2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[Dalko43]

Ford South Africa, no f150 https://www.ford.co.za/vehicles/

Ford Australia, no f150
https://www.ford.com.au/vehicles/

And yet you can find used F-150's listed for Australia on Carsales.com: Car Sales Australia

And I am almost positive that the F-150 was sold at one point in parts of South Africa.

The only motors they have for the Ranger, not Ranger raptor, are diesel in Australia and South Africa. I used Aus and s. Africa as the primary examples because ford built the Ranger specifically for these two regions. As a matter of fact ford built these version of the Ranger first in S. Africa. Watch their press release and their testing, it’s a very impressive vehicle.

I acknowledge that the Ranger was developed initially for overseas markets and was built with higher capabilities than the average North American midsized truck. That's why I'm hoping that Ford brings that same truck, with all those capabilities to the North American market. Ford explicitly acknowledges that its F-150 is set up for a 10 year service life. They build those trucks for quantity, not quality; I'm not a fan of that mentality.

The mid-size/full-size markets have been blurring lines over the past ten years. When pricing comes into question most consumer will take the larger
option over the smaller one. Especially when fuel consumption are nearly equal.

1/2 ton fuel efficiency is still pretty mediocre. You can save quite a bit of money in fuel and maintenance by going with a midsized pickup. The "bigger is better" mentality will die off when the economy turns or fuel prices go back up (which is inevitable) and people become more practical with their money.

 

[Tex68w]

Other than the small diesel in the ZR2/Colorado/Canyon and excluding the awful fuel efficiency of the Toyota Tundra, where are mid size trucks besting the 1/2-ton market in fuel efficiency? The Eco-Diesel in the Ram 1/2-ton does just as well as the Colorado diesel and in a much larger platform. The mid-size truck market only makes sense from a size/ease of drivability standpoint at the moment. Until they make 4cyl and 6cyl mid-size gassers that pump out 30+mpg on the regular, I don't see most people dumping their roomier and more powerful 1/2-ton trucks even in a down economy.

 

[Jc1986.carter]

The Ranger platform is going to be a great option, no doubt about it. Hopefully the North American market responds to it.

 

[CanucksRedRocket]

What ever happened to actually small trucks? 35 grand? and its HUGE.......why do we need such big trucks, that thing is like 1995 F150 sized....i really hope the courier ute actually happens.

 

[Buliwyf]

Because most of the people with little trucks only bought them because they couldn't afford big trucks. I never met anyone with an overloaded S10, Ranger, or Blazer that wouldn't trade straight up for an F250. And I've met tons of people with those awful little trucks.

Now they're the same cost. Even the Hilux isn't small anymore.

The cost of a decent Ranger would never be less than a 4x4 Wrangler. And who wants the old Ranger back? Those things were absolute junk IME.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I seen tons of people with those awful big trucks stuck on trails between trees and rocks.

And you're right, I didn't need a big truck so I didn't buy one. If they still made the F150 the same size as they did 15 years ago it would fit in my garage but they don't so I got the truck that still does. Barely.

An F250 wouldn't even fit in my driveway.

 

[Jc1986.carter]

And yet you can find used F-150's listed for Australia on Carsales.com: Car Sales Australia

Did you see the prices of those used trucks? 116k AUS for a used model year 16 is 85k USD. Would you spend that if for half the price you could get a truck that has more payload (rangers over seas have 1 ton kg payload in the 3.2 diesel) in a size that fits driveways and car garages?

 

[Clutch]

I seen tons of people with those awful big trucks stuck on trails between trees and rocks.

And you're right, I didn't need a big truck so I didn't buy one. If they still made the F150 the same size as they did 15 years ago it would fit in my garage but they don't so I got the truck that still does. Barely.

An F250 wouldn't even fit in my driveway.

Actually they are going to making a 15 year old sized F150 here real soon.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Actually they are going to making a 15 year old sized F150 here real soon.

I think the Ranger may actually be more Hilux sized than Tacoma. It's a couple of inches but might be something anyway.

 

[Dalko43]

Did you see the prices of those used trucks? 116k AUS for a used model year 16 is 85k USD. Would you spend that if for half the price you could get a truck that has more payload (rangers over seas have 1 ton kg payload in the 3.2 diesel) in a size that fits driveways and car garages?

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm pointing out that the F-150 does in fact get sold in certain overseas markets. It just doesn't sell well.

I'd much rather have a HD Ranger over a F-150 for many reasons, some of which you've pointed out.

Other than the small diesel in the ZR2/Colorado/Canyon and excluding the awful fuel efficiency of the Toyota Tundra, where are mid size trucks besting the 1/2-ton market in fuel efficiency? The Eco-Diesel in the Ram 1/2-ton does just as well as the Colorado diesel and in a much larger platform. The mid-size truck market only makes sense from a size/ease of drivability standpoint at the moment. Until they make 4cyl and 6cyl mid-size gassers that pump out 30+mpg on the regular, I don't see most people dumping their roomier and more powerful 1/2-ton trucks even in a down economy.

Well, up until recently, the OEM's have been slow to put anything but naturally aspirated gasoline v6's or 4 cylinders in their midsized trucks. Whereas the 1/2 ton's and 3/4 ton's have been experimenting with diesel, turbo gasoline and cylinder deactivation for quite some time now.

The 2.7l ecoboost in the F-150 is moderately efficient (high teens/low 20's seem achievable under realistic driving). I'm willing to bet the 2.3l ecoboost will get at least 3-4 mpg better in the smaller and lighter Ranger.
The 3.0l ecodiesel and 2.8l duramax seem close on paper, but in real world driving the duramax does seem to do quite a bit better. A lot of owners report getting well over 30 mpg on long highway drives.

I think the fuel savings are definitely there, in addition to the more practical driving characteristics.

 

[Clutch]

What ever happened to actually small trucks? 35 grand? and its HUGE.......why do we need such big trucks, that thing is like 1995 F150 sized....i really hope the courier ute actually happens.

I prefer the size of the smaller trucks...however don't mind the size of the current midsize either, guessing it has to do with all the safety features, and "maybe" the ever expanding rear ends of Americans. The bed size of the current Tacoma is a smidgen smaller than a 1st gen. So no real gains in hauling capacity...actually lost some in payload. If they can fit all the safety stuff in Yaris...should be able to fit in a small truck too...so no real good reason for the bloat.

Biggest gripe about the midsizes is...no real fuel consumption gains over a full-size. That and the price...so no real advantages at all...other than maybe running down trails. And how many of the trucks sold actually get used as they are intended? Not many. I loose count of empty bed pickups vs ones hauling a load...

 

[Clutch]

Because most of the people with little trucks only bought them because they couldn't afford big trucks. I never met anyone with an overloaded S10, Ranger, or Blazer that wouldn't trade straight up for an F250. And I've met tons of people with those awful little trucks.

Now they're the same cost. Even the Hilux isn't small anymore.

The cost of a decent Ranger would never be less than a 4x4 Wrangler. And who wants the old Ranger back? Those things were absolute junk IME.

I first buying small trucks, not because of price...but because of its' size. Was awfully nice to jump in it after operating heavy equipment all day long. Even sold my F250 to help pay for it. The Toyota was quite a bit more than what the F250 was worth at the time.

Didn't really buy it for hauling thing anyways....we had work trucks for that. Just a run around vehicle, who in the "F" wants to daily drive a F250 anyways!? Guys who are insecure about their man-hood I guess. Bought the Toyota because I needed 4WD to get up our driveway in the winter time. Subarus were around back then, but really weren't on the radar for my personal vehicle. My mom looked at one for the family car, but my dad being the good ol' boy redneck that he was...won't let my mom buy "Jap Crap". Ended up getting a POS Chrysler New Yorker....gaaad I hated that thing. My dad liked Buick Riveras, Cadillacs...all those gawd awful American land yachts.

He about had a coronary when I brought home a 4Runner. It would out wheel his POS full-size Bronco and my old F250 any day of the week....and get twice the gas mileage too. Which back then wasn't much...Hell, they haven't improved the small truck gas mileage thing 26 years later either...

You're right about those old Rangers though, one of my girlfriends had one...we used to call it the lawnmower truck...because well...it ran like a lawnmower.

 

[Buliwyf]

They were just cheap junk. Ford didn't bother trying to compete with toyota. That's all they were meant to be.

Hopefully they tried this time.

 

[Clutch]

They were just cheap junk. Ford didn't bother trying to compete with toyota. That's all they were meant to be.

Hopefully they tried this time.

So far it is looking pretty dang good...so good it might pull a couple few die hard Toyota curmudgeons away.

 

[jadmt]

I had a new 1991 ford ranger 4x4 it was a POS as far as a 4x4 went. I traded a 1983 Isuzu pup 4x4 that I bought new for it and that was a much better offroader but it was a rust bucket body wise. if there was a new little truck the size of the early 80's Isuzu's that put out the power like they do know with some D44's that would be the ticket.