New 2019 Ford Ranger
- Thread starter Bryanseye
- Start date
smlobx
Adventurist
Here is the order / build guide just released today...
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261564&d=1534167826
No pricing yet and the mileage and HP numbers are left off as well...
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261564&d=1534167826
No pricing yet and the mileage and HP numbers are left off as well...
Last edited:
Chrome Package... stomach turns. After sifting through pages of chrome doo-hickeys and comfort and driver assist this-n-that's excitement wanes.
What we need to know...
FX4 OFF-ROAD PACKAGE (914) Availability:
● Opt. on XL Mid (101A)
● Opt. on XLT and Lariat Not available with:
● 4x2 or XL Base Requires:
● 4x4
● STX Appearance Package (76F) (101A only) Includes:
● 4x4 “FX4 Off-Road” bodyside decal
● 17” Off-Road OWL Tires (TGT)
● 18” Off-Road OWL Tires (TFP)
● E-Locking Rear-Axle
● Exposed Front Tow Hooks
● Exposed Steel bash plate
● Off-Road Screen in Cluster
● Off-Road tuned suspension
● Remove front air dam
● Skid Plates: fuel tank, transfer case and front differential
● Terrain Management System™
● Trail Control™ Optional Equipment:
● LT 265/65 R17 A/T OWL Tires (TEW)
Disappointing to see and 18 gallon fuel tank and 2.3L engine as the only option.
I'll keep what I got, thank you very much Ford. Keep trying.
What we need to know...
FX4 OFF-ROAD PACKAGE (914) Availability:
● Opt. on XL Mid (101A)
● Opt. on XLT and Lariat Not available with:
● 4x2 or XL Base Requires:
● 4x4
● STX Appearance Package (76F) (101A only) Includes:
● 4x4 “FX4 Off-Road” bodyside decal
● 17” Off-Road OWL Tires (TGT)
● 18” Off-Road OWL Tires (TFP)
● E-Locking Rear-Axle
● Exposed Front Tow Hooks
● Exposed Steel bash plate
● Off-Road Screen in Cluster
● Off-Road tuned suspension
● Remove front air dam
● Skid Plates: fuel tank, transfer case and front differential
● Terrain Management System™
● Trail Control™ Optional Equipment:
● LT 265/65 R17 A/T OWL Tires (TEW)
Disappointing to see and 18 gallon fuel tank and 2.3L engine as the only option.
I'll keep what I got, thank you very much Ford. Keep trying.
goin camping
Adventurist
The 2.3 eco boost with a 10 speed auto sounds interesting.
Sounds like great mileage and plenty of gears for off road.
Sounds like great mileage and plenty of gears for off road.
Mojoe Outfitters
Adventurist
I've driven a few of these techno wonders over the last decade. Each and every time I had to stop, get the manual out and try to figure out how to turn the smarts off. The vehicle was deciding what I wanted and how I should drive. My 15 year old F-150 does exactly what I want without fail.
Cam
Bryanseye
Adventurist
I know what you mean. The Rover I drove at Expo East kept giving me lane warnings when I drove by trees.
Seriously who needs a 10 speed trans? All that means is you have more chances it will always be in the wrong gear... My RAV4 has a 6 speed auto and I can't stand it on the road. I need to climb a slight incline in the road, normally I could just press the pedal down a little more and it would not need to downshift to maintain speed. Now it ends up downshift once or some cases twice. My Cherokee with 4 speed auto is nicer to drive in that sense. I hate transmissions that tend to hunt for gears and these modern 8 and 10 speed ones I can only imagine would be worse then my 6 speed.
Gallowbraid
Adventurist
I love Ford but the 10 speed transmission in the new F150s is garbage. Hate renting them. Given the chance I always rent a Dodge truck these days.
To satisfy my current Ford itch I'm passively on the hunt for an early 90s F250 with a diesel so I'll have an "old man goin' to town truck". A legal requirement for any man in the south.
To satisfy my current Ford itch I'm passively on the hunt for an early 90s F250 with a diesel so I'll have an "old man goin' to town truck". A legal requirement for any man in the south.
The 8-10 speed transmissions are no fun to deal with from the dealership service side of the house either. Like Mike said, they are always either upshifting or downshifting making steady state cruising a thing of the past. Not only that, the shift engagement is pretty crappy when compared to an older 4 speed w/OD, or even a 6 speed automatic for that matter.
Sadly, that 10 speed transmission is all but required in the name of optimizing fuel efficiency these days... especially with small displacement turbo engines and their narrow optimized powerband. I'm not a fan of the vehicle constantly shifting but I get why Ford is doing it. Beats a CVT from a durability aspect, but makes me hate automatics more than I already do. I would bet on other manufactures following the same format in the future. I think this truck looks pretty good, but it gets a hard pass for me with that powertrain.
And there is the biggest problem. Trucks and offroad oriented vehicles should have more of a broad powerband, ideally a nice, flat torque curve. This is what you need out in the dirt or hauling/towing. Turbos are great for sporty cars and diesels but gas powered trucks, not the right use. Don't even get me started on CVT's. S-I-L has that in her Toyota Carolla and I can't stand it.
smlobx
Adventurist
And that's why diesel's are so appealing off-road..
Code Red
Adventurist
Stand by for a little Overland Blasphemy . . .
I just did 13 days in a 2018 Ranger in Botswana and Zambia. I was very impressed with the truck for lots of reasons.
Power (even with the smaller 2.2L diesel) was great off-road, and adequate on-road. The larger diesel is supposed to be great on road as well. For what we were doing (70% of the time was off-road, and fuel stops were far enough apart to require some planning), the smaller, more fuel efficient, engine made a lot of sense, and was probably a better choice than the big one. The payload was outstanding. As much as I hate automatic transmissions, even that (5speed?) was great.
I am comparing this to the LC79 we had the last two years, and the Ranger was much better with a heavier load (both had upgraded suspension), handled the tracks and bad roads better than the cruiser, had significantly more power than the Cruiser, and ate up everything we threw at it. It really shined on the rough, rutted, two-tracks. We could comfortably travel 15-20 kph faster than I would have attempted in the Land Cruiser. The IFS, better steering, better brakes, etc... were confidence inspiring. I did miss the Land Cruiser when the track got really rough and it became more off-roading than overlanding, but that was more mental than any real complaint about the trucks capabilities. There aren't many solid axle trucks in the world with as little front wheel travel as a stock 70 series. The factory locker worked well. The push-button (actually a knob) four-wheel drive performed flawlessly at any speed. The Ranger may not hold up as well for 20-30 years of abuse, but then again . . . who knows? I am a Land Cruiser guy, and really didn't want to like this truck, but it was great.
I think I will still try to get a Land Cruiser next time I go, but that's choosing with my heart not my head. I've owned a 70 Series. I currently daily drive an FJ 62. And I've done five of these trips in 70 Series Land Cruisers. The Ranger, at least when new and in good shape, was a much better truck for Overlanding. Not nearly as sexy, but better in just about every other way.
So when I got back from my trip I googled it . . . and all of the things I liked about it - engine, transmission, payload, etc.... are downgraded for the U.S. version.
What I am comparing it to:
I just did 13 days in a 2018 Ranger in Botswana and Zambia. I was very impressed with the truck for lots of reasons.
Power (even with the smaller 2.2L diesel) was great off-road, and adequate on-road. The larger diesel is supposed to be great on road as well. For what we were doing (70% of the time was off-road, and fuel stops were far enough apart to require some planning), the smaller, more fuel efficient, engine made a lot of sense, and was probably a better choice than the big one. The payload was outstanding. As much as I hate automatic transmissions, even that (5speed?) was great.
I am comparing this to the LC79 we had the last two years, and the Ranger was much better with a heavier load (both had upgraded suspension), handled the tracks and bad roads better than the cruiser, had significantly more power than the Cruiser, and ate up everything we threw at it. It really shined on the rough, rutted, two-tracks. We could comfortably travel 15-20 kph faster than I would have attempted in the Land Cruiser. The IFS, better steering, better brakes, etc... were confidence inspiring. I did miss the Land Cruiser when the track got really rough and it became more off-roading than overlanding, but that was more mental than any real complaint about the trucks capabilities. There aren't many solid axle trucks in the world with as little front wheel travel as a stock 70 series. The factory locker worked well. The push-button (actually a knob) four-wheel drive performed flawlessly at any speed. The Ranger may not hold up as well for 20-30 years of abuse, but then again . . . who knows? I am a Land Cruiser guy, and really didn't want to like this truck, but it was great.
I think I will still try to get a Land Cruiser next time I go, but that's choosing with my heart not my head. I've owned a 70 Series. I currently daily drive an FJ 62. And I've done five of these trips in 70 Series Land Cruisers. The Ranger, at least when new and in good shape, was a much better truck for Overlanding. Not nearly as sexy, but better in just about every other way.
So when I got back from my trip I googled it . . . and all of the things I liked about it - engine, transmission, payload, etc.... are downgraded for the U.S. version.
What I am comparing it to:
The Tacoma 4x4 Crew Cab w/ v6 only has a payload of ~1,100lb's. The new Colorado, configured in a similar fashion, has payload of just under 1,500 lb's (which I think is far more appropriate for a midsized vehicle). If the Ranger comes with anything in the 1.5k-1.6k range for payload, I'd be happy with that.
Code Red
Adventurist
Payload makes me drool a little.
Overseas buyers seem to have much higher expectations than we do for payload. Payload figures for the overseas version of the Ranger run from 1,300 to 1,500 kg. That's 2,981 - 3,300 lbs for us non-metric types. They're in what we would consider the 3/4 ton range in the US. Well above the rating for the same year F150 or Ram Power Wagon.
I read an article a few yeas ago comparing new "utes" (Hilux, Navarra, Ranger, Triton, DMax, etc...) in Australia. The authors seemed to expect everything to be somewhere around the 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) mark as an informal standard. At the time, most half ton trucks in the US, (F150, Silverado, RAM 1500) couldn't compete with that. US half-tons seem to be upping their game in the last few years, especially Ford, but even now a new Power Wagon (allegedly a 3/4 ton truck, but with only a 1,470 lb payload), isn't rated to carry even half of what those little guys do.
Imagine yourself grabbing the keys to the Ranger because the Power Wagon isn't capable of hauling the load of bricks you need to pick up.
How do you calculate payload anyway? I have always thought that it should be the lowest capacity in the envelope defined by tires, suspension, wheel bearings, brakes, and drive train minus the curb weight. But I have no idea how they actually do it. I see people augmenting their suspension to increase payload, and while it can certainly make the truck drive better with a load, does it really change the numbers if the weak link in the manufacturer's calculation was braking or wheel bearings?
I suspect there may be some differences in how they calculate payload, but I don't know for sure. Some of it has to be marketing. Until a few years ago, there was no mandated standard for calculating tow ratings. That's why my 1972 CJ-5 is rated to tow 5,000 lbs, but a new 2-door JL with double the curb weight, double the horsepower, better braking, longer wheelbase, and a boxed frame is rated for 2,000 lbs. Even the 4-door, which is bigger than a 70's Grand Wagoneer in every way, is only rated for 3,500.
Something tells me the US version of the Ranger is going to show payloads a lot more similar to the Colorado and Taco than what it gets overseas.
Interesting Payload Specs from around the internet, mostly gas motors, configured the way I was interest in at the time. other configurations are possible, but if you want to haul something. Look for a Ford. Sorry for the obvious gap, but it really never occurred to me to even look at Chevys other than the Colorado diesel.
Payload Towing
1972 Jeep CJ5 1,050 5,000
2015 Jeep JKU 1,043 3,500
1991 Grand Wagoneer 1,690 5,000
1991 Toyota FJ62 1,929 3,500
2015 Toyota LC (76 series) 2,013
2015 Land Cruiser (200) 1,570 8,100
2018 Hilux 2,035
2018 Tacoma 1,155 6,500
2018 F150 (ecoboost) 3,230 13,200
2018 Ranger (Aus) 3,300
2018 F250 3,900 15,000
RAM Power Wagon 1,470 9,910
RAM 2500 2,369 17,260
RAM 1500 1,700 10,150
Colorado (ZR2 Diesel) 1,100 5,000 (source Motor Trend)
Overseas buyers seem to have much higher expectations than we do for payload. Payload figures for the overseas version of the Ranger run from 1,300 to 1,500 kg. That's 2,981 - 3,300 lbs for us non-metric types. They're in what we would consider the 3/4 ton range in the US. Well above the rating for the same year F150 or Ram Power Wagon.
I read an article a few yeas ago comparing new "utes" (Hilux, Navarra, Ranger, Triton, DMax, etc...) in Australia. The authors seemed to expect everything to be somewhere around the 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) mark as an informal standard. At the time, most half ton trucks in the US, (F150, Silverado, RAM 1500) couldn't compete with that. US half-tons seem to be upping their game in the last few years, especially Ford, but even now a new Power Wagon (allegedly a 3/4 ton truck, but with only a 1,470 lb payload), isn't rated to carry even half of what those little guys do.
Imagine yourself grabbing the keys to the Ranger because the Power Wagon isn't capable of hauling the load of bricks you need to pick up.
How do you calculate payload anyway? I have always thought that it should be the lowest capacity in the envelope defined by tires, suspension, wheel bearings, brakes, and drive train minus the curb weight. But I have no idea how they actually do it. I see people augmenting their suspension to increase payload, and while it can certainly make the truck drive better with a load, does it really change the numbers if the weak link in the manufacturer's calculation was braking or wheel bearings?
I suspect there may be some differences in how they calculate payload, but I don't know for sure. Some of it has to be marketing. Until a few years ago, there was no mandated standard for calculating tow ratings. That's why my 1972 CJ-5 is rated to tow 5,000 lbs, but a new 2-door JL with double the curb weight, double the horsepower, better braking, longer wheelbase, and a boxed frame is rated for 2,000 lbs. Even the 4-door, which is bigger than a 70's Grand Wagoneer in every way, is only rated for 3,500.
Something tells me the US version of the Ranger is going to show payloads a lot more similar to the Colorado and Taco than what it gets overseas.
Interesting Payload Specs from around the internet, mostly gas motors, configured the way I was interest in at the time. other configurations are possible, but if you want to haul something. Look for a Ford. Sorry for the obvious gap, but it really never occurred to me to even look at Chevys other than the Colorado diesel.
Payload Towing
1972 Jeep CJ5 1,050 5,000
2015 Jeep JKU 1,043 3,500
1991 Grand Wagoneer 1,690 5,000
1991 Toyota FJ62 1,929 3,500
2015 Toyota LC (76 series) 2,013
2015 Land Cruiser (200) 1,570 8,100
2018 Hilux 2,035
2018 Tacoma 1,155 6,500
2018 F150 (ecoboost) 3,230 13,200
2018 Ranger (Aus) 3,300
2018 F250 3,900 15,000
RAM Power Wagon 1,470 9,910
RAM 2500 2,369 17,260
RAM 1500 1,700 10,150
Colorado (ZR2 Diesel) 1,100 5,000 (source Motor Trend)
I think the payload issue is a bit skewed from one country to the next. In North America (Canada and US) the OEM's are mostly rating payload and towing figures using SAE standards. That wasn't always the case, and, no more than a few years back, different OEM's relied on different "methods" for rating the payload/towing of their vehicle.
To my knowledge, many overseas markets, like Australia, have yet to adopt standardized tests for assessing payload and towing; those markets still rely on OEM recommendations (which are inherently subjective).
I know the overseas midsized pickup's (Ranger, Hilux, Colorado) are in fact built to handle a bit more weight than their North American cousins, but I also think that the standards for evaluating those ratings are very different, or perhaps nonexistent, in some of those regions. The driving is generally slower overseas. The view of what is 'acceptable/safe' and what isn't when it comes to towing and hauling is also likely different from the common perceptions that exist here in North America.
So, yes, a Ranger is "rated" for about ~3k lbs of payload, but that doesn't mean the Ranger will handle that payload in a similar fashion to a 3/4 ton or HD 1/2 ton while cruising down the highway at 75 mph. I guess my point is: the comparison is not apples to apples.
Edit: Also, we are starting to get midsized trucks with higher payload in North America: the 4runner has a payload of ~1.5k lbs; the new Colorado's payload (non-ZR2) can be as high as 1,733lb's depending upon the configuration. OEM's here in North America realize that people want to actually use their midsized trucks; if the the Ranger comes with anything less than 1.4k lbs of payload (4x4 version), I'd be very surprised.
You can't really make the comparison with offroad tuned vehicles like the Power Wagon and ZR2; the suspensions on those vehicles are biased towards offroad performance, and, as such, their payload ratings are compromised.
To my knowledge, many overseas markets, like Australia, have yet to adopt standardized tests for assessing payload and towing; those markets still rely on OEM recommendations (which are inherently subjective).
I know the overseas midsized pickup's (Ranger, Hilux, Colorado) are in fact built to handle a bit more weight than their North American cousins, but I also think that the standards for evaluating those ratings are very different, or perhaps nonexistent, in some of those regions. The driving is generally slower overseas. The view of what is 'acceptable/safe' and what isn't when it comes to towing and hauling is also likely different from the common perceptions that exist here in North America.
So, yes, a Ranger is "rated" for about ~3k lbs of payload, but that doesn't mean the Ranger will handle that payload in a similar fashion to a 3/4 ton or HD 1/2 ton while cruising down the highway at 75 mph. I guess my point is: the comparison is not apples to apples.
Edit: Also, we are starting to get midsized trucks with higher payload in North America: the 4runner has a payload of ~1.5k lbs; the new Colorado's payload (non-ZR2) can be as high as 1,733lb's depending upon the configuration. OEM's here in North America realize that people want to actually use their midsized trucks; if the the Ranger comes with anything less than 1.4k lbs of payload (4x4 version), I'd be very surprised.
You can't really make the comparison with offroad tuned vehicles like the Power Wagon and ZR2; the suspensions on those vehicles are biased towards offroad performance, and, as such, their payload ratings are compromised.
Last edited: