Ford Announces The Return of The Ranger in 2019 - TRS's 20TH Anniversary

[wildbill23c]

I was beginning to think I was the only one who DIDN'T want a bigger truck!

View attachment 21681

I hunt out of my Ranger and while this photo is a stock photo off line, I drive down many small two tracks like this that my current Ranger brushes the limbs down the side. Anything larger and brushes become scrapes, creases or dents, or even worse I don't fit!
I predator hunt and a lot of my properties are cattle ranches. The ranch hands all drive big trucks or tractors and after a wet period the ruts get pretty nasty. Many times I can drop one side in the ruts and keep the other side on firm ground in between their tracks or squeeze a new trail around the deep ruts by going to the other side of a tree!
I started with a Frontier in the early late 80s, then went to a S10 in the early 90s and then I found and purchased a 97 Ranger. I currently am driving my 3rd Ranger, a 2010 Sport extra cab 4x4.
When I get all the miles out of it I would like to be able to buy another one.
I purchased a compact truck because I wanted and needed a compact truck!
I hope Ford gives me that option!

I didn't mind the old ranger size at all. I had an 84 and a 93...seemed the 93 was more cramped than the 84, but maybe it was the 93's bucket seats and console that made it seem cramped as my 84 had a bench seat. The only thing the 93 had the A4LD transmission that was a huge negative went through 2 of them and after the 2nd transmission blew the truck was sold for parts LOL. The 84 Ranger did a lot of towing across the country as my grandparents used it for pulling their travel trailer from occasionally a few times a year between 84 and 88 till 89 when they bought a larger trailer and larger truck. That 84 Ranger if I only knew then about the computer issues, the TFI module failures and the ability to do a duraspark conversion that ole 84 ranger would still be in my driveway ...I miss that truck a lot. My 88 bronco 2 has the A4LD as well but I am hoping that AAMCO rebuilt it properly so it will last for a loooooong time.

I don't have use for a full size truck most of the time, I loved the rangers because they could go pretty much anywhere, yet had the ability to tow/haul when needed. They also made great work trucks because of their smaller size and lower bed heights making loading and unloading stuff very easy.

 

[Rangerx2]

I had 2 Rangers, an 86 and a 95. Both of them supercab 2wd's. I loved them both and wish I still had my 86. But I have since moved up to the F-150 because the Ranger was simply too small to meet my hauling needs in a truck. Not that they weren't good trucks, but for my needs at the time, they were simply too small. That was 11 years ago. Now I'm at a point where I'm realizing I probably don't need the full-size anymore, and especially with the 8' bed. But do I really want to go back into something that small again? I still need a truck that is functional enough to use, but small enough to easily park in city parking garages and tight parking lots. Unfortunately, I don't live in the woods! I live and work near a city. I may be among the minority here but I might be interested in the mid-size Ranger. Make mine an XLT super cab with a V6 4x4 please! If I decide not to buy a Ranger next, I'll probably stay with the F-150, but get the super cab/6' bed next.

 

[XLTsplash]

It's nice to hear the new Ranger will have a full frame. I wish the would make the truck smaller. Even if it is based on the euro Ranger. They can make it smaller with the sheet metal design. I hope the offer a manual trans. I'm sure their are a few people like me that still enjoy shifting. I also hope they don't use a aluminum body on the new Ranger. At least the Ranger name will continue.
As for the new Bronco, if it's going to be a four door they shouldn't even bring back the Bronco name. We does Ford need another four SUV ?

 

[wildbill23c]

It's nice to hear the new Ranger will have a full frame. I wish the would make the truck smaller. Even if it is based on the euro Ranger. They can make it smaller with the sheet metal design. I hope the offer a manual trans. I'm sure their are a few people like me that still enjoy shifting. I also hope they don't use a aluminum body on the new Ranger. At least the Ranger name will continue.
As for the new Bronco, if it's going to be a four door they shouldn't even bring back the Bronco name. We does Ford need another four SUV ?

I agree, either build it right or don't even bother. Trouble is all they do is think about the masses, nevermind the die-hard RBV fans who wouldn't mind having new technology in an old style vehicle.

 

[stmitch]

It's nice to hear the new Ranger will have a full frame. I wish the would make the truck smaller. Even if it is based on the euro Ranger. They can make it smaller with the sheet metal design.

Ford isn't going to spend very much by redesigning and retooling a whole new body. They might change lights, grilles, and bumpers since those are cheap and easy, but I wouldn't expect much more than that. They're late to the mid-size truck game, so they're trying to get the truck to market as quickly and cheaply as they can.

I agree, either build it right or don't even bother. Trouble is all they do is think about the masses, nevermind the die-hard RBV fans who wouldn't mind having new technology in an old style vehicle.

If you make a product, there are 2 ways you make money. You sell a few of them, for tons of money each (like Ferrari). Or you sell as many as you possibly can to the masses at a lower price (like most companies). Ford can't win with you. The truck will either be too soft, to appeal to the masses, or it will be what you want, but WAY too expensive for any of us to afford. Ford doesn't care what a few "die hard RBV fans" want because they're trying to make money and us "Die hards" don't have enough money to buy a hardcore, no frills truck like what you want. It would have to cost 6 figures or they'd lose money.

If you want new tech in an old body (even though you don't like electronics???), make it yourself. Or spend the money you'd pay for a new truck to have it built for you. You could have an old-fashioned Ranger fixed up with an EcoBoost 4cylinder and 6 speed manual for WAY less than what a new truck would cost. Your perfect truck is possible, but it's not coming from a factory somewhere. It's time to accept that and quit complaining, or (preferably) start building your own so that we can all watch.

 

[wildbill23c]

Ford isn't going to spend very much by redesigning and retooling a whole new body. They might change lights, grilles, and bumpers since those are cheap and easy, but I wouldn't expect much more than that. They're late to the mid-size truck game, so they're trying to get the truck to market as quickly and cheaply as they can.



If you make a product, there are 2 ways you make money. You sell a few of them, for tons of money each (like Ferrari). Or you sell as many as you possibly can to the masses at a lower price (like most companies). Ford can't win with you. The truck will either be too soft, to appeal to the masses, or it will be what you want, but WAY too expensive for any of us to afford. Ford doesn't care what a few "die hard RBV fans" want because they're trying to make money and us "Die hards" don't have enough money to buy a hardcore, no frills truck like what you want. It would have to cost 6 figures or they'd lose money.

If you want new tech in an old body (even though you don't like electronics???), make it yourself. Or spend the money you'd pay for a new truck to have it built for you. You could have an old-fashioned Ranger fixed up with an EcoBoost 4cylinder and 6 speed manual for WAY less than what a new truck would cost. Your perfect truck is possible, but it's not coming from a factory somewhere. It's time to accept that and quit complaining, or (preferably) start building your own so that we can all watch.

What happens is automakers over-price shit to the point people don't even bother, which is why the Ranger died in the first place, they price it right out of the market to the point where people just bought an F150 for the same price and got a bigger truck.

It has nothing to do with many want, its what the global market builds which is the only reason the ranger is even mentioned anymore because its still sold in other countries and it will just migrate back to the US in the same global form just like the Bronco will be brought back as yet another Explorer with a Bronco emblem. All they're doing is just bringing back what's already there.

I don't care one way or the other, Ford will price these things way above what many will pay for a mid-size truck since they're now already used to driving a full size truck LOL. If I bought one it wouldn't be new, done wasted money on new vehicles a couple times won't do it again. With many people doing leases or buying new cars every year or couple years in 5-10 years these things will be on every used car lot or all around town for sale for about 1/4 of the price they cost new, so the depreciation will already have been taken so it will be a wait and buy used game for me. Wouldn't mind driving a new one when they come out but I think I'll wait it out and snag a used one in a few years and save the initial sticker shock.

When I bought my 2008 Toyota Tundra new in 08 I had looked at a Tacoma as well, but when the cost difference between the 2 was about $1500-2000 it was a no-brainer to buy a larger truck with a V8 rather than sit in a cramped mid-size truck with a V6 that got practically the same fuel economy. Did the new vehicle thing twice, won't even discuss the POS Chevy Cobalt nightmare. I'll go used when they start flooding the used market after the newness wears off.

 

[stmitch]

I'm a huge fan of depreciation myself. But ask yourself this, how can these trucks flood the used market in a few years if nobody is going to buy them as new due to the cost? If the new Ranger is priced too high, and people will just buy F-150s as you suggest, then there won't be any on the used market.

The whole reason Ford is bringing the Ranger back, is because they've seen GM selling quite a few Colorado/Canyons, and Toyota Tacomas and they want some of that market segment. Obviously, there are people that don't want a full size because I see multiple Tacomas and Colorados daily. They seem to be selling well enough for Ford to rush back into the segment. F-150s can clear 60k now, so having a truck in the lineup that can be well appointed for mid 30s could work. At least Ford seems to think so. And GM seems to be proving it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm a huge fan of depreciation myself. But ask yourself this, how can these trucks flood the used market in a few years if nobody is going to buy them as new due to the cost? If the new Ranger is priced too high, and people will just buy F-150s as you suggest, then there won't be any on the used market.

The whole reason Ford is bringing the Ranger back, is because they've seen GM selling quite a few Colorado/Canyons, and Toyota Tacomas and they want some of that market segment. Obviously, there are people that don't want a full size because I see multiple Tacomas and Colorados daily. They seem to be selling well enough for Ford to rush back into the segment. F-150s can clear 60k now, so having a truck in the lineup that can be well appointed for mid 30s could work. At least Ford seems to think so. And GM seems to be proving it.

Most F-150's list in the $40k's. The one I keep building on Ford's website comes out around $41k. 4wd, scab, V8, XLT, 17" alloys, 3.73 with locking diff, brake controller, trailer package... not too basic but not too fancy. King Ranches and Platinums are scary... but are not the norm.

So why would I buy a new Ranger vs a used F-150? I didn't in 2005 for the same reason, a barely used F-150 cost the same as a new Ranger, got the same mileage (which is unknown for the new one at this point) and was a friggin F-150 that could pull my tractors around vs another Ranger that couldn't really do anything more than my '85 could.

 

[stmitch]

Most F-150's list in the $40k's. The one I keep building on Ford's website comes out around $41k. 4wd, scab, V8, XLT, 17" alloys, 3.73 with locking diff, brake controller, trailer package... not too basic but not too fancy. King Ranches and Platinums are scary... but are not the norm.

So why would I buy a new Ranger vs a used F-150? I didn't in 2005 for the same reason, a barely used F-150 cost the same as a new Ranger, got the same mileage (which is unknown for the new one at this point) and was a friggin F-150 that could pull my tractors around vs another Ranger that couldn't really do anything more than my '85 could.

The new vs used argument is a bit of a different beast, and has nearly infinite variables. Thanks to depreciation, used vehicles almost always have an advantage over new in the value department.

There are tons of jobs that an F-150 is better at than a Ranger. We are all constrained by budgets and expectations, while also having the freedom to choose what we spend our money on. For you and I, spending money on a used truck vs brand new probably makes sense. Others make their own choices based on their criteria. My point was that WildBill thinks the new Ranger will be too close to the F-150 in price and capability to be a sales success. Then he also says he plans on waiting until the new Ranger is widely available on the used market. But they won't be widely available if they don't sell well when they're new.

Ford is late to this market segment because they didn't think there would be demand. But, after seeing GM and Toyota mid-size sales surge, they've reconsidered their position. Obviously, enough people are choosing to buy the mid-size option to validate the investment the automakers are putting in.

 

[wildbill23c]

I'm anxious to see how the rangers sell. It really is a guessing game, price them too high and nobody will buy one because of price and the ability to buy the F150 relatively in the same price field.

I don't want to deal with a brand new vehicle depreciation again so personally I'd wait for a used one and I wonder if fleet sales would be done with the new rangers?

 

[don4331]

New Ford Ranger will start at ~$20k for 2wd supercab base and climb to just under $50k for a loaded Wildtrack with average being in mid 30s. (based on Colorado, and fact that F-150 and Sierra pricing are within stones throw of each other).

I'm not sure if there will be large fleet sales with only supercab and supercrew options.

The issue which bugs me is the CAFE requirements which are forcing the truck to be so big - if >7.0 m^2 then it can get 25 mp(US)g, while if it is smaller, it needs to get >40 mp(US)g by 2021. Which effectively eliminates an '80s size Ranger (even with Al body and EcoBoost). And gambling on an Ecosport based ute is too risky for any of the major manufacturers. (although the Jeep Renegade based pickup gave me hope for a few days).

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The issue which bugs me is the CAFE requirements which are forcing the truck to be so big - if >7.0 m^2 then it can get 25 mp(US)g, while if it is smaller, it needs to get >40 mp(US)g by 2021. Which effectively eliminates an '80s size Ranger (even with Al body and EcoBoost). And gambling on an Ecosport based ute is too risky for any of the major manufacturers. (although the Jeep Renegade based pickup gave me hope for a few days).

I think a lot of the size is Ford is just throwing a facelift on an existing design to save money and see for real if there is a market there.

FWIW my local O'Reilly's has two extended cab Frontiers for delivery vehicles.

Think about it though, the old Ranger was aerodynamically a brick and with a NA 4cyl it could flirt with 30mpg. 40mpg with improved aero and powertrain shouldn't be that far out of line 10+ years later.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The issue which bugs me is the CAFE requirements which are forcing the truck to be so big - if >7.0 m^2 then it can get 25 mp(US)g, while if it is smaller, it needs to get >40 mp(US)g by 2021. Which effectively eliminates an '80s size Ranger (even with Al body and EcoBoost). And gambling on an Ecosport based ute is too risky for any of the major manufacturers. (although the Jeep Renegade based pickup gave me hope for a few days).

I think a lot of the size is Ford just throwing a facelift on an existing design to save money and see for real if there is a market there. And from their introduction compact trucks have constantly grown bigger (all pickups have)

FWIW my local O'Reilly's has two extended cab Frontiers for delivery vehicles.

Think about it though, the old Ranger was aerodynamically a brick and with a NA 4cyl it could flirt with 30mpg. 40mpg with improved aero and powertrain shouldn't be that far out of line 10+ years later.

 

[wildbill23c]

New Ford Ranger will start at ~$20k for 2wd supercab base and climb to just under $50k for a loaded Wildtrack with average being in mid 30s. (based on Colorado, and fact that F-150 and Sierra pricing are within stones throw of each other).

I'm not sure if there will be large fleet sales with only supercab and supercrew options.

The issue which bugs me is the CAFE requirements which are forcing the truck to be so big - if >7.0 m^2 then it can get 25 mp(US)g, while if it is smaller, it needs to get >40 mp(US)g by 2021. Which effectively eliminates an '80s size Ranger (even with Al body and EcoBoost). And gambling on an Ecosport based ute is too risky for any of the major manufacturers. (although the Jeep Renegade based pickup gave me hope for a few days).

In reality I already have 2 4WD's, the 88 Bronco 2 and my Toyota Tundra, so the base model 2WD ranger wouldn't exactly be something I'd pass on. I'd love a regular cab but many are going to the extended cab as a standard now LOL. Not sure if I'd want one the first year though HAHA!!!...then like I said before I'd go with used anyhow to avoid the depreciation.

I'm anxious to see what Ford really does with the new Ranger. I've always loved the Ranger pickups, maybe because a ranger was my first vehicle in high school. Most of what I do now is just driving to and from work and of course trips and groceries. So don't need a full size pickup most of the time.

If the new Rangers can push 20mpg city that would certainly be a huge help in the fuel bill for me. $20k seems far more reasonable.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

In reality I already have 2 4WD's, the 88 Bronco 2 and my Toyota Tundra, so the base model 2WD ranger wouldn't exactly be something I'd pass on. I'd love a regular cab but many are going to the extended cab as a standard now LOL. Not sure if I'd want one the first year though HAHA!!!...then like I said before I'd go with used anyhow to avoid the depreciation.

I'm anxious to see what Ford really does with the new Ranger. I've always loved the Ranger pickups, maybe because a ranger was my first vehicle in high school. Most of what I do now is just driving to and from work and of course trips and groceries. So don't need a full size pickup most of the time.

If the new Rangers can push 20mpg city that would certainly be a huge help in the fuel bill for me. $20k seems far more reasonable.

They are only making one wheelbase so standard cabs will not be offered.