2019 Ford Ranger

[Fox hunt]

yes i borrowed my friends Toyota realized how easy it was to fit into small spaces kinda miss that! but i still love the F150 2.7

[Ronn]

I am seriously considering the Ranger for my 5.0TA (on order for June 2019). The overall size in comparison to a full size is my reason for considering the mid size. The owners of the mid size GM with the diesel seem very happy with it's ability to tow the 5.0TA from both a power and stability standpoint. The GM diesel's torque is 369 lb/ft, the Ranger's is less at 310 lb/ft. It seems 310 torque is more than most of the non pickup vehicles pulling the 21', as such, it would seem that 310 lb/ft should be sufficient. The Ranger's wheelbase at 127" is also longer than most non pickup vehicles pulling the 21'. The payload (1860 before options) and 7500 lb tow rating seem to be acceptable. I'd appreciate your help and view points. What are your thoughts on:
1) the Ranger's power in regards to towing steeper grades?
2) the 127" wheelbase handling the 5th wheel and if negative, are the wheelbase needs different for a 5th wheel than for a hitch mount?
3) does the manufacture's tow rating include their estimate of the vehicles power ability to tow the rating's weight load or is it more the vehicle's structural, mechanical ability?
4) will the gas mileage be noticeably affected by the 2.3L running in the "boost range" more? If so, how this effect might be compared to an F150 with the 2.7 ecoboost (vehicle weight will probably be similar due to the F150 having the aluminum body). I know this is question is quite technical and likely not easily measurable but I have been impressed with both the knowledge and logic of members. Thanks, Ronn

[escape artist]

Originally Posted by Jim Bennett

After many years of driving Super Duty trucks, the F150 is a breeze to park in lots. I always back in and fold my mirrors in. The odd one is a wee bit tight, but still doable.

Hi: Jim Bennett... I never park in an odd parking space... only even ones!!! Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

[Kent]

Originally Posted by Ronn

I am seriously considering the Ranger for my 5.0TA (on order for June 2019). The overall size in comparison to a full size is my reason for considering the mid size. The owners of the mid size GM with the diesel seem very happy with it's ability to tow the 5.0TA from both a power and stability standpoint. The GM diesel's torque is 369 lb/ft, the Ranger's is less at 310 lb/ft. It seems 310 torque is more than most of the non pickup vehicles pulling the 21', as such, it would seem that 310 lb/ft should be sufficient. Thanks, Ronn

A lot depends on where in the RPM range do you get the the 310 ft. lb. of torque. While towing on freeway my Duramax Canyon sits just under 2000 RPM all day except for steep grades and then it only downshifts one gear.

Not saying the new Ranger will not be fine TV, but I would want to know where in the RPM range do you get the 310 ft. lb. of torque.

[Vermilye]

Originally Posted by Kent

A lot depends on where in the RPM range do you get the the 310 ft. lb. of torque. While towing on freeway my Duramax Canyon sits just under 2000 RPM all day except for steep grades and then it only downshifts one gear.

Not saying the new Ranger will not be fine TV, but I would want to know where in the RPM range do you get the 310 ft. lb. of torque.

That was one oaf the problems towing my 21 with a 3.5 Tacoma. It would do it, but much of the time at 4000 RPM in 2nd gear. You get tired of the whine (both the engine & me). Much happier with a F150 3.5 EcoBoost...

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by Kent

A lot depends on where in the RPM range do you get the the 310 ft. lb. of torque. While towing on freeway my Duramax Canyon sits just under 2000 RPM all day except for steep grades and then it only downshifts one gear.

Not saying the new Ranger will not be fine TV, but I would want to know where in the RPM range do you get the 310 ft. lb. of torque.

modern turbos, the peak torque is developed at quite low RPM and virtually flat through most of the usable RPM range. even my 1992 Volvo 740 turbo wagon, torque of nearly 200 ft lbs (from a 2.3L i4) was flat from about 1800 or 2000 rpm, all the way up to about 6000 rpm. this resulted in a car that could surprise a whole lot of contemporary V8s off the line (late 80s/early 90s v8's were pretty anemic).

[Ronn]

Thanks Kent, good point and I don't believe Ford has put that info out as of yet. The 2.3 in the ford explorer produces 310 at 3000 rpm, but that isn't apples to apples.

[Brian B-P]

It will be interesting to see the final power/torque curve. Peak torque will be at a lower speed than the Mustang variant of the same engine, because the Mustang has a sports tune and the Range has a lower-power truck tune. This is a dyno curve for the Mustang:

(from MotorTrend)
The curve above is from a chassis dyno, so it is only measuring what gets all the way to the ground; the actual engine output is greater.

[Kent]

Hopefully Ford will offer tow mirrors on the Ranger as an option unlike the GMC Colorado/Canyon.

[James Gang]

https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threa...revealed.1059/

[Yukon Escape]

The way I see it, comfort on long trips is as important as power.
We had a Mazda, car and pickup, Dodge Dakota (good tow vehicle) , now we have a Dodge Ram, (Laramie Longhorn) .
Lots of power, uphill or down. Good on gas, extremely comfortable in the cab.
Friends have told me it is like driving or riding in a good car.
I you have to be in a vehicle for long trips, you may as well be comfortable.
Doug

[escape artist]

Originally Posted by Yukon Escape

The way I see it, comfort on long trips is as important as power.
We had a Mazda, car and pickup, Dodge Dakota (good tow vehicle) , now we have a Dodge Ram, (Laramie Longhorn) .
Lots of power, uphill or down. Good on gas, extremely comfortable in the cab.
Friends have told me it is like driving or riding in a good car.
I you have to be in a vehicle for long trips, you may as well be comfortable.
Doug

Hi: Yukon Escape... I sure like our 2016 Ram V6 EcoD Laramie Longhorn. 26 mpg towing and 31+ not towing. You're right about the comfort level. Nothing like travelling in style!!! Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

[Ian and Sue]

Originally Posted by escape artist

Hi: Yukon Escape... I sure like our 2016 Ram V6 EcoD Laramie Longhorn. 26 mpg towing and 31+ not towing. You're right about the comfort level. Nothing like travelling in style!!! Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

Nice! Is your truck 4wd I can't retire and escape winter for quite a while so I need 4wd. Oh yeah plus I like to ski!

[escape artist]

Originally Posted by Ian and Sue

Nice! Is your truck 4wd I can't retire and escape winter for quite a while so I need 4wd. Oh yeah plus I like to ski!

Hi: Ian and Sue... Retire as soon as you can. It's the best job I've ever had.
Yes the Ram is a 4X4 with the trailer tow pkg too. Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

[maurerl]

Since buying my second Ranger (last of the 2011 North American Rangers) I've been anxiously awaiting the new "world" Ranger. Now that it's almost here, my next truck will almost certainly be a Tacoma!

Everything else, including the "small"?? Canyon/Colorado trucks are too large for me. When I bought my last Ranger, I tried an F150, and couldn't believe how huge it was to drive! Last year I drove a friend's newish F150 -- gigantic!

And one of the biggest problems for me with the new Ranger -- only available, as near as I can tell, with a 5.5ft box on the club cab or a 5ft box with the crew cab. Good grief, that won't even carry my bicycles in the bed -- right now, they just fit in the 6ft bed of a "real" truck.

And that highlights for me the real problem with so-called compact trucks since, oh, about, half a decade ago -- compact trucks are no longer small trucks, with real truck capabilities, they are mid-size family "utility" vehicles with space for a family of passengers with a tiny bit of space for occasional hauling of stuff you wouldn't want under the hatch of your SUV or in the back of a station wagon. If you want a real truck, you either have to get a large (Colorado/Canyon) or gigantic (F150 etc) -- oh, or maybe, still, just barely, a Tacoma. Except a new Tacoma is already larger than a Tundra was 6 or 7 years ago!

PS Saw a story recently about the somewhere-in-Texas Toyota dealer who bought back, for marketing purposes, the 2007 Tundra from one of his customers (an oil-field hot-shot driver) with one million miles on it! Trouble-free except for a transmission rebuild at 745,000 miles.

PPS I just came back from a 3-month, 23,000 km trip from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland and back, most of it on secondary roads / off the highways. 2011 Ranger and 2012 Escape 17 both performed flawlessly!

[Yukon Escape]

Yes our Ram is four wheel drive. It is something to have if you need it.
I used it once in the Yukon, three feet of snow, parking our 19 for the winter.
Haven’t needed it since.
Doug

[rbryan4]

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. There's no way I'd call my F150 "gigantic" - not when I can easily park it in any space at the grocery store. I have a friend who uses an F450 dually long bed super crew to haul around largish 5th wheels for clients - now that I'd put in the gigantic category.

[cpaharley2008]

I think over the years that 1/2 ton trucks have grown in size as well as compact trucks, so it is all relative. My dad had a Ford Courier, which was made in Japan, now that was a small truck.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by maurerl

And one of the biggest problems for me with the new Ranger -- only available, as near as I can tell, with a 5.5ft box on the club cab or a 5ft box with the crew cab.

Close... according to the Build & Price tool, the choices are

• SuperCab (extended cab, like a "club cab") with 6' box, or
• SuperCrew (double cab, or crew cab) with 5' box

All Rangers are built on the same wheelbase (3,226 mm or 127.0 in), and the portion of the box past the rear axle is the same for all boxes (like most modern pickups), so the difference in cab lengths is the difference in box lengths (more cab means less box). A double cab is typically about a foot longer than an extended cab. Just click between the two cab choices in the Build & Price tool and you can compare them.

The Ranger for North America is nearly identical to the version sold worldwide, and it has a wheelbase of 3220 mm with box lengths (at the load floor) of 1847 mm (72.7 in) and 1549 mm (61 in).

This is just like the Colorado/Canyon (with nearly identical dimensions), but missing the Colorado/Canyon's crew cab and 6-foot box option.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. There's no way I'd call my F150 "gigantic" - not when I can easily park it in any space at the grocery store. I have a friend who uses an F450 dually long bed super crew to haul around largish 5th wheels for clients - now that I'd put in the gigantic category.

I’ve seen on other forums Escape 19’s and 21’s described as large , oversized ,gigantic and other adjectives indicating larger then necessary
Our camping friends describe our 21ft trailer as small , cramped and tiny .
As rbryan4 stated , it’s all in one’s perspective.
If I was to buy a “ small or mid size” truck it would be a Tonka Truck