2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[plainjaneFJC]

Jury is still out and how similar or different the NA Ranger is from the global one. The frame material might be a little different (though I've yet to see a detailed comparison) and the NA version gets steel front and rear bumpers from the factory. By all accounts so far, the two chassis' are very similar, if not mostly the same.

Different engine options may still be in the works: Ford does have a NA-compliant 3.2 inline 5 diesel that they could fit into the Ranger and there are rumors of an overseas 2.2l inline 4 diesel being made emissions compliant.

As for different payload ratings, I don't think that's an equipment issue. To my understanding, the NA Ranger uses the same chassis components (drive shafts axles, brakes) as the global one. I've already mentioned the possible differences in frame construction, but with high-strength steel and fully boxed construction, the NA Ranger's frame doesn't strike me as the limiting factor in the payload equation. I honestly believe that OEM's rate their vehicles differently for overseas markets. An Australian-spec'd Ranger might be rated for 1 ton of payload, but I truly wonder how many Canadian and American drivers would find that it handled said weight in a safe and effective manner while driving on NA highways.

They have different axles and leaf springs on overseas units. Bottom line is majority of mid-size buyers are lifestyle buyers not work truck buyers. Ford isn't going to sell a Ranger that people don't want here, and people don't want those Rangers here. The main reason they don't is size, people for the most part want a bigger truck, doesn't matter how beefy or payload worthy a mid-size is, its still a mid-size. I did a road trip before Christmas with 4 adults and a 6 year old in my F350. We cruised in comfort with room to spare. That would have been an uncomfortable trip in a mid size.

 

[Clutch]

What I was trying to say. for example look at the Ranger they get overseas vs the one we get here in the US. Ford could have gave us what the rest of the world gets. A one ton Ranger with multiple engine options, etc...So why didn't they? F150 is my guess. Otherwise, why not bring what the world gets and kill everyone of the other manufacturers offerings here in the US???

Same reason we don't get the HiLux or the World Colorado. Americans buy trucks for image and not really for work....but we sure do like to complain about power, payload, and towing capacities.

Majority of us certainly could get by with Subaru's...but we don't want to look like middle aged lesbians... Heck, I should buy a Prius for my work commute...50 mpg sure would be nice, but that car is waaay too dorky for me.


Two of my neighbors have Tundra's...I have yet to see them haul anything in the them, or even be dirty. They don't even take them off-road. The one does have a travel trailer...have seen it leave the driveway maybe 3-4 times of the last couple years. Too busy working to keep on the payments is my guess to actually get out and use it... looks cool though.

 

[Dalko43]

They have different axles and leaf springs on overseas units.

Different leaf springs I understand, and implicitly acknowledged; the suspension is one component that can easily be swapped or adjusted for different handling characteristics.

What is your source for the different axles?

Bottom line is majority of mid-size buyers are lifestyle buyers not work truck buyers. Ford isn't going to sell a Ranger that people don't want here, and people don't want those Rangers here. The main reason they don't is size, people for the most part want a bigger truck, doesn't matter how beefy or payload worthy a mid-size is, its still a mid-size. I did a road trip before Christmas with 4 adults and a 6 year old in my F350. We cruised in comfort with room to spare. That would have been an uncomfortable trip in a mid size.

The above is likely true, but you treat the two (NA Ranger and global Ranger) as if they're entirely different vehicles; I don't think that they are.

Toyota gives us the global 4runner and LC 200 with 1.5k of payload. People evidently do want higher payload #'s, something even Ford acknowledged in their initial interviews for the Ranger's release. Ford could easily set up different payload packages for the Ranger (in the same manner that they do for the F-150 and Super Duty). I honestly think it has more to do with NA-specific safety standards (or perceptions of safety) and SAE standards rather than inherent limitations with the NA Ranger platform itself. These midsized vehicles simply can't handle 1 ton of payload in the same manner that a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton can, regardless of their OEM ratings for overseas markets.

 

[Todd780]

That thought process never made any sense to me. Who cares if it pulls from the F-150, as long as it pulls sales from other manufactures, why would it matter?

If I had to guess, more profit margin in half tons vs midsize?

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Different leaf springs I understand, and implicitly acknowledged; the suspension is one component that can easily be swapped or adjusted for different handling characteristics.

What is your source for the different axles?




The above is likely true, but you treat the two (NA Ranger and global Ranger) as if they're entirely different vehicles; I don't think that they are.

Toyota gives us the global 4runner and LC 200 with 1.5k of payload. People evidently do want higher payload #'s, something even Ford acknowledged in their initial interviews for the Ranger's release. Ford could easily set up different payload packages for the Ranger (in the same manner that they do for the F-150 and Super Duty). I honestly think it has more to do with NA-specific safety standards (or perceptions of safety) and SAE standards rather than inherent limitations with the NA Ranger platform itself. These midsized vehicles simply can't handle 1 ton of payload in the same manner that a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton can, regardless of their OEM ratings for overseas markets.

Visual appearance alone you can see the global truck uses a different leaf pack and a third member axle like Toyota does. It may not be any stronger, I just know its different. GM does the same thing on the overseas Colorado. I suspect its probably just suspension tuning really though.

 

[Clutch]

If I had to guess, more profit margin in half tons vs midsize?

Still....if they pull sales from Toyota, GM twins, Nissan, etc... Isn't one more Ford product sold better than one lost to someone else?

In my business, rather loose a little money than loose the sale altogether. The profit margin on zero is zero...ya know?

 

[Todd780]

Still....if they pull sales from Toyota, GM twins, Nissan, etc... Isn't one more Ford product sold better than one lost to someone else?

In my business, rather loose a little money than loose the sale altogether. The profit margin on zero is zero...ya know?

That's true.

I'm guessing their original mindest when the Ranger was canceled was that those clients would buy an F150 and stay with Ford. Not go to Toyota and buy a Tacoma. I think that logic bit them in the butt.

 

[Clutch]

That's true.

I'm guessing their original mindest when the Ranger was canceled was that those clients would buy an F150 and stay with Ford. Not go to Toyota and buy a Tacoma. I think that logic bit them in the butt.

Yeah, how much money did they loose to the competition since they didn't have anything to offer? When was the last Ranger cancelled 2012???

Must of be enough to make them want to get back in the midsize game.

 

[tacollie]

Isn't there a 1700lb payload for the ranger? That's higher than some half ton trucks. Even if it had a one ton rating people wouldn't be happy. This thread would be full of people arguring to carry that much weight you really need a 3/4. I'm guessing Ford cares more about fleet use than any of us. I could see the O'reilys down the street replacing their aging frontiers with the new ranger. If Ford cared about the off-road crowd they wouldn't have brought trucks with street tires to Expo East. I'm sure it'll be a decent truck. I like the initial pricing.

 

[Todd780]

Yeah, how much money did they loose to the competition since they didn't have anything to offer? When was the last Ranger cancelled 2012???

Must of be enough to make them want to get back in the midsize game.

I'm thinking that's the case. Maybe after they saw the Colorado / Canyon taking a piece of the Tacoma pie they saw the market demand.

 

[Dalko43]

Isn't there a 1700lb payload for the ranger? That's higher than some half ton trucks. Even if it had a one ton rating people wouldn't be happy. This thread would be full of people arguring to carry that much weight you really need a 3/4. I'm guessing Ford cares more about fleet use than any of us. I could see the O'reilys down the street replacing their aging frontiers with the new ranger. If Ford cared about the off-road crowd they wouldn't have brought trucks with street tires to Expo East. I'm sure it'll be a decent truck. I like the initial pricing.

Yeah, but those stats are misleading.
The 2wd short cab Ranger gets ~ 1800lbs. Once you add 4wd and a double cab, the Ranger's payload is somewhere around 1400-1500lbs, which is still good for a midsized truck. Adding higher trim levels and options will likely see lower payload #'s.

The point @Wallygator was making was that some of the overseas Rangers and Hilux's are rated to nearly 2k lbs of payload, even with 4wd, double cab variants. I think that has more to do with different safety and rating standards rather than different/weaker components.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Visual appearance alone you can see the global truck uses a different leaf pack and a third member axle like Toyota does. It may not be any stronger, I just know its different. GM does the same thing on the overseas Colorado. I suspect its probably just suspension tuning really though.

I wonder what and why on the rear axle (e.g. is the overseas axle a Ford 9" derivative by chance). I assume it's about sourcing what Sterling is set up to manufacture domestically and perhaps overseas Ford's supply chain is similar (or shared, gasp) with Toyota and the other Japanese companies. In any case, there's nothing wrong with the Ford 8.8, especially the 31-spline version is more than sufficient for a mid size workhorse.

As far as springs, did Ford invert the rear shackle to compression types on the U.S. chassis? That's something Toyota does with the Tacoma while the Hilux still AFAIK uses tension shackles. So I presume if Ford has retained a mostly similar (or same) frame geometry it'll be using tension shackles still.

 

[FordGuy1]

Isn't the initial report from one of those robo sites? So it could be total BS.

Yeah, I would have to relocate it. Not crazy about the 3rd gen Tacoma's oil filter location either, but that is what you get when you put a mini-van engine in a truck. The 4.0 was great...but like anything, the engineers had to go and ruin it.

I should start collecting 1st and early 2nd gen Tacomas....

FYI. Its way easier to change to oil on the new ranger than half the cars we have. Its takes half the time to take the panel off on the Ranger than any of the belly pans on our cars.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I wonder what and why on the rear axle (e.g. is the overseas axle a Ford 9" derivative by chance). I assume it's about sourcing what Sterling is set up to manufacture domestically and perhaps overseas Ford's supply chain is similar (or shared, gasp) with Toyota and the other Japanese companies. In any case, there's nothing wrong with the Ford 8.8, especially the 31-spline version is more than sufficient for a mid size workhorse.

As far as springs, did Ford invert the rear shackle to compression types on the U.S. chassis? That's something Toyota does with the Tacoma while the Hilux still AFAIK uses tension shackles. So I presume if Ford has retained a mostly similar (or same) frame geometry it'll be using tension shackles still.

New ranger has a single parabolic rear leaf spring.

 

[DaveInDenver]

New ranger has a single parabolic rear leaf spring.

But otherwise unchanged from the global platform? My stock Taco pack was only 2 leafs + 1 overload, so it wasn't anything special either and sagged just filling the tank. Which is why I now run a 6 + 2 OME pack anyway. IOW, seeing soft springs intended just to carry golf stick on Interstates would not shock me in the least.