2019 Ford Ranger

[Sean Murry]

The integrated brake controller on the GM Twins comes with the tow package for 2018, including gas models. I have a 2018 GMC Canyon gas, and it has the tow/haul mode and the integrated brake controller. Prior to 2018 the integrated brake controller was only available on the diesels

[Brian B-P]

I just did an online build of a Canyon 3.6L V6 4WD Extended Cab and it let me choose the US$230 integrated brake controller, although (understandably) it required the "trailering" package (US$250)... and automatic locking rear differential (US$325). Between two brands, multiple trim levels, two cabs, two wheelbases, three engines, 2WD and 4WD, and many optional packages, there are a huge number of combinations possible. Some may not allow the integrated brake controller.

With only one engine, one transmission, and one wheelbase, the Ranger will be easier to configure... but still no integrated trailer brake controller.

[Sean Murry]

I guess what I meant to say is the integrated brake controller is available on the 2018 GMC Twins with the gas engine. Prior to 2018 it was not even an option for the gas, you could only get it with the diesel. You likely have to configure it with other options, but at least you can now get it with the gas engine

[EdColorado]

The Ranger is proving to be very popular.


"DETROIT — Ford Motor Co. expects a total of 1,200 U.S. Ranger sales in January — the revived midsize pickup's first month on sale — and plans to start running overtime shifts at its Michigan Assembly Plant next week to keep up with demand.

Kumar Galhotra, Ford's president of North America, on Wednesday said the Ranger is exceeding expectations, and that about 300,000 consumers already have indicated plans to purchase the vehicle."

[sunrisetrucker]

Originally Posted by Sean Murry

I guess what I meant to say is the integrated brake controller is available on the 2018 GMC Twins with the gas engine. Prior to 2018 it was not even an option for the gas, you could only get it with the diesel. You likely have to configure it with other options, but at least you can now get it with the gas engine

Guess I bought 2 years too early

[viator36]

On this Ranger test drive video it mentions the truck with a brake controller installed from 4:10 to 5:01:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=ZwF_Csz3FrA

This should be the Redarc brand which is an Australian company but the brake controller is available on etrailer.com:

https://www.etrailer.com/Brake-Contr...BRH-ACCV2.html

The Ford dealership near me didn't know anything about this controller even though a couple of test drive videos say it's available through Ford services and you can order through them. I also couldn't find anything on Ford website. Worst case I could buy it from etrailer.com and either have the dealership install it for me or do the install myself. There are a couple youtube videos on how to install this Redarc brake controller.

[James Gang]

https://www.etrailer.com/question-337036.html

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by sunrisetrucker

Guess I bought 2 years too early

It's all part of a nefarious scheme to get you to trade in for a new truck every two years.

[emers382]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

the EcoBoost 3.5 in the F-150 has been criticised in this forum for inadequate engine braking.

Not a problem with the 2.7 as far as we've found, in fact the first time I was going around 50kmh and encountered a steep hill with curve at bottom (a lakeside road) when I touched the brakes as started down the hill transmission dropped to second and first thought I had a problem when I slowed so quickly and the high revs.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by emers382

Not a problem with the 2.7 as far as we've found, in fact the first time I was going around 50kmh and encountered a steep hill with curve at bottom (a lakeside road) when I touched the brakes as started down the hill transmission dropped to second and first thought I had a problem when I slowed so quickly and the high revs.

Good! I suspect that some drivers are just not willing to allow a high enough engine speed for effective braking, so they don't take advantage of the capability.

[James Gang]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh5vRdquvzU

[EdColorado]

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ma-comparison/

An interesting comparison of the mid- sized trucks

The Executive Summary.

“Our unanimous winner for best midsize pickup truck is the Chevrolet Colorado. The Colorado so effortlessly walks the fine line between being a lifestyle pickup and a work truck. It has plenty of power for work or play, a buttoned-down ride that doesn't beat you up on your daily commute, a good back-seat package, and an incredibly functional bed. It's the uncompromised pickup—the one that drives like a compact but hauls like a heavy-duty. "It's like these guys are truck-building experts or something," Evans deadpanned. "Not hard to remember why this is a two-time Truck of the Year." No, it's not. As for how it measures up to the (Jeep) Gladiator in the arena? We're as eager as you are to find out.“

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by EdColorado

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ma-comparison/

An interesting comparison of the mid- sized trucks

The two most interesting items in the comparison results to me were:

1. the Ranger's relatively small turbocharged 4-cylinder engine - the source of much speculative concern - is the winning engine (even though the Colorado accelerates more quickly); and,
2. the Ranger was criticized for showing its age (and they acknowledge that while new to North America it has been around for several years)... but the Ranger's design is the same age as the Colorado, for which they had no such criticism.

Perhaps if GM put their turbo four (a 2.7 L which is becoming available in the Silverado 1500) in the Colorado, they would have a complete winner.

[rbryan4]

And perhaps if "Motor Trend" wasn't in the tank for GM... [emoji6]

[gbaglo]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

And perhaps if "Motor Trend" wasn't in the tank for GM... [emoji6]

Or whichever manufacturer buys the most advertising.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

Or whichever manufacturer buys the most advertising.

[emoji106]truth.

[Chotch]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

The two most interesting items in the comparison results to me were:

1. the Ranger's relatively small turbocharged 4-cylinder engine - the source of much speculative concern - is the winning engine (even though the Colorado accelerates more quickly); and,
2. the Ranger was criticized for showing its age (and they acknowledge that while new to North America it has been around for several years)... but the Ranger's design is the same age as the Colorado, for which they had no such criticism.

Perhaps if GM put their turbo four (a 2.7 L which is becoming available in the Silverado 1500) in the Colorado, they would have a complete winner.

🤔Or if Ford put their 2.7 EcoBoost in the Ranger

[Hilola]

Looks like the small pickup competition is heating up:

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/fiat-ch...figure-out-how

[Brian B-P]

Although I have yet to see one on the road, 2019 Rangers have arrived here. I had a look at one in a showroom. The sales guy said that they are only getting them as loaded Lariats (and here in Canada the Ranger is 4X4 only), so these are CA$50K trucks; he says he doesn't expect many people to pay that for this truck, instead of getting a loaded 4X4 F-150 XLT for the same price. So much for the CA$30K pickup (which would be a base XL), which apparently isn't profitable for the dealership to sell.

The first thing that I noted about the truck itself is that the rear seat (of the crew cab) doesn't fold. The base lifts for access to a couple of small storage bins and the spare tire lowering tool, and apparently can be held up with a strap, but it doesn't really get out of the way. If I wanted to carry stuff back there (cargo, or even a dog crate), I would get out the wrenches and remove the seat (base and back) entirely.

I downloaded the owners manual (which was not available the previous time that I checked), and it turns out that the rear seat back folds down... but the stack of folded seating would be very tall, and the manual says:

Note: Do not use the rear surface of the rear seat backrest as a load floor.

So, why fold it? Since we don't need seating for more than two, and would only carry pets and some cargo in the back of the cab, I would just take the whole thing out, wrap it in plastic, and chuck it in the attic until it was time to sell the truck. And fit a carpet-covered plywood panel to provide a flat load floor.

[Bobnjudy]

There are other consistently mediocre reviews; TFL and Edmonds on You Tube. The latest being Ford having to possibly walk back the stated fuel mileage estimates after real world testing. 20-24 mpg for a midsize 4wd isn't very economical. Reviewers also didn't like the low tech infotainment system for the $ being charged. Maybe in 2021.