Diesel 2019 Ford Ranger caught testing in Michigan

rusty ol ranger · Feb 25, 2018

98v70dad said:
Nice camping in Arkansas. I used to go camping up in the ozarks near hardy back in the 70s.

Yeah, I figured the mpg would drop in half. I got 23 mpg driving from Atlanta to b'ham AL Thursday with no load and no passenger. I know that my 96 3.0 v6 will probably do the job but I think it's on the edge. Since I don't own the camper yet I'm having to estimate the load. The escape 5 is a very light and very small 5th wheel. I think escape used to deliver their trailers with a ranger - empty.

The pin load and truck payload is the one thing that would be right at the limit.

Dude, buy the camper, hitch it up and go. Its not a big deal if you hold people up going up hills, i used to do it all the time towing my 32FT travel trailer (7-7200lbs loaded) behind my 77 F250 with a weezing 400 and lincoln worthy 3.07 gears. Untill i got my 460 anyways, screw em, theyll get over it.

Honestly, at 4000lbs, even a previous gen 4.0L should do just fine, your 3.0 would pry still be fine even. Just take it slow.

stmitch · Feb 25, 2018

85_Ranger4x4 said:
Ford very well may monitor this kind of thing, complaining is how we got them to bring the Ranger back in the first place.

I really doubt that our complaints are the reason that the Ranger is coming back. Ford can claim that they're listening to their customers, but we've been complaining for a decade while Ford let the last Ranger die and sold the T6 everywhere else. GM selling tons of Colorados and Canyons, and Toyota selling Tacomas for crazy money is probably much more impactful than us. Just look at how few of us are willing/able to buy one of these new Rangers vs the number of us that complain about it being too big, or too fancy, or too expensive, or not capable enough, etc. If Ford is actually listening to us, they're doing a poor job. Most of us are not the target customer for the new Ranger, so I doubt Ford really cares about our opinions.

stmitch · Feb 25, 2018

98v70dad said:
Well, the point off this thread was not so much to publicly complain but to let the ford folks know that there are at least some people who aren't real happy with the engine they've picked for the new ranger. Maybe there will be more choices. That would be nice. I'm sure that there are many people who will want the 2.3 L. I'm not one of them.

Going straight to the source is likely to be much more effective than hoping they stumble upon a random discussion online. It's just like complaining about Congress, but not letting your Congress person know how you feel. You have to let them know directly rather than beating around the bush and hoping they figure it out on their own.
Reach out and let them hear you:
https://corporate.ford.com/contact-us.html

98v70dad · Feb 25, 2018

rusty ol ranger said:
Dude, buy the camper, hitch it up and go. Its not a big deal if you hold people up going up hills, i used to do it all the time towing my 32FT travel trailer (7-7200lbs loaded) behind my 77 F250 with a weezing 400 and lincoln worthy 3.07 gears. Untill i got my 460 anyways, screw em, theyll get over it.

Honestly, at 4000lbs, even a previous gen 4.0L should do just fine, your 3.0 would pry still be fine even. Just take it slow.

You might be right, but I'm not in the Midwest. I'm in the mountains. The Appalachians aren't the Rockys but they're mountains. My 20 year old Volvo with 20 more horsepower and one more cylinder had trouble getting up the steep grades - empty. The performance of a 20 year old engine probably doesn't come close to the original performance specs.

98v70dad · Feb 25, 2018

stmitch said:
I really doubt that our complaints are the reason that the Ranger is coming back. Ford can claim that they're listening to their customers, but we've been complaining for a decade while Ford let the last Ranger die and sold the T6 everywhere else. GM selling tons of Colorados and Canyons, and Toyota selling Tacomas for crazy money is probably much more impactful than us. Just look at how few of us are willing/able to buy one of these new Rangers vs the number of us that complain about it being too big, or too fancy, or too expensive, or not capable enough, etc. If Ford is actually listening to us, they're doing a poor job. Most of us are not the target customer for the new Ranger, so I doubt Ford really cares about our opinions.

I believe that you are probably right.

rusty ol ranger · Feb 25, 2018

98v70dad said:
You might be right, but I'm not in the Midwest. I'm in the mountains. The Appalachians aren't the Rockys but they're mountains. My 20 year old Volvo with 20 more horsepower and one more cylinder had trouble getting up the steep grades - empty. The performance of a 20 year old engine probably doesn't come close to the original performance specs.

Eh, i didnt think of that. I think of everyone as a flatlander like me.

Athough, you could try it. I dont know what gears your truck has, but lower gears are always an option. A 3.54 gear was in store for the 77 untill the wife insisted i get a newer truck.

85_Ranger4x4 · Feb 25, 2018

stmitch said:
I really doubt that our complaints are the reason that the Ranger is coming back. Ford can claim that they're listening to their customers, but we've been complaining for a decade while Ford let the last Ranger die and sold the T6 everywhere else. GM selling tons of Colorados and Canyons, and Toyota selling Tacomas for crazy money is probably much more impactful than us. Just look at how few of us are willing/able to buy one of these new Rangers vs the number of us that complain about it being too big, or too fancy, or too expensive, or not capable enough, etc. If Ford is actually listening to us, they're doing a poor job. Most of us are not the target customer for the new Ranger, so I doubt Ford really cares about our opinions.

At the time the Ranger went away mid sizes were not selling well. Don’t forget the Colorado was retired too.

I was about 4’ from the head of Ranger marketing when he added TRS to his favorites to check out what we thought of the new truck. It might have been lip service but they did seem to care what we thought.

After being gone for more than a few years it is just now the die hard enthusiasts left, that will likely change as the new truck comes out.

98v70dad said:
You might be right, but I'm not in the Midwest. I'm in the mountains. The Appalachians aren't the Rockys but they're mountains. My 20 year old Volvo with 20 more horsepower and one more cylinder had trouble getting up the steep grades - empty. The performance of a 20 year old engine probably doesn't come close to the original performance specs.

In the mountains I am not sure I would mess with a midsize with anything other than a pop up.

In Iowa my 4K ranger on a car trailer pulls like a sail with my F-150. My 5500 lb tractor is easier to pull... and is not shaped like a brick.

98v70dad · Feb 25, 2018

rusty ol ranger said:
Eh, i didnt think of that. I think of everyone as a flatlander like me.

Athough, you could try it. I dont know what gears your truck has, but lower gears are always an option. A 3.54 gear was in store for the 77 untill the wife insisted i get a newer truck.

The thing is, I'm a cheapskate. I could go buy another truck that would work but the 96 is getting old and I hoped that I could get a new truck that would do it all. I don't want to drive a full size as my only vehicle in metro Atlanta - the lanes and parking spaces are too narrow. Also, the escape 5 is a very small very light fiberglass 5th wheel. The cost of the hitch is significant so the advice I've gotten from several people to "just go for it" could end up being an expensive mistake.

My ranger has a 3.73 rear axle and a 3 L. I just drove it back from B'ham AL this afternoon and the grades on I-20 aren't too steep. On several occasions I slowed at the bottom of a grade and then floored it just to see what the truck would do. It would eventually spool up to 70 mph but it took the entire grade and it didn't show me much in the way of power. I had a full tank of gas and a suitcase in the back - nothing else. Of course, towing a trailer I wouldn't be shooting for 70 mph - 45 maybe. I did get 23.5 mpg which was nice.

85_Ranger4x4 · Feb 25, 2018

The 3.0 is hardly a barn burning engine. If you upgraded to a 4.0 truck you would probably scare yourself.

stmitch · Feb 27, 2018

85_Ranger4x4 said:
At the time the Ranger went away mid sizes were not selling well. Don’t forget the Colorado was retired too.

Yearly sales in the US:
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/toyota-tacoma-sales-figures/
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/ford-ranger-sales-figures/

Year---Ranger--------Tacoma
2002--226,094-------151,960
2003--209,117-------154,154
2004--156,322-------152,933
2005--120,958-------168,831
2006--92,420--------178,351
2007--72,711--------173,238
2008--65,872--------144,655
2009--55,600--------111,824
2010--55,364--------106,198
2011--70,832--------110,705
2012--19,366--------141,365
2013--0-------------159,485
2014--0-------------155,041
2015--0-------------179,562
2016--0-------------191,631
2017--0-------------198,124

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that midsize truck sales were struggling. Ranger sales definitely were, but they were trying to sell a truck that had it's origins all the way back in 93. Toyota has consistently sold over 100k Tacos in the US annually, and they're approaching 200k. But they've redesigned the truck multiple times during the Ranger's nearly 20 years on the market. GM and Nissan did the same. Even Chrysler released an entirely new Dakota during that time. We all know that Ford made updates to the Ranger between 2012 and 93, but when a 2012 shares body panels with a 93, it's a dinosaur.

By 2012, the Ranger was pure profit for Ford. The development and tooling had long been paid for, so even if the margins weren't as good as they are on loaded F-150s they still should've been profitable. But, they'd taken the platform as far as it could go. Customers weren't interested in buying a truck that shared parts with a 19 year old truck but cost the same as it's much newer competition. More stringent crash test standards and fuel economy had caught up with the Ranger's 20 year old design and it couldn't go on any longer.
Maybe there were too many players in the small truck class. Maybe the crash in 08-09 meant that they didn't have the cash to fund a replacement (but they still developed multiple iterations of the "global" Ranger so I'm not sure that's the case). Maybe they were hoping that Ranger buyers would just switch to F-150s that had higher profit margins. I think the increase in Tacoma sales after the last Ranger was discontinued might show that instead of Ranger buyers upgrading to F-150s as Ford had hoped, many were switching to Tacomas to stay in "small" trucks.

85_Ranger4x4 · Feb 27, 2018

Nissan must have had a really good year then. If the market didn't get smaller someone besides Toyota must have picked up all the disappointed Colorado, Ranger and Dakota buyers as their trucks ceased production 2011-2012.

Some parts go back farther than 17 years, I have the rear springs from a 2008 on my '85.

bobbywalter · Mar 16, 2018

98v70dad said:
The ford engine might be ok but I'm not willing to risk my money on it for towing. First of al. I'm sure ford would not have put it out there if they weren't confident in it. BUT many many of the people in my camper forum with eco boost engines don't like them at all. Their complaint is that they do not make their mileage claims even without a trailer on. There were also some complaints about reliability. Some people using them to tow at the same camper forum like them. EVERY comment I've found about towing a camper withe the diesel Colorado is extremely positive.

Most of my cars in recent years have had 4 bangers. I'm not against them - they get great gas mileage. However, most of them vibrate too much for me at idle when they get some age on them. They also get noisy as they age and when you push them you can tell they're being pushed.

I buy my vehicles and keep them until they die. I do the mechanic work. My Volvo lasted 20 years - it had an in line 5 and was underpowered. My ranger is 21 years old and going strong.

I'm not ready to spend the cash (lots of it) on a new ranger when other people - many of them - have said the Eco boost technology doesn't work for them towing a camper all day. The same group (other people) sing praises to the duramax in the Colorado. I'm not sold on the duramax either - that's why I haven't already bought one.

My problem is that I can't afford to own a bunch of trucks. My truck has to double as my commuter car. I drive 100 miles each day in metro Atlanta. A full sized truck is tough to maneuver and park in town. Gas in Atlanta is taxed and its also a special antismog blend so it's expensive. So, the obvious towing solution - an old school V8 - would kill me in fuel cost driving it 100 miles every day. A mid sized diesel solves all of those problems for me. The 2.3 liter Eco 4 solves those problems in theory but my gut tells me that it won't make a very good all day tow vehicle. I believe that it will be maxed out all the time towing a trailer which would be OK if you were hauling home a trailer full of firewood and only needed it for a few hours at a time. Operating at the edge of a performance envelope all day long with a camper is not a good way to go in my opinion.

you are wise. give it two years. in the mean time go lease a Colorado.

blksn8k said:
I repeat, the truck I want would be a mid-size crew cab 4x4 with a 10-speed auto and a small displacement (2.7L min to 3.3L max) INLINE six cylinder GAS turbo.

Not interested in the initial price, higher fuel cost or maintenance of a modern diesel.

The EcoBoost technology is fine but it should not be combined with an engine so small in displacement that it HAS to be under boost just to move the weight of a nearly 5000 lb unloaded truck on less than flat terrain.

An inline six is also a better design for a truck application than a four or five cylinder inline. An inline six is less prone to natural vibration frequencies. It is also better than a V6 because it produces better torque at lower rpm's.

So far, nobody builds a truck like that.

i agree a turbo inline 6 gasser and diesel would be ideal here.

i can see me leasing a ranger till they are shook.

i see the diesel as inevitable.

depending on how that goes, you will know when i buy one.

it will have the wheel base extended 10 inches with a real bed i will build for it.

it will have a much wider track width.

it will have whatever powertrain i want. probably the inline 6 robbed from the coming 1/2 ton gm with the 10 speed and killer t case.

or you guys could go buy the diesel silverado when it comes out. it bet it will be a good match.

at any rate....at this point you need to build your goals.

Diesel 2019 Ford Ranger caught testing in Michigan

Im a Jeep guy now.

March 2011 STOTM Winner

March 2011 STOTM Winner

Active Member

Active Member

Im a Jeep guy now.

Forum Staff Member

Active Member

Forum Staff Member

March 2011 STOTM Winner

Forum Staff Member

TRS Technical Staff

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Today's birthdays

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals