Why don't we see more Ford Ranger builds

[pittsburgh]

With gas prices rising and with expedition rigs being used for exploring the back country and not being trailer queens. I've been considering something that can go a little further than my Tacoma or Wrangler on a tank of fuel.

Why don't we see more eco boost ranger builds in this group? It seems like a solid platform. I was wondering if there was any obvious reason to avoid this truck vs a diesel midsize?

 

[Grassland]

It has a tiny fuel tank, although in relation to other mid size fuel tanks I don't know if it's a big deviation from the norm.
There are a few people on here with mild and moderate builds.
But I'd guess it's that there are probably less current gen Ford rangers rolling around than tacos and the GM twins.

 

[lenny6753]

I have a both a 2019 Ford Ranger and a 2015 JKU Rubicon with Ursa Minor. In my experience the mpg difference between the two isn’t that different . My fully rigged JKU with AEV lift, bumpers, winch, Ursa averages 17-17.5 mpg counting highway miles. My Ranger Supercrew FX4 with RLD Canopy, one size larger than stock tires, and leveling shocks(all else stock) averages 19 mpg including highway miles. At least that’s my experience.

 

[lenny6753]

That’s not a complaint about either vehicle mpg. I like both platforms. I’m partial to my JKU for sentimental reasons. I’m more impressed with my mpg on the JKU and a little disappointed on the mpg on the Ranger. And yes, I would not mind more fuel capacity in my Ranger. Photo for comparison.

 

[jbaucom]

I imagine the reason we don't see as many Ranger builds as Tacoma and GM mid-size trucks is two-fold: 1. the current Ranger has only been on the market for 3 model years, so the others have a sizeable head start, & 2. when you go down to the Ford dealer to look at a Ranger, the salesman can show you an equally good looking and equipped F150 STX or XLT 300A with the 2.7TT that they can sell for virtually the same price (until recent market forces upended the massive discounts on full-size trucks).

 

[skrypj]

Tiny fuel tank and the fact that a 2.7L F150 can get close to the same MPG’s while offering more power, torque, space and can have a 36 gallon tank.

 

[T-Willy]

Tiny fuel tank and the fact that a 2.7L F150 can get close to the same MPG’s while offering more power, torque, space and can have a 36 gallon tank.

I sure wish they offered a Ranger with a larger tank.

Imagine, a Ranger with range.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I imagine the reason we don't see as many Ranger builds as Tacoma and GM mid-size trucks is two-fold: 1. the current Ranger has only been on the market for 3 model years, so the others have a sizeable head start, & 2. when you go down to the Ford dealer to look at a Ranger, the salesman can show you an equally good looking and equipped F150 STX or XLT 300A with the 2.7TT that they can sell for virtually the same price (until recent market forces upended the massive discounts on full-size trucks).

Or less once you notice a crew cab midsize has a rear seat more on par with a super cab fullsize than a crew cab fullsize.

I sure wish they offered a Ranger with a larger tank.

Imagine, a Ranger with range.

I have been tempted by the dual tank goodness with mine. When was shopping for a better bed I was hoping I would happen across a double tanker... but I didn't.

But really my single does me fine even with a slobbering V8. I suspect many midsizers are similar with similar sized fuel tanks too. I can't see the fuel bunkerage being an issue with the Ranger when all of the rest of the midsize trucks (and Jeeps) are carrying about the same as well.

Personally my qualm with midsize trucks in general is the size. The cabs are not really super for a sasquatch to sit up front with a kid seat in the back. And then the beds are dinky.

If I have to use my '85 to haul everything I might as well skip a new Ranger and get another Bronco because a 5' bed Ranger will not run with my '85 packing 7' of cargo bay.

Otherwise I really wanted a '19 when they came out. I like the looks, I like the powertrain (even moreso now with a 2.3 Bronco in the driveway) and I was even ready to overlook the dinky bed.

Then after marveling how similar the interior was in size to my wife's Edge we put a car seat in the Edge... ok, that pretty much sucked. Knowing what to look for and paying more attention to that I climbed back in a newer Ranger and I think the Edge might have had a little more room.

And then I got a slide in camper. 5' bed need not apply. My '85 hauls it great but it is a two seater in a three butt family so longer trips are not ideal.

If I would snag a fullsize with a 6.5 bed, eezy peezy. My old F-150 toys with it but is a Super Cab and is pretty snug and my wife complains about having to ride in the back seat with the dogs a lot.

IMO the biggest problem with the Ranger is about 20 years ago Ford decided to give up on the truck and people went off to look for greener pastures. It will take time to win them back. Ranger was originally supposed to die around 2006 but the stupid things kept selling decent and the tooling was paid for so they let the line run until 2011. IIRC it was also around 2006 they lost the "best selling compact truck" claim that they had since 1987. It was Ford's game to lose and they simply threw it away.

I remember their idiotic mantra well. If you want a light truck buy a V6 F-150. If you want something good on gas get a Fiesta. There is no need for a compact truck anymore.

And now we FINALLY get the T6 Ranger (that globally hit the market the same year the old NA truck died) and the the smaller Maverick to boot.

And at least in the short term competing with the Bronco for slots on the assembly won't help their population on the trail either.

 

[grizzlypath]

I'm in the PNW of USA and I've been seeing more and more of them. Maybe because their latest iteration (mid-size) is still somewhat new? I know for mid-sized pick-ups the Tacoma reigns king here, but I've been seeing more Rangers and Colorado builds driving around lately. Maybe we'll see more of them in the coming decade.

 

[skrypj]

I'm in the PNW of USA and I've been seeing more and more of them. Maybe because their latest iteration (mid-size) is still somewhat new? I know for mid-sized pick-ups the Tacoma reigns king here, but I've been seeing more Rangers and Colorado builds driving around lately. Maybe we'll see more of them in the coming decade.

I see a ton of Colorado ZR2 builds around here. And Taco's like you said.

 

[stevo_pct]

I was looking at Rangers when I got my F150. Like mentioned above, I could get a similarly optioned F150 (one year old and low mileage) for the same price as a new Ranger.

Also, the back seat in the Ranger is terrible. In an F150, the seats flip up nicely out of the way and you have that huge flat floor area for storage. In a Ranger the seats sort of fold up, but at an angle and it's almost useless for storage.

Some of the other mid sized trucks like the Tacoma and Colorado do a much better job with the back seat area for storage.

I'm talking about crew cabs above, not extended cabs.

 

[Buddha.]

I imagine the reason we don't see as many Ranger builds as Tacoma and GM mid-size trucks is two-fold: 1. the current Ranger has only been on the market for 3 model years, so the others have a sizeable head start, & 2. when you go down to the Ford dealer to look at a Ranger, the salesman can show you an equally good looking and equipped F150 STX or XLT 300A with the 2.7TT that they can sell for virtually the same price (until recent market forces upended the massive discounts on full-size trucks).

I couldn’t find any f150’s comparable in price to what I paid for my ranger unless I went ten years older.
I got a base xl with a locker which is exactly what I would have wanted in a f150.

The price difference and the fact I can fit it in my tiny garage are the only benefits over a full size but they’re enough.

My truck is averaging 20mpg in 50/50 mixed driving on 2” oversized E rated chunky snow tires.

No plans to build it. It’ll fit the right 33’s stock.

 

[jbaucom]

In the past 12-18 months really made the MSRP difference between mid-size and full-size trucks relevant. Now that rebates are limited to $500-$1000 here and there, and you have to qualify for them (military, college grad, first responder, etc.), sales prices are much closer to MSRP, which is about a $10,000+ difference between a Ranger and comparable F150. When I bought my F150 in 2019, the dealer that I bought from had a 300A level Ranger FX4 crew cab that was advertised for less than $1000 cheaper than my 5.0 F150 STX 4x4 with e-locker, towing package, and 36 gallon tank. If they'd had a Ranger STX in stock, it would've been another $1500 or so less than the 300A package, but the Ranger STX interior really is not comparable to the F150 STX.

I ran into the same situation 5 years earlier when I bought my GMC Sierra. I wanted a new Colorado or Canyon, but the dealer made me a deal on a new V6 1500 SLE that was about $3000 less than a comparable GM mid-size. I figured if a 4WD mid-size crew cab truck would meet my needs, so would a full-size crew-cab with the base engine and 4WD.

 

[skrypj]

In the past 12-18 months really made the MSRP difference between mid-size and full-size trucks relevant. Now that rebates are limited to $500-$1000 here and there, and you have to qualify for them (military, college grad, first responder, etc.), sales prices are much closer to MSRP, which is about a $10,000+ difference between a Ranger and comparable F150. When I bought my F150 in 2019, the dealer that I bought from had a 300A level Ranger FX4 crew cab that was advertised for less than $1000 cheaper than my 5.0 F150 STX 4x4 with e-locker, towing package, and 36 gallon tank. If they'd had a Ranger STX in stock, it would've been another $1500 or so less than the 300A package, but the Ranger STX interior really is not comparable to the F150 STX.

I ran into the same situation 5 years earlier when I bought my GMC Sierra. I wanted a new Colorado or Canyon, but the dealer made me a deal on a new V6 1500 SLE that was about $3000 less than a comparable GM mid-size. I figured if a 4WD mid-size crew cab truck would meet my needs, so would a full-size crew-cab with the base engine and 4WD.

Agree'd. I actually just went and looked and all of the F150's and Rangers locally were at or slightly above MSRP. XL 4x4 crew cab to XL 4x4 crew cab was about an $8000 difference with the 2.7L in the F150.

When I bought my F150 in 2015 I got around 22% off of MSRP without trying too hard.

 

[FordGuy1]

I have enjoyed my Ranger more than any truck I have owned