5th Gen Ranger Discussions / Reviews / News

[nickw]

Figured I'd try an consolidate some of the discussion....

I have about 13k on my 2019 so far, still really enjoying the truck. I have some 32" BFG's AT's on it and just threw on some 235/85's for the winter.

Just took a trip from Portland, OR to Bend, OR, net elevation gain there (500' to 3'k) opposite on way back and got 23.6 there and 26.2 on way back, this is driving 65-75 and keeping up with traffic. This is computer calculated, but based on several trips of hand calculating, it does register slightly high, 3-7%. Figure the larger tires ~5% circ. offset the low reading so think it's close.

 

[Martinjmpr]

I'm starting to see more and more of them on the road here in Colorado. I have to say, it's a good looking truck. I think Ford's mistake with the previous Ranger was that they let it wither on the vine - they made it cheap and they kept it cheap and it showed.

Not that that's bad, necessarily - there ought to be a place in the market for a cheap, basic truck - but Ford's attitude towards the earlier Ranger showed that they barely cared about it (and by extension, the people who bought it.) I think that drove a lot of people to the competitors.

Consider, for example, the fact that the last major change to the previous Ranger came with the introduction of the 4th gen in 1998. From 1998 to 2012 (I think that's when production ended) the truck was basically unchanged. 15 model years with no changes in engine, transmission or any other major components.

I've owned both a 3rd gen (1996 Mazda B2300) and 4th gen (1999 Ranger) and while they were good trucks, they were both "primitive" compared to the competition. My 1999 (the last vehicle I bought new, in July of that year) had the flex-fuel 3.0. Not a bad engine, but very "old tech." IIRC it only put out something like 150 hp and fuel economy wasn't great either (though mine was a 2wd and at least it did better than the 4x4 versions.) I was on a couple of Ranger forums at the time and I remember the biggest complaint that the 4x4 guys had was that for such a weak engine, the MPG was terrible. The 3.0 seemed to have "the power of a four cylinder and the fuel economy of a V8." Most agreed that the 4.0 was a much better engine but still very, very thirsty for the power it made.

It seems like Ford is coming around to the idea that if they want to play in this market segment, they have to COMPETE. They have to offer something the other makers don't, and they have to update it regularly.

I have to confess I was wrong about mid-size trucks. Just a few years ago it seemed like the mid-size truck market was dead, but it's come back with a vengeance. It started with the new Tacoma with the 3.5, then the Colorado and now the new Ranger and the Gladiator pickup.

 

[Buliwyf]

I think the old rangers niche was ''cheapness''. It was never competitive with a Taco.

This Ranger, it seems like they want to make a competitive, nice, truck for this segment. With the new Taco's and Zr2's woes, it was a perfect moment to jump in. The looks of the truck are growing on me. Except for the taillights.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm starting to see more and more of them on the road here in Colorado. I have to say, it's a good looking truck. I think Ford's mistake with the previous Ranger was that they let it wither on the vine - they made it cheap and they kept it cheap and it showed.

Not that that's bad, necessarily - there ought to be a place in the market for a cheap, basic truck - but Ford's attitude towards the earlier Ranger showed that they barely cared about it (and by extension, the people who bought it.) I think that drove a lot of people to the competitors.

Consider, for example, the fact that the last major change to the previous Ranger came with the introduction of the 4th gen in 1998. From 1998 to 2012 (I think that's when production ended) the truck was basically unchanged. 15 model years with no changes in engine, transmission or any other major components.

I disagree on the made cheap.

As far as updates... it is complicated.

From '93-11:

New interior for '95, that rode until the end.
Cab got bigger in 98, basic shape ran from 93-11
Beds are bolt on interchangeable 93-11 (Mazda version had a sorta stepside looking bed that crossed over to Ranger at the end)
Automatic transmissions changed 3 times, A4LD (85-94), 4R44E (95-01) and 5R44E 97-11
4 cyl engines changed from the 2.3 Lima (83-97) 2.5 Lima (98-01) and 2.3 Duratech (01-11)
3.0 was tweaked including adding a rather groundbreaking for the time flex fuel version.
4.0 was drastically changed from pushrod to a SOHC engine in the early 00's.
SLA front suspension replaced the TTB/TIB front axle in '98.
Higher end FX4 trucks were a pretty good base for a trail truck starting in 2002.

Basic shape never changing from '93 and interior from '95 made everybody think it was the same ol' truck, it wasn't. They put the money in the candy not in the wrapper.

And it was the #1 selling compact truck in the US from 1987 until around 2005 so they must have done something right.

Ford initially planned on killing it around '06 but the thing was still selling well so they just let it run. I suppose money was tight during the recession which didn't help new product development. It was still outselling Titan in '11 though...

 

[phsycle]

And it was the #1 selling compact truck in the US from 1987 until around 2005 so they must have done something right.

Ford initially planned on killing it around '06 but the thing was still selling well so they just let it run. I suppose money was tight during the recession which didn't help new product development. It was still outselling Titan in '11 though...

I've always wondered if they would have redesigned the truck in 05 and made it bigger, comparable to the Tacoma, it would've continued its reign. New 2nd Gen Tacomas came out in 05, when the run ended for the Ranger.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I've always wondered if they would have redesigned the truck in 05 and made it bigger, comparable to the Tacoma, it would've continued its reign. New 2nd Gen Tacomas came out in 05, when the run ended for the Ranger.

Hard to say, I don't think they had anything on the drawing boards for a NA truck.

The global T6 came out the same year the NA Ranger died... it would have been a mighty handy handoff right there if they chose to go down that road earlier.

 

[nickw]

I think Ford, like many of us, just figured the "compact" market was on it's way out. That's what I remember thinking at the time....

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I think Ford, like many of us, just figured the "compact" market was on it's way out. That's what I remember thinking at the time....

They really wanted it to be on the way out I think. More $$ to be made on '150's.

 

[Grassland]

Not only was the compact market dead (frontier & Tacoma got larger over time) and the 5 cylinder junk from GM went away, Ford figured the new V6 engines in the F series would pull people buying trucks for "fuel economy".
Not that the Ranger was good for that. I had a 2008 SCAB sport 4x4 4.0. was bad on gas before the 32s.

My attitude now is the mid size ship has sailed now that Ford offers an aluminum V6 F150 that weighs as much as a Ranger for less money.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Only less money because of rebates and that is starting to hit Rangers now.

Otherwise comparable trucks are roughly $10k different sticker to sticker.

 

[nickw]

Not only was the compact market dead (frontier & Tacoma got larger over time) and the 5 cylinder junk from GM went away, Ford figured the new V6 engines in the F series would pull people buying trucks for "fuel economy".
Not that the Ranger was good for that. I had a 2008 SCAB sport 4x4 4.0. was bad on gas before the 32s.

My attitude now is the mid size ship has sailed now that Ford offers an aluminum V6 F150 that weighs as much as a Ranger for less money.

Funny how that works....folks paying more money for a smaller rig. As much as I'd like a F150, they are just too damn big, particularly for guys like me that frequent the city and need to park the thing in tight parking garages and find street parking in dense urban areas. I don't live in the city, but go there enough to warrant a smaller rig....

 

[nickw]

Only less money because of rebates and that is starting to hit Rangers now.

Otherwise comparable trucks are roughly $10k different sticker to sticker.

Good point - some of the XLT Rangers are low $30's....like really low.

With that said, you can get a stripper F150 w/NA V6 for about the same price as a "base" Ranger....but as you point out that is certainly not apples to apples...

 

[kahos]

I think this new ranger is "close, but no cigar".

I was in the market for one last month; really wanted to love it, but ultimately decided against it and sort of begrudgingly ended up in an f-150 (again).

I was pretty excited when I heard the Ranger would be coming back. From a distance, the euro/OZ ranger looked like a winner. The lack of a supercrew /6ft bed combo really dampened my enthusiasm but I was willing to give it a good look. I think the 2.3/10 speed is a solid combo. Efficiency, payload and towing specs look really good on paper and I'm sure it kill the competition's weak V6s (looking at you 3.5l tacoma...) in day to day driving.

I read a lot about it online but never made it past the showroom floor into a test drive.

I've owned two tacomas and a '17 CCLB colorado in the past so I'm no stranger to the midsize market. They fit my needs quite nicely. I also have fond memories of a regular cab shortbox, stickshift beater of a ranger I had briefly. Despite some of my frustrations with the F-150 being bigger than what I truly need (and it's cruise ship turning radius) the price/capability ratio give it a solid upper hand.

The biggest let downs for me about the Ranger were the rear seat and lack of anything longer than a 5ft box on the supercrew.

The F-150's rear cargo area in the supercrew is magnificent. Lifting the split 60/40 bottom up provides a nice,wide flat loading area that suits a wide variety of scenarios. From one passenger, one large dog to fitting a fullsize mountain bike. If anything, it's way more legroom and storage than I need. The execution is a solid 9/10 in my book.​

​

Ranger: Would you like 3 or no rear passengers? How no one in Dearborn cared to fix this glaring flaw is truly beyond my understanding. No 60/40? At all? Ram did it on base truck to "gently nudge you to upgrade" to an SLT and up, but not offering it at all is mind boggling. Tacoma does it. Colorado does it. Frontier does it. Ridgeline does it. See where I'm going with this? Wake up, Ford!​

​

The rear seat cushion goes up as one unit but doesn't get out of the way as much as it does in the F-150 (You guys know better!)​

You can fold the seatback forward as one unit as well. To make an akward, uneven shelf? Tacoma has been doing this better since '05...​

​

Other gripes:

• The "Edge'" inspired interior didn't age well. The Lariat's cluster is really unappealing as an "upgrade" 2012 called, it wants it's dashboard back.
• Stick on rear camera built into the oversize ford logo. Very 2013. Why couldn't it be built into the tailgate handle like the F-150 (w/ the extra LED lighting) Once again, Ford knows better and is caught cutting corners.
• GM offers autotrac "full time AWD/ 4x4" on the Colorado. It's a nice feature and could set the Ranger apart from the Frontier/Tacoma. Not a fatal flaw, but it would have been a welcome feature on a top spec Ranger. I don't mind paying more, so long as I get my money's worth.
• I know I'm in the minority, but a manual transmission may have pushed me over the edge. Chevy never bothered, but the Tacoma offers it. It could have been a good conquest opportunity. It seems to me from my time on TacomaWorld that there's some overlap between WRX and Tacoma Fans. I'm sure the 2.3l turbo "Focus RS" motor and stick would have won some hearts and minds.

I use the bed on weekends / every so often. I could deal with a shorter box, but I use the cab on a daily basis. I'm not willing to settle for a flawed cab layout. If Ford offered an 80% sized F-150 cab layout I'd likely be able to overlook some of these other flaws and own a ranger.

We all know that the Ranger can't compete with the F-150's economies of scale and Ranger pricing of yore. Ford probably doesn't want to get into a "race to the bottom" and that's fine. Buyers are willing to pay good money for a midsize, but it's got to be appealing.

I hope the next one is aluminium as well. I think moving to aluminium on the F-150 was a good move and I hope the Ranger makes the transition.

 

[onemanarmy]

Make a 4 door 4wd, non-turbo V6, manual trans version and I'd be a buyer. The interior size is great for a midsize truck.

I drive a 2019 4 door XL 2wd as a work truck...it's ok. Engine buzzes and the trans is always hunting.

And no, I don't need screens, turbos, backup cam, fancy radio, auto start/stop, LED lights, digital anything in my Ranger. It's a Ranger, not fooling anyone. Just make a solid truck that will stand the test of time. Why is that so hard?

 

[Martinjmpr]

As much as I'd like a F150, they are just too damn big, particularly for guys like me that frequent the city and need to park the thing in tight parking garages and find street parking in dense urban areas. I don't live in the city, but go there enough to warrant a smaller rig....

I definitely get this. Even in CCSB trim the F-150 is long and VERY wide. Even wider than my Suburban. I've gotten to the point where I park way out on the edge of most parking lots and walk in to try and avoid door dings. Also the F-150 does fit in my suburban garage, but just barely. Having said that, the width and length make for a great, stable towing platform.

Make a 4 door 4wd, non-turbo V6, manual trans version and I'd be a buyer. The interior size is great for a midsize truck.

...

And no, I don't need screens, turbos, backup cam, fancy radio, auto start/stop, LED lights, digital anything in my Ranger. It's a Ranger, not fooling anyone. Just make a solid truck that will stand the test of time. Why is that so hard?

NA V6 with a manual and no touch screen? There's a bajillion of those on the used market.