New Ranger in the wild

I saw my first new Ford Ranger in the wild. The local dealer has this parked out front:

And they have a lower spec model in the dark red, but it was being test driven.

First impression is that it looks good in person. Proportions are right, parked next to a new Raptor the size looks right, noticeably smaller than full size. Interior looks good but I didnt bother a salesperson to get inside. 

I'm sure I'll test drive one sometime just because, but I'm enjoying my F150 enough not to have buyers remorse.

OTOH, this makes me even more excited for the Bronco!

These an orange/gold looking one sitting in front of the local dealer too. 

I went to the Detroit auto show specifically to test fit  crew cab pickups. I was hoping one of the mid-size trucks would have enough rear seat room to accommodate my adult sons. The Ranger was better than the Colorado/Canyon twins, the Tacoma, but not the Ridgeline. Looked briefly at the new Jeep, but it's tow capacity is the same as most minivans, so it's a non-starter. The Ranger seems like the best fit of the mid-sizers, but is still marginal for interior room. All of them suffer for headroom for no good reason other than styling. I had to duck my head for ingress/egress in all of them. A full size truck may be in my future, whether I like it or not.

So, it'a a big Explorer Sport Trac, aka no good as a minivan but no good as a pickup?

I guess, from Ford's perspective, nobody ever went broke pandering to posers. so from a marketing standpoint it makes sense.

In reply to Knurled. :

I'm pretty sure it has better payload and towing capacity than a crew cab F-150 from the early 00's, while delivering better fuel economy and safety. So it's mile better than a Sport Trac in terms of functioning as a truck.

In reply to STM317 :

The SportTrac is bigger in most interior dimensions except rear seat leg room. Tow capacity was 7000 lb. vs 7500 for the new Ranger. Rear seat dimensions by themselves don't seem to matter a lot in terms of real world fit. I've ridden in the rear seat of BIL's SportTrac and it wasn't bad, not F150 spacious, but not bad. My wife's Scion xB lists rear leg room about the same as a Colorado, but there's no comparison. The xB wins handily. Height of the seat is different. Maybe I need a roll over mid-size truck and replace the cab with an xB body. :)

Sport-Trac payload capacity is 1,407 to 1,437 lbs vs Rangers 1,609 to 2,128 lbs.

Sport-Trac towing capacity is 3,500lbs while the new Ranger is 7,500 lbs.

I did notice that some vehicles had toe space under the front seats where others were a "press fit". That made a huge difference in how spacious the rear seat was,regardless of the stated dimensions.

Knurled. said:

So, it'a a big Explorer Sport Trac, aka no good as a minivan but no good as a pickup?

 

I guess, from Ford's perspective, nobody ever went broke pandering to posers. so from a marketing standpoint it makes sense.

And for some people it will be the perfect amount of truck while still being good at car like things.  

That one is still in the coral. It is not in the wild until you see one with non dealer tags on it!

When someone gets a chance, and you have a mid 90's era of F150, I'd love to see one next to it.

I've not been happy at all with the expansion of truck sizes.  And this truck looks like an F150 from 25 years ago....  Hardly a Ranger size.

In reply to alfadriver :

1995 F150 height 71”, width 79”

2019 Ranger height 70.7”to 71.5″, width 85.8”!!!

I grabbed these really quickly from the Google machine but I need to go to bed now. I’ll wake up later to see if I was right or not!

I was initially waiting on the Ranger but bought a used F150 instead. Having driven the F150 for a month one of the best things about it is the interior room, particularly in the back seat. The giant flat floor with the flip up seats is one of my favorite things about it and it wasn't even on my radar.  I expected to have a bit of buyers remorse the first time I saw a Ranger, but I didn't. The interior room in the F150 is such a luxury that it's kind of surprised me. I've always felt the same way about modern trucks being too big, but after driving one for a month....I'm kind of ashamed to admit I really like it. It doesn't feel that big driving it and I don't have any problem parking or driving around my southern suburban town*.  It's comfortable, fun to throw around, stable and capable. It just makes everything easy. 

I think the Ranger definitely has a place in the sales line up and will sell well. It seems a much better choice to me than the Tacoma, slightly more polished than the Colorado. If I'd never driven a modern full size pickup much, the mid size would probably be as much truck as I ever need. But having DD'd the 150...I'm not sure I'd be happy with the Ranger.  But that size chassis under an SUV makes sense for different reasons.

*to be fair, I did DD a supercab long bed 96 F250 that had about the same wheelbase as my F150 but a much worse turning radius. 

I looked this up.  I have been wondering about the size of the new Ranger and this thread prompted me to do the leg work.

Not all sites agree exactly but this seems to be about right:

1997 Ranger extended cab  6' bed = 180″ L x 69.4″ W x 64″ H 

1990 F-150 ext cab short bed 6' = 219” L x 79” W x 71.9” H

2019 Ranger ext cab 6' bed= 211.1” L  x 73.2” W x 72.8” H

1967 F-100 reg cab (no ext cab available, 8’bed) = 211.3 L x 79.4 W x 70.6” H

TurnerX19 said:

That one is still in the coral. It is not in the wild until you see one with non dealer tags on it!

This made me think a bit and the analogy that came to mind is seeing a lion at the zoo. It's not in the wild. 

In reply to ebonyandivory :

MotorTrend lists Ranger width as 73.3" in an online article that I found, which seems more like what I'd expect. I've wondered for years where some measurements are taken....at the mirrors, for example?  The MotorTrend article author didn't like the truck's dynamics much.

Does it have 48” between the wheel wells?

In reply to T.J. :

Good one, as so many dealers are much more zoo than ranch!

In reply to No Time :

From what I found "No", it's 44.8" between the wheel wells.

alfadriver said:

When someone gets a chance, and you have a mid 90's era of F150, I'd love to see one next to it.

I've not been happy at all with the expansion of truck sizes.  And this truck looks like an F150 from 25 years ago....  Hardly a Ranger size.

These are my thoughts exactly:  It sure look BIG (for a Ranger)

DeadSkunk said:

In reply to No Time :

From what I found "No", it's 44.8" between the wheel wells.

They’ve grown big enough I would have expected them to finally get to the point where a 4x8 sheet would lay flat. 

The 48” number also makes a difference when loading a snowmobile in the bed and whether it sits flat or has to ride up on one side. 

DeadSkunk said:

 Looked briefly at the new Jeep, but it's tow capacity is the same as most minivans, so it's a non-starter.

Tow rating of the Jeep Gladiator is 7000-7650, so roughly the same as the Ranger. Definitely more than any minivan.

I can't get over how big the Ranger looks compared to my old reg cab '90, even though it's less than 23" longer. It's probably going to sell like crazy.

In reply to llysgennad :

When we looked it up at the show it came up with 3500. It's right in the ballpark @ 7K though.

In reply to DeadSkunk :

That would be right for the Wrangler, but not the Gladiator. I think the back seat area is different also.

In reply to llysgennad :

I wish I had sat in it now, although it probably won't be able to match the other trucks for DD use because I doubt it rides as quietly and pricing is still up in the air.