driving position is better it appears. For how I would configure them the Ranger is a few grand cheaper on msrp. Basically a crew cab 4wd with e locker, I can get that with power windows/locks/keyless entry and still have vinyl seats and floors. Of course I am "dreaming" a bit, probably wouldn't buy either one. Resale would still tilt heavily towards the Toyota though so I bet cost of ownership is better with it.

Several things I like about the Ranger, but not enough to pull from me from Toyota. My configuration would be the SCLB (ACLB in the Tacoma) Could probably get a Ranger $3-5K less than a Tacoma since I would have to get the Sport to get a manual trans in the ACLB, but still would go with the Toyota even if it costs more.

Long term reliability is still an unknown with the Ranger, where the Tacoma has long been proven (granted it isn't perfect, but you know what you're getting)

 

[jadmt]

I change my own oil and do all my own work so no big deal for me, but think of the first time some poor sucker takes it to their local jiffy lube and they end up cross threading the lugs if they can even figure out how to get to the filter.

 

[Clutch]

I change my own oil and do all my own work so no big deal for me, but think of the first time some poor sucker takes it to their local jiffy lube and they end up cross threading the lugs if they can even figure out how to get to the filter.

Years ago...I have always changed my oil, but was feeling lazy that particular day...took it in to one of those quick lube places. The tech couldn't figure out to get to the filter on my 22-RE equipped 4Runner...before I could say "don't do that!" he ripped off my inner fender splash guard...and still couldn't get to it. I had to show him...never been back to one of the places since.

 

[Buddha.]

...although it was revved to the moon.

My 6.0 chevy on that same pass pulling 9,000lbs(70% its max) revved the same, and it sure didn't maintain 60mph, more like 30-40.

I know the ecoboost f150's tow that pass better than my 3/4 ton truck and now I'm wondering if given the same load would the eco boost Ranger be faster as well.

That's how the ecoboost F-150's started out: at first everyone ranted and raved how they were going to be so much better, and after they had been out for a little bit many people felt "meh" about them.

This TFL test demonstrated two things:
1) The Tacoma's new 3.5l is a real peaky engine that needs to be rev'd in order to produce good power (it's also loud as hell when working). That's largely the reason so many people complain about the engine and shifting response.
and
2) The Ranger's ecoboost engine offers significant advantages on paper, but those advantages aren't as definitive in the real world (mpg and towing time wasn't all that different from the Tacoma's).

The Ranger's backup camera and tachometer look pretty pathetic compared to the Tacoma's, but the Ranger definitely has more room (especially headspace). As long as it proves reliable over the longterm, it should be a decent contribution to the midsized market, but nothing grondbreaking based on what we've seen so far.

Edit: Does anyone know if the Ranger's ecoboost is direct injection or port + direct injection? I know the earlier F-150's had issues with direct injection hence why the most recent models have switched to direct + port. Just wondering if the Ranger will use the same injection strategy.

Their timing the runs doesn't make sense when they both maintain the max speed without any trouble. Its kind silly of them to time it when the only thing holding them back from a perfect score is traffic flow.

Years ago...I have always changed my oil, but was feeling lazy that particular day...took it in to one of those quick lube places. The tech couldn't figure out to get to the filter on my 22-RE equipped 4Runner...before I could say "don't do that!" he ripped off my inner fender splash guard...and still couldn't get to it. I had to show him...never been back to one of the places since.

I remember being 17 working at Jiffy lube. First time I changed the oil in a Subaru I had to yell to up top and say "I don't know what I just drained but it wasn't the engine oil!". It was a metal sump that looked like an oil pan and gear lube came out. Still not sure about that one, lol.

 

[Clutch]

That's how the ecoboost F-150's started out: at first everyone ranted and raved how they were going to be so much better, and after they had been out for a little bit many people felt "meh" about them.

This TFL test demonstrated two things:
1) The Tacoma's new 3.5l is a real peaky engine that needs to be rev'd in order to produce good power (it's also loud as hell when working). That's largely the reason so many people complain about the engine and shifting response.
and
2) The Ranger's ecoboost engine offers significant advantages on paper, but those advantages aren't as definitive in the real world (mpg and towing time wasn't all that different from the Tacoma's).

Interesting that the the Tacoma they had to rev the crap out of it, and the Ford not so much...but they got darn near the exact same gas mileage under load. Do believe the Ranger will get a better mpg unloaded, which I am guessing that majority of the time that it will be.

 

[Buddha.]

Interesting that the the Tacoma they had to rev the crap out of it, and the Ford not so much...but they got darn near the exact same gas mileage under load. Do believe the Ranger will get a better mpg unloaded, which I am guessing that majority of the time that it will be.

It’s the turbo, lots of low end torque.

 

[Clutch]

It’s the turbo, lots of low end torque.

What I was meaning was...not much "Eco" in the Ecoboost when it is under load.

Even though the Ranger has more torque, they both did the same job just about equally. Speed, time, fuel consumption. Was assuming the Ranger would of blown the doors off the Taco, but it didn't.

The Toyota engineers have been saying for years there is no real advantage to adding turbos their gas truck engines, maybe they are right.