New Ranger Mule Pics

[blksn8k2]

This time in Colorado. This appears to be a different truck than the one seen in Michigan back in Feb. It has a rear bumper and the camo wrap has been applied differently although it also has the Everest looking grille.

 

Check out the road sign in the first pic. Someone either has a good sense of humor or they didn't realize the irony.

 

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/05/2019-ford-ranger-spied-testing-high-in-the-mountains.html

[Ron W.]

I vote sense of humor on the sign.

 

Wish they'ed take the camo off and give us a picture of the Ranger next to F150 so we would have a better idea of it's size.

The Ranger was never much better on fuel economy than the F150 but was known to be very reliable, and that in my opinion is why it sold.

OK and it was smaller

[blksn8k2]

Not sure how accurate this chart is now considering these are all 2011 models but it is probably pretty close.

 

 

[jpd80]

Those dimensions haven't changes in the past six years even though thre T6 Crew cab versus 2011 Ranger Super cab.

Change in width was the biggest thing that Ford NA objected to with T6 development, funny how that now plays as

an advantage in the current truck market.

 

I wonder if Ford Nth America will develop a crew cab Ranger with a longer bed like the Colorado,

I suspect that version would in fact strengthen the case for its inclusion as being strategically important

and maybe worthwhile on ROW markets too...

[fuzzymoomoo]

I vote sense of humor on the sign.

 

Wish they'ed take the camo off and give us a picture of the Ranger next to F150 so we would have a better idea of it's size.

The Ranger was never much better on fuel economy than the F150 but was known to be very reliable, and that in my opinion is why it sold.

OK and it was smaller

You want an idea on its size go look at a Chevy Colorado.

[blksn8k2]

Those dimensions haven't changes in the past six years even though thre T6 Crew cab versus 2011 Ranger Super cab.

Change in width was the biggest thing that Ford NA objected to with T6 development, funny how that now plays as

an advantage in the current truck market.

 

I wonder if Ford Nth America will develop a crew cab Ranger with a longer bed like the Colorado,

I suspect that version would in fact strengthen the case for its inclusion as being strategically important

and maybe worthwhile on ROW markets too...

 

Doesn't the current T6 use the same frame length for all cab/bed length configurations of the Ranger? I would be surprised if that changes with the next gen but I guess it depends how closely they want to mimic the GM twins. What bed length does Toyota use on the crew cab Tacoma? They are the current class leader...

 

I might add that even a 5 ft bed would be a foot longer than what I've had to contend with for over ten years on my Sport Trac. That obviously hasn't been a big problem for me or I wouldn't have kept it so long.

Edited May 6, 2017 by blksn8k2

[jpd80]

 

Doesn't the current T6 use the same frame length for all cab/bed length configurations of the Ranger? I would be surprised if that changes with the next gen but I guess it depends how closely they want to mimic the GM twins. What bed length does Toyota use on the crew cab Tacoma? They are the current class leader...

 

I might add that even a 5 ft bed would be a foot longer than what I've had to contend with for over ten years on my Sport Trac. That obviously hasn't been a big problem for me or I wouldn't have kept it so long.

I was wondering about towing a fiti wheel with the duaal cab and a short bed but then discovered the

solution is an offset pin version that's already on the market..

 

[pffan1990]

I'm curious about the current Ranger T6 frame as of 2011-present. Is it fully-boxed frame or partial boxed/open C-channel? I been trying to find info on this but just couldn't unless I used wrong terms in Google search to find out. I'm guessing it's doubtful the upcoming American Ranger will use aluminum for the cab and bed since it's likely an evolutionary update to the current global T6 platform. Unless of course aluminum materials is part of the update that would impact global platform; not sure. But I'm wondering if the T6 frame is fully-boxed or not because it's likely that it would be carried over with lots of updates unless all-new for America. I would hope it's fully-boxed so it would be consistent with Ford's usage of that with the F-Series. Any one knows?

Also lastly, anyone knows when it's likely the 2019 (or 2020 if not postponed) Ranger would be revealed or announced with info? I'm guessing Detroit Auto Show in January 2018. Or possibly Texas State Fair this coming September?

[Sevensecondsuv]

The Ranger was never much better on fuel economy than the F150 but was known to be very reliable, and that in my opinion is why it sold.

OK and it was smaller

It depended which ranger you bought. The 4 banger manual trans 2wd trucks did substantially better on gas than any version of the F150. But you're right that the 4.0L trucks, especially the auto/4wd versions, did all of 1-2 mpg better than a F150.

 

Never understood V6/auto/4wd Rangers myself. May as well just buy an f150. The 2.3/2.5 cast iron Lima engines were plenty of power for cruising 75 mph with pretty much anything you could fit in the little 6' bed. Then the 2.3 duratec came along and the base-engine trucks got kinda quick. Wind that duratec up and it'll chirp the tires going into 3rd!

[fuzzymoomoo]

Never understood V6/auto/4wd Rangers myself. May as well just buy an f150. The 2.3/2.5 cast iron Lima engines were plenty of power for cruising 75 mph with pretty much anything you could fit in the little 6' bed. Then the 2.3 duratec came along and the base-engine trucks got kinda quick. Wind that duratec up and it'll chirp the tires going into 3rd!

It's simple. At the time it made for an easy sale to satisfy the mouth breather crowd that needed the absolute biggest engine that could be crammed into it. That kind of mentality still exists today in the luxury market.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The engine that never made much sense to me was the 3.0l Vulcan V6. It barely had more HP than the I4 offerings. It's torque wasn't especially impressive. It's weight likely offset it's extra power to a significant amount. It's fuel economy was scarcely better than the 4.0l in its various iterations.

 

Having driven the 2.3l/auto, the 3.ol/auto and tge 4.0l/auto all in 2wd form between two different jobs, I could barely tell the difference between the 2.3l and 3.0l with my butt dyno. The 4.0l, however, was always a noticeable amount stronger. (Often times too strong with an empty bed on a slick road)

[blksn8k2]

I had two different 4x4 Rangers with the 4.0L V6. The first was a '94 Splash Supercab with a manual trans and 3.73 gears. The other was an '02 FX4 with manual trans and 4.10 gears. The '94 had the pushrod 4.0 while the '02 was the SOHC version. Most of the later year trucks with the 4.0L also had the 4.10 axle ratio. As a matter of fact that was the only ratio available on that year of the FX4. It did have 31" tires which I'm sure most other Ranger models did not even when equipped with 4.10s. I never paid particular attention to fuel mileage on either truck because that's not why I bought them. It wasn't especially great and I attribute most of that to the steep gear ratios.

[blksn8k2]

Did anyone read the comments section after the Autoguide article? This jit character seems pretty adamant that his Australian dealer knows everything and is telling him the truth about the next gen Ranger. He attributes this to his "premium Ford customer" status.

[jpd80]

Did anyone read the comments section after the Autoguide article? This jit character seems pretty adamant that his Australian dealer knows everything and is telling him the truth about the next gen Ranger. He attributes this to his "premium Ford customer" status.

If he is to be believed, then he's just said that Nth American Ranger will have at least three gas engine options,

a 2.3 EB, a 3.3 PFDI V6 and a 2.7 EB... not to mention a small diesel presumably the 2.0 Ecoblue.

 

While I'm not calling him out (his dealer source apparently used to work in Ford R & D)

That is a freaking lot of engines for a vehicle that's expected to sell in comparatively small numbers.

Could it be that nth America gets the 2.7 EB and 3.3 V6 while ROW markets get the 2.3 EB?

[fuzzymoomoo]

No matter what I would expect the 3.3 to be the base engine.

[Sevensecondsuv]

So it's going to have the same 3.3L V6 base engine as the F150? I was expecting the 2.5L n/a gas 4 popper (or whatever it's ecoboost replacement/equivalent is.....1.5L, 1.6L?) as the base engine.

[Sevensecondsuv]

It's simple. At the time it made for an easy sale to satisfy the mouth breather crowd that needed the absolute biggest engine that could be crammed into it. That kind of mentality still exists today in the luxury market.

I'd understand that if the "big" engine was something more than the 4.0L. The 5.0L (windsor), the 4v 4.6L lincoln/cobra motor, the coyote, heck even the 2.3 SVO turbo motor all would have made for a very interesting factory "Ranger GT". But the 4.0L trucks aren't fast by any stretch of the imagination.

 

That said, I did try a 2wd reg cab with the 4.0 SOHC and the manual trans once. That truck was pretty quick. Unfortunately, that wasn't a combo that dealers stocked and very few buyers went out if their way to order one.

[fuzzymoomoo]

So it's going to have the same 3.3L V6 base engine as the F150? I was expecting the 2.5L n/a gas 4 popper (or whatever it's ecoboost replacement/equivalent is.....1.5L, 1.6L?) as the base engine.

Pioneer mentioned in another thread that he was told that the 2.0NA used in the Focus would carry over to the Ranger with upgrades. I was saying that in the scenario jpd80 brought up that the 3.3 would be the base engine. What model has an Ecoboost engine as the base engine

 

I'll answer that for you, only the 2018 Mustang.

[jpd80]

Given the size an weight of the T6 Ranger I think the 2.0 DI would be nigh on useless

in anything other than the smallest 2WD single cab low rider pick up version.

 

A 3.3 V6 would follow a basic tradition of supplying a usable engine that's not too big and still pretty fuel efficient.

 

The 2.3 EB could deputize in that roll with added low end torque and better under hood packaging (Still an I-3 engine)

 

A 2.7 EB or 3.0 EB would make a great HP engine.....

[fordmantpw]

I was wondering about towing a fiti wheel with the duaal cab and a short bed but then discovered the

solution is an offset pin version that's already on the market..

 

I've actually got the Reese Revolution/Sidewinder on my fifth wheel. Makes turning sharp a non-issue on short-bed trucks (mine is a Super Duty short bed, so still longer than the bed on that Ranger). No worries of bed/trailer contact.

[akirby]

I'll answer that for you, only the 2018 Mustang.

 

Expedition, Navigator, Edge, MKZ, MKC

[sullynd]

 

Expedition, Navigator, Edge, MKZ, MKC

It's semantics, but you could argue ecoboost is not the "base engine" in the Expedition, Navi, or MKC (as it is the only engine).

 

And , you forgot the GT.

[akirby]

It's semantics, but you could argue ecoboost is not the "base engine" in the Expedition, Navi, or MKC (as it is the only engine).

 

And , you forgot the GT.

 

Not semantics at all - that's the engine you get with the base version of the vehicle.

 

And yes I did forget the GT. That was actually the first one I thought of but then I forgot it while I was looking at the others.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I thought the newest three cyl ecoboost (cant remember if it's 1.5 or 1.6) is being used in applications where the old 2.5 NA duratec 4 cylinder was. The idea was that the cost of the extra turbo hardware was offset but the lack of a 4th cyl worth of parts.

 

In any case, I don't think a 2.0 NA will be enough engine. Doesn't the current T6 ranger already use the 2.5 NA as it's base engine? I can't imagine Ford going with less engine for the American version...

 

If they do use the 2.0 NA, it better come with a manual trans. That engine combined with a slushbox in a 4000 lb truck is going to make for one sssssllllloooowwww ride!

Edited May 8, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

The 2.0 only has 146 lb/ft compared to 175 for the 2.5L. I don't think you'd see the 2.0L unless it was a hybrid.