2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[Clutch]

Again not sure if this whole remove the wheel thing for an oil change is true. Also if you are willing to use adapters and relocation devices on the Toyota, why not the Ford? I hear ya about the old crap, new is not always better that is for sure.

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....

 

[ITTOG]

Yes, thousands of owners sharing first hand experience is absolutely horriable :-/

It definitely is because those sites are full of homers.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[ITTOG]

I have a 2007 tundra with the 5.7 L and a 2018 F150 with the 3.5 L eco-boost. They both are rated with basically the same horsepower however real-world driving the tundra definitely wins. It's horsepower is immediate while the F150 must spool up. It doesn't take long to spool up but it does take longer than the tundra's immediate power. As for pulling a trailer, whether on flat road or up a mountain, the tundra does just as well as the F150. In fact, when I have to tow I always choose the tundra.

As for the fuel mileage below is what I posted in another thread. (Note the 21 miles per gallon on the Ford is in eco-and highway only. The 17 miles per gallon on the tundra is a combined highway and city driving.)

I have a 2018 F-150 Platinum with 3.5L that gets about 21 miles per gallon unloaded at 75 miles per hour. When I add my 1600 lb trailer it will drop to 10.5 miles per gallon.

My 2007 Toyota Tundra with the 5.7L gets 17 miles per gallon. When I haul the same trailer it only drops to 13.5 miles per gallon. Both of these are at the same 75 miles per hour like the F-150.

The reason the F-150 drop so much is because the turbos guzzle gasoline. I can increase my fuel mileage to about 11.5 if I lock my transmission with a top gear of 7th. Doing this will force the transmission to downshift more than using the turbos.

 

[Buddha.]

Well, it's the same basic motor as the Mustang and they do great.

And daymn... how did you grenade your fuel economy that bad? 3.73 gears and larger tires?

4.10's and stock rubber, stock everything really. I stay off the interstate and average 55-60 on my hour long commute. Highway rpm is less than 2000 with the six speed trans. That's on winter gas though, probably better in the summer but i never bothered to check as i was always towing.

 

[Dalko43]

I have a 2007 tundra with the 5.7 L and a 2018 F150 with the 3.5 L eco-boost. They both are rated with basically the same horsepower however real-world driving the tundra definitely wins. It's horsepower is immediate while the F150 must spool up. It doesn't take long to spool up but it does take longer than the tundra's immediate power. As for pulling a trailer, whether on flat road or up a mountain, the tundra does just as well as the F150. In fact, when I have to tow I always choose the tundra.

As for the fuel mileage below is what I posted in another thread. (Note the 21 miles per gallon on the Ford is in eco-and highway only. The 17 miles per gallon on the tundra is a combined highway and city driving.)

I have a 2018 F-150 Platinum with 3.5L that gets about 21 miles per gallon unloaded at 75 miles per hour. When I add my 1600 lb trailer it will drop to 10.5 miles per gallon.

My 2007 Toyota Tundra with the 5.7L gets 17 miles per gallon. When I haul the same trailer it only drops to 13.5 miles per gallon. Both of these are at the same 75 miles per hour like the F-150.

The reason the F-150 drop so much is because the turbos guzzle gasoline. I can increase my fuel mileage to about 11.5 if I lock my transmission with a top gear of 7th. Doing this will force the transmission to downshift more than using the turbos.

The moment you start putting these turbo gasoline engines under load their mpg degrades quite a bit. And that engine load is not exclusive to towing; engine load will vary with accelerations, payload, tire size/weight, head-winds, air temperature, ect. Unless you're doing steady-state 60mph highway commutes everyday, your engine is under load quite a bit.

That's why the F-150 ecoboost's real-world combined #'s are a bit lower than the EPA ratings.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Like I have told you before, in numerous threads, same exact travel trailer on the same exact roads. Same number of people headed for the same camp ground. The Tundra didn't do bad, but the EcoBoost does it better, in every single aspect. Pulling a trailer up to Cloudcroft NM was a chore for my Tundra, the EcoBoost just spun the turbos harder and kept pulling. It didn't struggle, it didn't constantly have to down shift and run up to redline... it simply pulled it with out fuss.

Look, I get it, you worship at the alter of Toyota...and that's fine, live in your little bubble. But the fact still remains that the EcoBoost pulls better. I have ~258,000 miles worth of experience in a Tundra and ~194,000 miles between two EcoBoost F150's. But don't believe me, spend 30 seconds on Google and see how it out pulls the Tundra.

Now have a nice evening.

I mean look I bet it. You worship at the alter of Ford. Live in your little bubble. But the fact is I was trying to have a conversation and you turned it into your tantrum.

 

[2025 deleted member]

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....

https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/01/no-need-remove-wheel-2019-ford-ranger-oil-change/

Looks like it was a made up story.

 

[Clutch]

https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/01/no-need-remove-wheel-2019-ford-ranger-oil-change/

Looks like it was a made up story.

Good to hear! (not that I am going to run right out and buy a Ranger, but... )

 

[Clutch]

I have a 2018 F-150 Platinum with 3.5L that gets about 21 miles per gallon unloaded at 75 miles per hour. When I add my 1600 lb trailer it will drop to 10.5 miles per gallon.

Dang, that is one heck of a drop for such little weight. I normally tow 1500 lbs once/twice a week...and only loose 1-2 mpg's in my Tacoma.

 

[Highlander]

Toyota could have. and maybe should have, used the 4.6 (mated with their 8 speed )in the 3rd Tacoma. This would have changed the game and the Tacoma would have moved 10 steps sway than any other makers.
I am sure the gas mileage would have been almost the same. There people saying they would be happy if they do 16-18 mpg in the most circumstances.

I noticed people expecting the navara in the US. I highly doubt it.

There is another cheap alternative: the Nissan titan.

 

[Wallygator]

All these manufacturers could produce a midsize truck that would be 99% of what anyone would need. But they don't. Ford and all the others don't produce the best midsize they can because they have to protect their half tons sales. There really is no need for a half ton section of trucks if the manufacturers would build real midsize trucks. IMO

 

[Clutch]

Ford and all the others don't produce the best midsize they can because they have to protect their half tons sales.

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?

All these manufacturers could produce a midsize truck that would be 99% of what anyone would need. But they don't.

I think they do already, as sales are strong. It is only a few purists that don't like the current offerings. And who cares about those cheap SOB's, they never spend any money, and always come up wth some excuse not to...only "if" they did this, or did that. Or they build exactly what they want. As the manufactures will never do it "right".

Any of these trucks will do 99% of the stuff we need them to do, we just like to **********.

 

[Wallygator]

you got that right

 

[Wallygator]

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???

 

[Dalko43]

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???

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. Maybe the suspension is tuned a little bit differently for the NA Ranger (more geared towards comfort vs payload), but that is something that is easily modified via the aftermarket.

Overseas markets have a different view of what constitutes "safe driving:"