DeadSkunk said: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.
According to the build system, if you get the trailer tow package, the rating is 7500lb.
(and I would be really interested in seeing if there's actual change or not in the system)
Is this the platform the new Bronco will be built on? If so was kind of hoping it would be smaller more the size of the original.
In reply to pirate :
Yes. Length will change, but the guts should stay the same. A lot like the FJ and the Tacoma as I understand it.
No Time said:Does it have 48” between the wheel wells?
If you're regularly hauling a lot of 4x8, a full size truck is probably better suited to your need either way. If not though, 48 between the arches is not necessary. The bed should be notched for 2x4's to support occasional 4x8 duty across the top of the arches. If they did it right, the tailgate might also have a middle setting at the same height to better support the length.
My daily is a 2002 Ranger extended cab 4x4. It's low mileage so I'm not going to be replacing it real soon, but this is one of the things I keep thinking about. I want something that fits in the garage and I can still get around it with the garage door down.... not sure that will be possible with any of the newer trucks in 3 - 5 years when I'm ready. I don't need anything bigger, but everything keeps growing. Bummer!
jharry3 said: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
2004 Ranger ext cab 6' bed = (approx) 200"L x 71"W x 68"H
Just measured my 2004. Right in the middle of the above 1997 and 2019 specs and just right for me. The 4.0 is fine for occasional trailering but the 5 speed is rated lower than the auto. It's pulled over 5,000 lbs several times and feels fine. The manual is rated for about 3300 and the auto is rated at around 5800.
In reply to Driven5 :
I’ve had rangers and s10 pickups in the past, and sure you can rest plywood on the tailgate, or grab a few 2x4 to put under sheet rock and rest it in the gate.
It’s the hassle of making sure you have the 2x’s with you, or picking up extra materials.
It’s only a couple inches per side, so I think it’s a conscious decision to keep them less capable than the full size, even though they are the same size as a full size pickup from the turn of the century
Hello Ford? I'm having some trouble with your online configurator for a new Ranger.
I can't find the standard cab model.
It only shows automatic transmissions.
When is the V6 coming?
Can I pick it up at the plant to avoid the $1,195 destination charge?
can you comment about a new, smaller unibody pickup?
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/01/22/ford-compact-pickup-truck-below-ranger/#slide-7486781
DeadSkunk said: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.
The 7650 is with the 'Max tow package' which only appears to be available on the Sport S trim and only with an auto trans. The question is then whether the 3500 you saw is with no tow package and the regular 'tow package' available on all trims get a rated somewhere in-between, hopefully at least like 5k... Or (hopefully not) whether the regular 'tow package' available on all trims is just equipment that doesn't actually increase the rating above that standard/base number.
I have to say I really like the looks of the new Ranger. I too wish it were a little smaller than a 90s F150, but that is still a significantly different size from the behemoths on the road today.
I personally really begin to hate how large the new trucks are today. There are several of the really big ones at work, they barely fit into our already crowded parking garage and often wind up making it impossible to park next to them because they sit right on the painted lines. These things dwarf my Disco in width and height.
It looks to me that there's just one powertrain available for this- 2.3 turbo with a 10 speed trans. And that's it.
Given the number of people who buy manuals, there's no logical reason to even bother with it.
As for the just two door cab- I doubt you will ever see those, too. Two simple body shapes, one powertain, and that's it.
Which then begs the question, what are the REAL things added in the trailer tow package? I can't see brakes really changing, no way the powertrain changes, highly unlikely that the radiator changes. The only think I can really think of being added is a different trans cooler. But even that, I wonder if it's really there. The TT package is $495, which isn't a huge delta to pay for, and it appears that you can get it on any trim level.
That kind of tells me that there's not much to that package other than a hitch and some wires. And for $495, it's not a bad deal for it, I guess.
mad_machine said:I have to say I really like the looks of the new Ranger. I too wish it were a little smaller than a 90s F150, but that is still a significantly different size from the behemoths on the road today.
I personally really begin to hate how large the new trucks are today. There are several of the really big ones at work, they barely fit into our already crowded parking garage and often wind up making it impossible to park next to them because they sit right on the painted lines. These things dwarf my Disco in width and height.
I hated them 12 years ago when we had an F150 for a lease, now they are worse....
The top picture was just replaced by the bottom picture. Parked in the same spot so it took me a couple days to notice, then it was a double take when I saw that it was a new Ranger. This also gets me exited for the new Bronco, maybe I'll see one at the NAIAS this Saturday.
jharry3 said: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
When I drive my 1966 F-100, I'm always surprised at how small it feels when I pull up next to a modern pickup at a stoplight. It seems like they're usually a lot taller than the numbers above suggest, but I suppose a lot of them are 4 x 4s with modified suspensions.
In reply to akylekoz :
So we have one in the wild now. Winner!
alfadriver said:It looks to me that there's just one powertrain available for this- 2.3 turbo with a 10 speed trans. And that's it.
Given the number of people who buy manuals, there's no logical reason to even bother with it.
As for the just two door cab- I doubt you will ever see those, too. Two simple body shapes, one powertain, and that's it.
Which then begs the question, what are the REAL things added in the trailer tow package? I can't see brakes really changing, no way the powertrain changes, highly unlikely that the radiator changes. The only think I can really think of being added is a different trans cooler. But even that, I wonder if it's really there. The TT package is $495, which isn't a huge delta to pay for, and it appears that you can get it on any trim level.
That kind of tells me that there's not much to that package other than a hitch and some wires. And for $495, it's not a bad deal for it, I guess.
Couple years ago when researching Expeditions I figured out the "tow Package" was a hitch, a plug in wiring harness for the trailer, and an add-on trans cooler. That was it. Tow rating increase by 2000 lbs. I suspect these are similar. On the newer F150s there's the Tow Package, and the Max Tow Package which is only available with the heaviest payload package. I suspect the only real difference between the standard and the max tow is the heavier springs that the payload package gets.
In reply to stuart in mn :
I have to wonder if the biggest change in perceived size increase is really more of a height increase of the hood and window sills, and not a big foot print increase. I sat in more than one full sized truck at the auto show and any one standing in front of the truck was only visible from the arm pits/shoulders up.
DeadSkunk said:In reply to stuart in mn :
I have to wonder if the biggest change in perceived size increase is really more of a height increase of the hood and window sills, and not a big foot print increase. I sat in more than one full sized truck at the auto show and any one standing in front of the truck was only visible from the arm pits/shoulders up.
That's a thought. On my truck, it's easy to stand next to the bed and lean your elbows on the top. With a new truck, the top of the bed is about 5 1/2 feet up in the air. 
Pool guys are gonna be happy as berkeley.
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.
Guys like me are the target audience.
I'm a suburban nerd. Need a reliable 4-door to use as a family car. But I'd like to tow my racecar on a rented trailer (UHaul trailers are over 2500 lbs). Don't need or want a full-size truck (not easy to drive and park in Manhattan). Don't have space or energy to deal with a fleet of cars, so I can't justify a dedicated tow vehicle that's going to see just a few weekends of use each year.
So, a 4-door, short-bed, AWD truck with relatively compact dimensions and a 7500 lbs tow capacity ticks a lot of boxes. It's a pragmatic choice ... not trying to be cool.
And, really, what's the alternative? An Explorer would be more practical as a family car, but its tow rating is much lower (and it costs a lot more). Same for Toyota Highlanders and most other SUVs on the market.
akylekoz said:This also gets me exited for the new Bronco, maybe I'll see one at the NAIAS this Saturday.
Several Rangers, but no Bronco.
DeadSkunk said:In reply to stuart in mn :
I have to wonder if the biggest change in perceived size increase is really more of a height increase of the hood and window sills, and not a big foot print increase. I sat in more than one full sized truck at the auto show and any one standing in front of the truck was only visible from the arm pits/shoulders up.
no, the 4x4 versions of new trucks are really that much bigger now. Sitting next to one at a light while driving the Disco, my head is usually at the passenger's shoulder and the truck itself sits another foot taller. The local mall sometimes rents out space to the local chevy dealer in the summer. When you walk up to a new truck and your chin can rest on the window sill while standing next to it, there is a problem. And no, I am not freakishly short, I am 5'11"
I've read the complaint on some of the Ford forums that you can't reach the oil dipstick on a 5L truck without a step stool. The one on my older Boost is a stretch and if the truck is wet you're getting wet too.
In reply to mad_machine :
I think you're actually agreeing with me. They are taller, more so than wider and longer. I remember my grandfather's old International. As a teen I could pass firewood over the side to be stacked in the bed. Today I'd have to get one of the GMCs with the step tailgate and carry it up.
DeadSkunk said:In reply to No Time :
From what I found "No", it's 44.8" between the wheel wells.
Bummer, the first gen Dakota was under 70” wide (not including mirrors), and I seem to recall one of it’s selling points was being able to fit a 4x8 between the wheel wells. Guessing the wheels on the Ranger are considerably wider, and cut more into bed space.
You'll need to log in to post.
