5th Gen Ranger Discussions / Reviews / News

[onemanarmy]

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.



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

Where are these bajillion? What if I want new, or barely used? Not going on 20 years old.

Does Ford make a 2019/2020 Ranger with a V6 and regular bed and 4wd and a manual? Does Chevy? Does Toyota?

Think of how cheap that could be made. Every single part to make it already exists in other markets and models.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Grassland]

I do understand the argument for the just right outer dimensions of the current mid size trucks when used in urban environments.
I also feel once you get crew cab for passengers the bed becomes uselessly small.

There aren't currently incentives on Rangers around me. XLT SCAB F150 3.3 and even 2.7 can be had mid 30s, be lucky to get an XLT SCREW Ranger for that cheap.

At this rate I'm tempted to wait and see if Ford will ever release any actual information on the Bronco or next gen Ranger.

 

[tacollie]

If you want a crew cab 6' bed just get a full-size. My Tundra has a better turning radius than my buddies crew cab long bed Tacoma.

I think Ford did good with the new Ranger. People forget mid size trucks are about compromise. My neighbor just got a 4wd XLT under $30k last month but it had been on the lot over 100 days. I would rather have a turbo I4 than a anemic V6.

 

[Toyaddict]

I'm hoping Ford sells a ton of Rangers, I'd like to replace my 03 Tundra with a used one in 4-5 years if the prices are reasonable. As my username suggests I'm a Toyota fanboy, however a newer Taco or Tundra doesn't appeal to me. Also, even if I could get an f150 for roughly the same price the Ranger ticks more boxes for my wants and needs.

 

[kahos]

If you want a crew cab 6' bed just get a full-size. My Tundra has a better turning radius than my buddies crew cab long bed Tacoma.

I think Ford did good with the new Ranger. People forget mid size trucks are about compromise. My neighbor just got a 4wd XLT under $30k last month but it had been on the lot over 100 days. I would rather have a turbo I4 than a anemic V6.

90% of Crew Cab Tacomas I see in Canada are the 6ft long box version. (Trim availability factors in significantly) You’re suggesting they all “did it wrong” and should’ve gotten a Tundra?

My CCLB Colorado May have been practically the same length as a CCSB F150 , but it was still more maneuverable when turning radius is considered. (Same assigned parking spot for years as benchmark)

Chevy/ gmc and Nissan also offer this as an option on their midsized offerings.

It’s far from an unusual criteria in my experience. If anything, it makes them an outlier not to offer it.

The only reason why midsize trucks are about compromise is manufacturer’s preference for their cash cow full sizes with beefier profit margins and economies of scale.

Ford has seven (7!) different wheelbase options (2 being raptor exclusive) , five (5) different motors, two transmissions as well as 3-4 different frame strength/thickness specs on the current gen F-150... and they can only be bothered to offer a “one size fits all” approach on the ranger? Is one extra ~138” wheelbase option really one bridge too far?

Clearly they see the value of offering multiple choices... to the right customers.

Ford’s marketing department wants a piece of the pie but it won’t let the ranger threaten their “F series” sales crown.

I’m genuinely surprised they didn’t call it f-100 ranger for that reason alone.

TLDR: let buyers decide.

 

[tacollie]

90% of Crew Cab Tacomas I see in Canada are the 6ft long box version. (Trim availability factors in significantly) You’re suggesting they all “did it wrong” and should’ve gotten a Tundra?

My CCLB Colorado May have been practically the same length as a CCSB F150 , but it was still more maneuverable when turning radius is considered. (Same assigned parking spot for years as benchmark)

Chevy/ gmc and Nissan also offer this as an option on their midsized offerings.

It’s far from an unusual criteria in my experience. If anything, it makes them an outlier not to offer it.

The only reason why midsize trucks are about compromise is manufacturer’s preference for their cash cow full sizes with beefier profit margins and economies of scale.

Ford has seven (7!) different wheelbase options (2 being raptor exclusive) , five (5) different motors, two transmissions as well as 3-4 different frame strength/thickness specs on the current gen F-150... and they can only be bothered to offer a “one size fits all” approach on the ranger? Is one extra ~138” wheelbase option really one bridge too far?

Clearly they see the value of offering multiple choices... to the right customers.

Ford’s marketing department wants a piece of the pie but it won’t let the ranger threaten their “F series” sales crown.

I’m genuinely surprised they didn’t call it f-100 ranger for that reason alone.

TLDR: let buyers decide.

I never said anybody did anything wrong. IMO once you get into the crew cab long bed midsize trucks you loose a lot of the benefits of a midsize truck.

Down here crew cab long bed trucks make up a small portion of midsize trucks. They are almost all crew cab short beds.

I really like the super cab Ranger. It has good power and payload for the segment.

 

[phsycle]

I never said anybody did anything wrong. IMO once you get into the crew cab long bed midsize trucks you loose a lot of the benefits of a midsize truck.

Down here crew cab long bed trucks make up a small portion of midsize trucks. They are almost all crew cab short beds.

I really like the super cab Ranger. It has good power and payload for the segment.

Yup, 90% of Taco’s around me are CCSB. And I’d agree with the LB Taco comment. It just makes so much more sense to go full-size once you get to that point. With the exception of maybe 1%(?) of trails, I’d venture to say full-size is just as capable, more comfortable, more robust, has more capacity, and just as, or more fuel efficient. I just don’t see many downsides to go that route.

 

[kahos]

I never said anybody did anything wrong. IMO once you get into the crew cab long bed midsize trucks you loose a lot of the benefits of a midsize truck.

Down here crew cab long bed trucks make up a small portion of midsize trucks. They are almost all crew cab short beds.

I really like the super cab Ranger. It has good power and payload for the segment.

Yeah, in hindsight it wasn't quite fair to infer you said that.

Must come down in part to regional differences. In Canada, the only way to get an SR5 or TRD Sport crew is with a longbox. They're the most common trucks I see (Got to have that hood scoop!) TRD Off-Roads and Pros are de-facto SB. Limited looks like they can go either way. They've also restricted the manual trans to either the ACLB or DCSB offroad models only. Toyota has really got a tight grip on trim / cab configurations. I know they offer different options down south as well.

At a glance, Colorado/Canyons are more of an equal split.

I found out that going from a 6'4 to a 5'6 box on a fullsize wasn't that big of a deal for my use case. I feel like going down another 6" to 5' is a bridge too far when you consider that you're also losing about 4" of width between the wheel wells in the process. Total capacity really goes down significantly. I'm not even sure my 29er MTB would fit on my yakima bedrider rack in a 5ft box with the gate shut.

Manufacturers have invested quite a bit more in their full size trucks and it shows as far as efficiency and capacity are concerned. In many ways, midsize are sort of a niche proposition. I wish manufacturers weren't so keen in ensuring their fullsize trucks have every possible advantage by nerfing the midsizes.

 

[Wallygator]

I also wish the crewcab had a longer bed option. An also agree the back seat functionality is seriously flawed compared to the F150's.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

If they made the option for the Ranger to have a 6' bed with the crew cab I would probably do it if I was buying one.

My current Ranger has a 7' bed and I have trailer made from another longbed Ranger (neither are going anywhere) so it isn't really a do or die thing though.

I always have the rear seat down in my '150 so I don't think that would bother me in a Ranger.

 

[phsycle]

I also wish the crewcab had a longer bed option. An also agree the back seat functionality is seriously flawed compared to the F150's.

Back seat is the true flaw. With 4 average adults, it's tolerable. 2 adults, 2 kids in car seats, it's tight. With a rear facing seat, you gotta move it in the middle position to fit. Then the people sitting to either side really suffer, and really becomes a 3 seater at that point. They need to add 5-8" of legroom. Of course, that will add to the overall length or bed length will need to be shortened accordingly. Which means a truck getting closer to fullsize length or even more unusuable bed space.

This isn't a problem only for Rangers. All other midsize trucks are the same--Tacoma, Gladiator, Colorado.

Maybe this is where an EV will truly shine. More cabin and bed space in a midsize.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Back seat is the true flaw. With 4 average adults, it's tolerable. 2 adults, 2 kids in car seats, it's tight. With a rear facing seat, you gotta move it in the middle position to fit. Then the people sitting to either side really suffer, and really becomes a 3 seater at that point. They need to add 5-8" of legroom. Of course, that will add to the overall length or bed length will need to be shortened accordingly. Which means a truck getting closer to fullsize length or even more unusuable bed space.

I don't think 5-8" would make it that much bigger really, a little bit applied solely to legroom would go a long ways. A crew cab F-150 is a freaking huge truck and really has more legroom in the back than anyone could ever hope to use. How they can sell a truck with that much extra room for $60-70k and not have rear captain's chairs as an option is amazing...

I see a midsize being like my wife's Edge. Passenger seat gets scooted ahead with rear facing behind it. Shorter wife is is fine over there with car seat behind her. I drive. I can ride over there in a pinch but my knees are in the dash.

Beats the ever loving tar out of my Supercab F-150 that flat out does not fit a rear facing in the back and only has room for me and little guy up front.

 

[Todd780]

90% of Crew Cab Tacomas I see in Canada are the 6ft long box version. (Trim availability factors in significantly) You’re suggesting they all “did it wrong” and should’ve gotten a Tundra?

Yup, 90% of Taco’s around me are CCSB. And I’d agree with the LB Taco comment. It just makes so much more sense to go full-size once you get to that point.

Must come down in part to regional differences. In Canada, the only way to get an SR5 or TRD Sport crew is with a longbox. They're the most common trucks I see (Got to have that hood scoop!) TRD Off-Roads and Pros are de-facto SB. Limited looks like they can go either way. They've also restricted the manual trans to either the ACLB or DCSB offroad models only. Toyota has really got a tight grip on trim / cab configurations. I know they offer different options down south as well.

I think a big reason a lot of Tacomas in Canada are CCLB's is that until 2017 or 2018, if you wanted an auto trans, you had to get a 6' box. CCSB's only came with a manual until '17 or '18. I can't recall for sure what year they started offering an auto in a CCSB.

 

[nickw]

Back seat is the true flaw. With 4 average adults, it's tolerable. 2 adults, 2 kids in car seats, it's tight. With a rear facing seat, you gotta move it in the middle position to fit. Then the people sitting to either side really suffer, and really becomes a 3 seater at that point. They need to add 5-8" of legroom. Of course, that will add to the overall length or bed length will need to be shortened accordingly. Which means a truck getting closer to fullsize length or even more unusuable bed space.

This isn't a problem only for Rangers. All other midsize trucks are the same--Tacoma, Gladiator, Colorado.

Maybe this is where an EV will truly shine. More cabin and bed space in a midsize.

As a teenager we used to do long family road trips in a 1991 Chevy 2500 Extended cab pickup, (3) in front bench and one sleeping lengthwise in the back, never even thought about it....just what we did as (4) door pickups didn't exist.

For what it is, the Ranger has pretty good rear legroom. Beats the snot out of my extended cab Tacoma...it's all relative!

 

[phsycle]

As a teenager we used to do long family road trips in a 1991 Chevy 2500 Extended cab pickup, (3) in front bench and one sleeping lengthwise in the back, never even thought about it....just what we did as (4) door pickups didn't exist.

For what it is, the Ranger has pretty good rear legroom. Beats the snot out of my extended cab Tacoma...it's all relative!

I still remember riding in the back of my father's 97 Ext Cab Ranger. I think my severe motion sickness I suffer from today is thanks to all the seat time in that ranger.

Ranger is better than the Tacoma. But I still wish it had a bit more legroom.