A year and a half after the Ford Ranger nameplate finally made a return to showrooms across North America it can be said that it was a good idea and maybe one that should have been acted on sooner. Perhaps Ford was afraid of cannibalizing F150 sales with what is now a mid-size truck, however with 2019 ringing up about 90,000 Ranger sales in the US and Canada while the F-series didn’t see much of an effect on sales (13,000 less year over year) and this year looking on track for similar Ranger results, bringing the Ranger back was clearly a wise move.
Our readers on other continents are likely wondering what the hubbub is about as this Ranger has been sold to them for years, in fact this marks the tenth year of this basic bodystyle that was refreshed in 2015. Yes, Ford adapted it for North American sale with mainly a completely different engine and transmission than the rest of the world gets along with a different (steel) front bumper assembly and assembles ours here in Wayne, Michigan, but it more or less got its green card as an already amortized design.
Nevertheless, to us it looks fresh and maybe even tastes a little of the forbidden fruit that we are always clamoring for. At the prices charged, even if it does take some F150 sales, so be it, Ford likely makes as much profit from the typical Ranger as they do the F150, especially as discounts on Ranger seem lower than those on F150. And if nothing else, there clearly are people that want or need a truck but don’t want or need something so large, or at least so wide, might as well keep them in the fold or just bring them into it altogether.
Our extremely bright red (Race Red) example is every bit as bright and almost fluorescent as it appears in these pictures. With the blackout package applied it stands out even more, it’s a little bright for my own tastes but at least it’s an option. As with most trucks there seems to be a bit more variety in the color palette than other vehicles lines and of course the number of trims and options is fairly comprehensive as well – while not targeting all of the potential market, the available selections likely cover the vast majority of that market.
Looking at what Ford did is interesting in that there are only two body styles available, a SuperCrew as here and then a SuperCab design with clamshell rear half-doors. The 5-foot bed is standard on the SuperCrew but a 6-foot bed is standard on the shorter cab and no, you cannot mix and match, hence there is no 6-foot bed available on the SuperCrew, although all of the competition does offer such a combination.
Perhaps it will be added if sales keep up the momentum, but it’s unlikely as nowhere else in the world is that combination offered either and it would involve a longer frame, which would add development expense. Basically they played it quite safe and likely economical by only offering what they figured would be the most popular versions. I suppose either of the other possibilities (SuperCab with short bed or SuperCrew with long bed) would add some incremental volume but likely less than anything of real significance and would introduce more complexity into the supply chain as well as dealer inventory mix.
The interior at first glance looks fairly modern or at least contemporary compared to the competition. Yes, it’s a sea of blackness but for a truck that gets dirty not a bad choice. Looking at the plastics everything seems of decent to good quality; once you start touching everything you realize that this interior does in fact have just as many hard plastic surfaces as the Nissan Frontier.
The big difference is that most of the plastics are grained attractively and the very (very) slightly softer dashtop looks identical to the rock hard plastics below it. However the points that most people would contact on any given day are soft, such as the console lid, armrest inserts, wheel, etc.
Thinking about it further it becomes apparent that the sheen of the plastics makes a big difference and is done correctly here, i.e. it looks like it could be soft somehow. Whatever the case, it’s not at all bad, comparatively speaking. The portions that weren’t textured to look like leather were a graphite-painted plastic, mainly on the dash ahead of the passenger with the Ranger logotype molded into it, around the air vents, instruments, and the door handles. Not unattractive, as well as durable and better than raw plastic.
The seats, leather-clad in this one, are soft and offer a multitude of adjustments as does the wheel, it took me a bit longer to get comfortable than in most vehicles, I couldn’t ever find a position that didn’t leave the steering wheel a little flatter-angled than I’d prefer but got used to it after a few days. That’s fairly subjective, however, and not an indictment, it’s really something one has to try for themselves.
Headroom was abundant, and the center console was not intrusive, I mostly drove without my leg resting on it or being at all impinged by it. The leather itself felt fairly thick and durable, I haven’t generally been very impressed with how Ford leather ages over the years but this seemed better than in years gone by to my eye at least.
The back seat similarly was comfortable with enough headroom; a mid-size truck like this will never have the lounge space of a full-size but I was able to sit upright without my knees or head touching anything (I’m 6’1″ with a 32″ inseam) and could hold that post for at least a couple of hours if unexcited about a transcontinental journey. The center section of the front seatback is recessed a good inch or so relative to the surround, so if you sit more demurely with your legs closer together you have more room than if you don’t.
In short, for two people it’s great, for a family with up to two middle-school-aged kids it’s perfectly fine, if four adults or larger kids or greater than four occupants total, then a full-size truck will be vastly more comfortable. No big surprise there.
Underneath the back seat were a couple of compartments to load more oddments into along with the jack handle and lug wrench. The jack itself is behind the seatback which folds forward as one piece. One unfortunate aspect of the whole design is that the whole rear bank raises as one unit, it was not split, so if you wanted to haul something back there it eliminated the possibility of having a passenger along as well.
The rear sliding window was of particular interest to my kids, our own truck does not have one and it was the first thing they noticed about this one (well, besides the bright color, of course!) Note the crimped seal on the tonneau cover, that’s a result of opening the tailgate and closing it again without unlatching and lifting the cover a bit, if the tailgate is closed before the cover, then the seal lays correctly (flat). It has no problem closing either way, but over time that seal will likely either get damaged or become permanently deformed.
One aspect I particularly enjoyed was the proximity of the Ford Sync 8″ touchscreen to my right hand. It was a very short movement to change radio stations or whatever else with my hand that was on the wheel as the screen is at the same height and almost on the same plane, it ended up being about the same focal length away from my eyes as the instruments.
Those instruments were interesting in that there is a speedometer in the middle with two digital gauges on the sides. The right side mainly showed either radio data or navigation instructions (per user choice), and the left side showed other date such as fuel economy, trip length etc along with a digital fuel gauge and surprisingly a small ribbon-type tachometer that sat right next to the fuel gauge. It wasn’t of much use, as it was too tiny, but interesting to see what kind of rpm the engine was turning at time. But hardly necessary and not something that would be missed, hence it being a toggle selection in one of the menus.
Note the buttons on the steering wheel, there are a lot of them. They control the menus in the display screen, the adaptive cruise control, audio system (volume for example has two buttons, and there is a knob about 6″ to the right on the center console), as well as the phone and of course to engage the voice assist function. I got decently familiar with all of them over my week, but it’s getting to be borderline overload with too many of them similarly shaped.
In case anyone hasn’t seen Ford’s Sync3 screen at this point, this is it in “Audio” mode, you can tune using the arrows or with a button on the steering wheel or via voice command. Or choose one of the presets towards the bottom. It’s crisp and easy to decipher (better in real life than these pictures). If you want to change to something else controlled by the screen, just choose it at the bottom of the screen.
For example this is the “Climate” screen, adjust at will but of course these options are all duplicated with hard buttons below in the center stack which generally are the default option although this is better placed, in the Ranger the angle of the HVAC controls makes them a little less than intuitive to use without glancing down.
And here is the Navigation screen, you can zoom in or out and change the orientation using the superimposed buttons or you can pinch, zoom and scroll around as on a smartphone. It works well, but with Apple CarPlay and AndroidAuto all of these navigation systems are starting to become somewhat obsolete in many people’s minds. However, and this is a big deal that nobody ever really mentions, those options do not work if you are somewhere without cell phone coverage which could certainly happen in a truck that is capable off road and you decide to take full advantage of that, the satellite navigation would still work in that instance.
And lastly here’s a sample image from the backup camera. With a truck (or any vehicle) of this size, the 8″ screen is plenty, if it was much bigger it’d just take up space. However it’s easy to note that the bezel is quite large, so I’ll bet an 11″ screen would easily fit. Who knows what the future will bring…There’s also an option to angle the shot straight down which is useful when hooking up a trailer, no longer does one have to get out and climb back in repeatedly or drag the trailer around.
The gear shifter was a traditional center console style with +/- buttons on the side in order to hold a gear. Ahead of it was a large cubby with two USB ports, well-sized for a phone and/or sunglasses and two cupholders to the side of the shifter that mostly held my small stuff and of course something like a cup or bottle as well. Behind that a console box with a padded lid, no more USB or other connectivity ports inside that though.
The knob on the center console just this side of the gear selector controls the drive, i.e. 2Hi, 4Hi and 4Lo. I tried it and it worked like in most any other truck and as you’d expect, i.e. pretty seamless although I never had occasion to actually use 4Lo. And the handbrake was old-skool, a real handle that pulled up and with a pushbutton at the end to release. I vaguely remembered how to operate this type of design and didn’t screw it up once…
Driving the Ranger was as one might expect of a body on frame truck, i.e fairly softly spring, some bounciness from the tires and suspension, but able to provide the type of ride on the typical far from perfect roads that are more and more becoming the norm – in other words you could run over virtually anything without being concerned about breaking something in the suspension or one of the wheels or tires, in fact I think this is a large part of the attractiveness of trucks to a lot of people these days.
No, not an overly smooth ride, but a sort of fun one in that you know what is going on underneath but the truck takes it in stride and absorbs the impacts, sharing them with the occupants on their cushioned seats rather than just jarring them.
One of the big things that sets the Ranger apart from its competition was the decision to use a 2.3liter turbocharged four-cylinder “EcoBoost” engine coupled with a 10-speed automatic transmission. The engine was interesting, in this application it didn’t drive at all how you’d think a turbo-four does, in fact it did a very good impression of a large-ish V-6 except in higher speed driving situations (freeway) where it seemed MORE willing to provide a good boost of power as and when needed or desired. It was not peaky, overtly laggy, or anything else, in fact the engine was great and suited the truck very well. I’d happily consider either this engine or a slightly enlarged version of it in an F150 as well, a similar spec F150 weighs maybe 500 pounds more than this Ranger did.
With 270hp at 5500rpm and 310lb-ft of torque at a somewhat high 3000rpm it acquitted itself well up here at our 5000′ altitude and just as well up around Laramie, Wyoming, at over 7000′. I never felt it was underpowered, and there was always “more” available. The transmission, while shared with the Ford Expedition that we reviewed recently, was however tuned quite differently and I would say much rougher, i.e. whereas in the Expedition the shifts were very smooth and mostly imperceptible as in a luxury car/truck, here they were often noticeable, although not particularly bothersome.
I know that sounds odd, but the whole package somehow felt more “mechanical” here, more than once it reminded me a bit of driving an older Ranger with a V-6 and a manual transmission, with a winding up of torquey power and then a shift and then more power. Hard to explain, but different than the Nissan Frontier for example which while having a new V6 and 9-speed, that 9-speed was smoother than this 10-speed in this particular application and at higher speeds (at least at this altitude) the Ranger is definitely more powerful.
The engine is equipped with stop/start technology along with an “off” button, overall the system is middling, you know when it turns off with a little shudder, then as the AC gets warm it turns itself back on with another little shudder. It’s there and it’s noticeable but it’s also saving some gas at longer lights so whatever, I’m mostly becoming inured to these systems and only noticing the ones that are really good or really bad. This one is typical.
As said it likely improves gas mileage slightly and this truck really did well in that department. I drove 475 miles in it (I’ve been busy!) that includes almost 200 miles to and around Denver’s freeways, a 150 mile roundtrip to Laramie, about 100 miles locally running around to various houses for showings and other errands, and maybe 25 miles off paved roads which included lots of stops and starts as well as idling while taking pictures.
After all that the displayed average came in at 23.8mpg and was right on when I got gas for it in the middle of the week. The government figures call for 20City, 24Highway and 22Average, so almost 24 for my average is quite good. On regular unleaded to boot, for comparison the new Frontier engine combo with similar off-road package did around 19mpg in similar driving although this week featured vastly hotter temperatures and that was during a week of heavy snow with more 4WD usage.
It was an easy vehicle to drive for distances with good visibility, that decade-old design manifests itself in thinner A-pillars than is the norm nowadays. The suite of safety items (lane keep assist, blind spot warning, adaptive cruise control, pre-collision warning with automated emergency braking etc) seemed to work fine to the extent that I used or needed them and are becoming more and more invisible, needing less and less adjustment to them in every new vehicle I drive so equipped.
I won’t say I took this off-road any further than I could conceivably have gotten with a basic Ford Fusion and some good judgment mixed with a little daring, but I did drive far faster on unpaved roads with it than I would have with said sedan. The ride on such roads was excellent, in 2WD the truck allows for a little fun involving the rear end, and once 4WD is engaged it’s all business again or at least until far higher speeds than I was willing to risk here were achieved. You’ll have to figure that out for yourself on a test drive with the dealer in the passenger seat if he/she lets you.
This particular truck was equipped with the FX-4 OffRoad package which consists of specially tuned shock absorbers, offroad-friendly tires that were remarkably good on tarmac as well (I believe I’ve liked these same Hankook DynaPro AT-Ms on the Nissan Frontier we tested earlier this year as well), and electronically locking rear differential, various steel skid plates under the front bumper and to protect vital underbody components, as well as a special screen selection that will show pitch, roll, and steering angle information.
The bed at 5 feet long is a bit limiting if used to larger beds, but for occasional use it’s adequate, this one was equipped with a tri-fold hard tonneau cover that provided some locking protection although not completely weather proof, a few trickles of rain did enter during overnight rains. I did use the bed to transport a full load of items to Laramie, and while more space is always better than less when needed, the flipside is that much of the time it’s just extra space with a larger wrapper. There wasn’t anything I left behind or could not make fit, but it wasn’t as easy as just tossing everything in the back of a full-size or longer bed.
The Ranger lineup (XL, XLT, Lariat) starts at $24,410 plus $1,195 destination for an XL SuperCab 4×2 with 6foot bed and a killer set of steelies, but this top of the line Ranger Lariat starts higher of course, that being $38,675. Of course the SuperCrew body and 4WD accounts for a large chunk of that, however other standard features include Automatic High Beams, LED headlights, foglights and taillights, and Power locks including tailgate.
Additionally, Heated and powered leather seats, leather-wrapped shifter and steering wheel, FordPassConnect 4G WiFi HotSpot, Keyless entry and start with every door handle having overall lock and unlock capability, most of the above mentioned safety systems (BLIS, LKA, AEB), the SYNC3 8″ screen, HomeLink, as well as Perimeter Alarm come along for the ride. AppleCarPlay and AndroidAuto is included as well, and showing how quickly this has become an industry standard, isn’t even mentioned on the window sticker in this case anymore, although they do still list stuff like a “Belt-Minder Chime” in the safety section of same.
Option though on this truck accounted for another $7,040 which seems like a lot, but I suppose it doesn’t cost any less to build a smaller truck than a larger one and it’s hard to begrudge Ford for trying to make a profit. In this case, Equipment Package 501A for the Lariat series pays for the Sync3 system configured with the Bang&Olufsen Sound System (as good here as in the Expedition) with HD radio, SiriusXM, and ten speakers; Remote Start, Rain-Sensing Wipers, and the Technology Package which includes Navigation and Adaptive Cruise Control.
Oddly the Adaptive Cruise Control is listed again as being part of the next $1,995 option package which also includes the 265/60R18 Outline White Letter Off Road Tires, Black Appearance Group, Black Painted Aluminum Wheels, Running Boards and the Spray-In Bedliner.
The Tray Style Floor Liner fetches another $160, Trailer Tow Package will suck a further $495 from your wallet, the Securicode keyless keypad that looks very added on here as opposed to how integrated it is behind glass on the Expedition for $95, and the FX4 OffRoad Package, detailed above for $1,295. The Tonneau cover runs $995, but the front license plate bracket is generously included at no charge.
Grand Total $46,910 which is lower than the same level of equipment in an F150 but may be more usable to a subset of the buying public. You could spend more than that but you could also be more judicious in the selections and come out the door for a lot less. I myself could probably configure something using the basic XL trim level to start and be happy with it, but some people need all the toys and that’s fine as well of course. Keep America rolling and all that jazz.
The Ranger represents an interesting entry in Ford’s lineup that shows they aren’t just a one-trick pony, they can scale down from the F150 as well as they can scale up from it. I still think they shouldn’t have canned all the passenger vehicles but a Ranger is a far smaller jump from a passenger car or small CUV than an F150 is, so if for no other reason than that this seems like a good investment with well thought out configuration variables that is likely generating a decent return for Ford.
The segment isn’t very large at this point (compared to full-sizers), and a ten-year old platform with more modern mechanicals can hold its own against the competition, which frankly isn’t generally really cutting edge either. It may be a big country, but you may not need that big of a truck. Finally there are some options.
Thanks go to Ford for providing us with this vehicle and a full tank of gasoline for the week. We appreciate it!
Having seen a few of these on the road, you’ve sated much of my curiosity. As you stated, these are a good alternative to an F-150 for some. While I have never had any size and maneuverability issues with my F-150, that is just me and I’m glad Ford reintroduced the Ranger.
My biggest curiosity was how well that 2.3 acquitted itself. It sounds like the complete opposite of the 2.3 in my sister’s ’92 Ranger. That thing was an absolute slug.
Thanks to Ford for supplying you with this Ranger.
As one who is not a “pickup guy” it is a little hard at first glance to distinguish between this and an F series – at least in pictures and without both of them in the same shot. So Ford has done a really good job of keeping that family resemblance.
I had not known that this was such an old design. Although it is a world apart from the old Ranger we all used to know. Other than a 2.3 four cylinder engine, there is pretty much nothing about this truck that is like the old Ranger. But then again, most buyers today do not seem interested in what buyers were buying in the early 90s.
Thanks for this interesting review.
I have to chuckle everytime I see a 6 foot bed referred to as a “longbed”
No kidding. And the 5 foot bed on the SuperCrew as reviewed here- really? Anything I’m building is made of things that come in 8 foot lengths at a minimum. I must not be the target audience for this truck.
The tailgate does fold down to give an elongated load floor and there are tiedown points to secure loads. It’s exactly the same scenario one faces even with an 8foot bed if one is carrying one of those items that are longer than “8 foot lengths at a minimum”. I doubt any professional builder would buy any pickup with a short bed, yet the fullsizers with 5.5foot beds still seem to sell pretty well.
I propose a tailgate inside a tailgate so when the 2 foot gate is down it can be pulled out another 2 feet, thus allowing a truck with a 3 foot bed and a even larger cabin.
Actually many years ago GM had some extending bed S-10 prototypes. The entire back of the bed slid out something like 18″.
Or you use a commonly available bed extender device.
Paul just posted the short bed regular cab Ram earning its keep in the construction trade. They just had a lumber rack for the longer stuff that they didn’t put in their trailer.
Very comprehensive review! I find these trucks very attractive, and if I needed a small truck, I would definitely look at one.
When these were first launched, they were conspicuous in their scarcity on the roads here in Central California. More common now, but, like the last year or so of the old Ranger, mostly in white, fleet trim. Doesn’t seem to be a big hit here in Tacoma-land. Whereas F150’s hugely outnumber Tundras, though perhaps not as much as in other parts of the country.
Not sure I could live with that flip-up back seat, but I hope the turbo 4’s power and economy give Toyota a kick in the pants to improve the Tacoma powertrain. I can only dream about 24 mpg in my 3.5 V6 Taco. Thanks for the review.
This as a “smaller” truck is about the same size as my old 1995 Chevy Silverado full size pickup.
It really isn’t. Mid-size pickups are noticeably narrower. And if you compared like configs, the full-size Chevy would be longer as well.
It may look as big, but is only as tall as that 1995 Chevy. You cant put three across in the cab and cant put 4×8 foot building materials between the wheel wells and within the bed length. Even a short bed Chevy was eight feet long, including the tailgate.
Almost certainly going to be the last Oz designed car to sell meaningfully here, and it does: second-best selling vehicle last year, so as common as muck. And now that Ford have have sate the appetite of middle-aged men for their crisis Mustangs, it’s practically all the company sells. Nobody wants the Focus or Endura or Escape.
Of possible interest, we get a quite-handsome 7-seater SUV called the Everest that was spun off this Ranger chassis (and I believe designed locally), and they sell a few of those. But truth is, without the Ranger, Ford wouldn’t be the fifth best-seller: it’d be about 15th, and likely no longer here at all.
I don’t reckon I’ve ever seen a petrol Ranger – in fact, doubt one’s sold here – and the majority seem to have the stonking Duratorq 3.2 TD 5cyl, which is powerful and characterful job.
Oh, and we also got the Mazda BT-50, same car in different clothes, from the same Thai factory. If that helps anyone.
I believe Ford Aust is still the lead on the next-gen Ranger which is under development now. I’m not sure how related the imminent Bronco is but I think it has more in common with this gen. They sold a 2.5 petrol/gas 4-cyl Ranger as a base 2wd single or double cab, but dropped that after a few years.
I had a ride in my cousin’s Ranger 3.2 a few weeks ago around the farm covering some rough unsealed roads and a fairly demanding off road trek over some rough ground off a dam bank. Did it all easy although the doors rattle and squeak a bit, but it has had a few years of doing this every day.
There is a 2.0L twin-turbo diesel now that makes more power and torque than the 3.2, and seems to work better in the real world than on paper. I don’t think it was ever designed to take a vee engine configuration, hence the 2.3L four only in the US.
Now that the Ranger is sold in the US, I could see them making a longer wheelbase to provide longer bed lengths in the new generation, as well as V6 engines.
I have seen a few around, I like that the styling is a bit conservative given some of the other monstrosities out there today.
And that is a nice shade of red. I hope dealers stock it. And I hope people buy it.
I think they’re handsome aside from the disproportionately tall bedsides relative to the overall proportions of the truck, the Colorado suffers from this effect to, but not the Tacoma or Frontier.
Having driven some midsizers, their narrower width is definitely noticeable as far as ease of parking, etc. I’m crew cab shopping now and we almost instantly landed in the fullsize realm. This will need to be a family road trip vehicle (for certain trips) in the future, it was a no brainer.
I now am much more acquainted with the Ranger, thanks to your most excellent review and pictures, which always manage to make me miss Colorado/Wyoming. I do love that part of the world. If we’d moved to Boulder instead of Eugene (our alternate destination) we’d be neighbors.
As dman noted, I’ve hardly seen one out here, although there are a fair number of Colorados around. Of course they’ve had a head start. And the Colorado/Canyon is offered in a wider range of sizes.
It seems like Ford’s decision to sell the Ranger was a bit half-hearted, given the lack of variants and such.
Agree with your last sentence; I cannot understand why Ford isn’t offering the six foot bed with the larger cab. To me the best part of having a truck is to haul big and long stuff easily, and if I can do so without the bulk of a full – size, then even better.
At least this is better than the Ford Explorer Sport Trac (remember those) with the four foot or so bed? IIRC those came with a bed extender, but even so. . .
Perhaps a toe-in-water exercise seeing as the next generation is just around the corner.
Obligatory comment about how no, modern mid-size pickups are not the size of 20-year-old full-size pickups. Although it seems I’m already too late.
It seems like you are getting a reasonable stream of vehicles to review Jim, and that’s nice to see. You’re good at it and I always read them.
I am coming at it from a different perspective than most buyers, but for my uses this would be a 4Runner/JGC competitor as much as a Tacoma/Gladiator competitor…and not at all a full-sizer competitor. My unusual criteria is 4-door 4×4 with >Subaru off-pavement capabilities and a manageable size. Put a cap on this with the FX4 package and it hits the marks on paper.
I’ve seen some pretty harsh criticism of this Range’s floaty ride (several referenced motion sickness while driving), platform age (the single-fold backseat is pretty poorly done), and some cabin ergonomics, but this review and the overall package would still have me cross-shopping it seriously if I were in the market now. I have to admit this powertrain sounds nearly ideal for this type of vehicle, both in power delivery and mpg.
Thanks! I found the ride comfortable, perhaps a bit bouncy but not floaty. Interesting that some automotive drivers got ill…I can suffer from that myself but never as a driver or in the front seat and not in this vehicle.
You’d be a potential buyer for the Everest that Justy mentioned above!
We are getting one but we have to wait until next summer when our lease expires on our Explorer. The power is quite surprising. On a test drive, I pulled off the freeway entry ramp about halfway down to let all traffic clear. I wanted to see what she could really do. It wasn’t much of a down hill at the start and she still was at 80 before I left the merge lane. The ride is a bit bouncier than I’m used to, but (without question) better than I’ve felt on rented Tacoma and Frontier trucks in the past year. It’s just my wife and I and we’re not large people, so it’s plenty big enough for us. We will be getting a tailgate extender so we can more easily haul our four bikes without needing to remove the front wheels.
Ranger is big business for Ford South Africa, with local assembly at the Silverton plant. I added up all the Ranger models on offer in Car magazine’s sales guide and came to a grand total of 34! Corolla sedan, hatch and Quest [the extended life outgoing edition] total 12 models, how the market has changed! Ranger regularly ranks around the 4th best selling passenger vehicle in SA, slightly behind double cab sales the the Toyota Hilux.
It is hard to say for certain, but from what I can tell from the pictures the reason the key pad looks so tacked on it because it is. Seriously it is just a remote, double stick tapped to the door. It is surprising that with all the work done to Americanize it, build it in the US and add all the ADAS ect they couldn’t spring for a set of dies to punch a hole in the door skin. I’m betting somewhere on the sticker that says that it is a dealer installed option.
I added that unit to my E-150. It is disposable since it is a sealed unit and battery powered since it doesn’t connect to the truck once the battery dies it is technically toast. I have heard of people who cracked it open, replaced the battery and then glued it up again.
As far as the hidden buttons found on the cars and SUVs while I like the looks they definitely are not as easy to use as the old school rubber buttons. You can use it with gloves on but it is hit and miss. My favorite key pad over the years for useability is the rounded one used on most of the 2000-2010’s vehicles. Mounted vertically on our Moutaineer and horizontally on the Fusion we had. The stick on version has the worst action out of all of them, including the system used on the Maxima/Quest/Villager with the tiny buttons as part of the door handle mechanism.
That said I’m happy I was able to add that unit because it allows me to use it as I always have, giving access to the kids w/o giving them a key. It is just a whole new batch of kids, that are my students instead of offspring.
The keypad is listed as a regular option in the options portion of the sticker, below the trailer package and above the FX4 package. They may well be available separately as a dealer add-on if not so equipped originally but this seems factory according to the sticker. These cars rarely go through a dealer anyway, in this particular case it was sold to Ford Motor Credit Company, then shipped to the distributor they use for their test cars and then sent to the media company.
I did look at the build and price and yeah it isn’t in the accessories section like it has been on some other vehicles and doesn’t have the “dealer installed” tag. But since that is the retail price as an accessory and based on the picture on their website I’m pretty sure that is the stick on remote. Definitely better than nothing but disappointing none the less.
Brummi Jimmy is on a roll!
The Ranger is actually Europe’s best selling pickup (as in the ones with fixed side walls), I’ve just read on our Ford commercial vehicles website. The only engine option here is an inline-four 2.0 liter turbodiesel, either with 170 or 213 DIN-hp. Transmission: a 6-speed manual or the 10-speed automatic.
If I spot one, they’re often in a rather chic shade of copper-metallic. BTW, in my country, all the usual suspects (Ranger, HiLux, Amarok, Navara, L200, etc.), are outsold and outnumbered by the Ram 1500.
For its entire original run, the Ranger looked like a Ranger, with each generation looking different but still maintaining certain parameters that made it a Ranger. This might as well be the rebirth of the Checker Marathon because it doesn’t resemble either one and at $$$$$40,000$$$$$ + this just doesn’t make sense at any level.
They do start at $24k or so these days for a SuperCab model. In 1996 the Ranger Supercab 4×4 Splash trim level started at $20295 which equates to $33,164 today and even as the top model wasn’t equipped anywhere near as well as the most entry level one today. Add some options and I can see the equivalent being over $40k…and you still have a crampy little truck without a backseat without half of the features of this truck here. I totally get the appeal of the old Ranger, but times march on, towards the end nobody was buying them except for maybe the pest control company and the auto parts store. With 90k sold last year, clearly there’s a market, the ones I see around here are mostly the CrewCab models, rarely the basers.
Ranger was also a trim level on the F100 before there was a dedicated Ranger model, when that came out in the early 80’s people perhaps lamented that as well…It’s smaller than the F150, has a pickup bed, a Ford badge on it, and the Ranger name wasn’t tarnished, so seems like the perfect name, no? On top of all that ours is built in the US and there’s even a version sold by Mazda, just like in the old days (except the Mazda version isn’t built or sold in the US).
I’m probably out of touch with current trends, it’s happening more and more these days, but I still dont see the appeal even at $24K. The market is the Judge and I’m clearly being ruled against.
Ford Ranger with stock Bang & Olufsen stereo. That’s something I never would have thought possible. If you told some locals your truck has a B&O stereo I bet they would laugh their ass off and think you stole it out of a train.
Great analysis and interesting read, thanks Jim. The Ranger has been New Zealand’s top-selling vehicle since 2015, selling 6,818 in 2015, 8,478 in 2016, 9,420 in 2017, 9,904 in 2018 and 9,485 last year. It’s usually well clear of second place – which was the Toyota Hilux last year with 7,126 sales.
Virtually every Kiwi tradie drives a Ranger nowadays, often with a canopy/topper on the bed. Most I’ve spoken with swear by them as a comfortable and reliable ute, very good looking, and retain their value well. Our builder has a 2018 Ranger, a Kiwi-spec FX4 with the 5-cylinder diesel, which has a lovely slightly gravelly, slightly uneven thrum to it. He loves it, but did point that he and other tradies find the Ranger bed too high for easy access. Mind you it’s on a par with the other utes out there in that respect.
The Ranger is very important to Ford NZ, as its sales keep Ford near the top of our sales charts, and high in NZer’s brand awareness. So there’s a lot riding on the upcoming new Ranger!
Great review and pictures Jim, as always. I’d love a sunroof available on these.
As good as the new (to us anyway) Ranger clearly is compared to the competition (Colorado/Canyon, Frontier, Tacoma), I believe Ford made ONE mistake–the hitch receiver is no longer standard like it was on the 2009-11 model; YES, even the the 4-cylinders came with it. For me that was a really good selling point. When I bought mine from Cromley’s 2 years ago it was the only one on their lot that had the factory hitch already installed; all the others must have have been ’08 at the newest.
Your average gas mileage seems pretty good for an FX4 variant (you were lucky to eke out 19 with the older ones), but even after upgrading to Cooper Discoverer AT3 4S all-terrain tires from my 2011’s factory all-seasons (Goodyear Wrangler SR-A) I can still manage 26 or better on most highway runs. Sacrificing just a few mpgs for improved traction off pavement isn’t a bad trade-off. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but this is one key area where the old basic Rangers still have an advantage over similar-vintage higher-end models or ANY of the current ones.
Got photo-bombed by one of our cats! 🙂
UPDATE: I stopped by Cromley’s today to get a tire leak fixed, and only ONE of the new Rangers was still for sale on the lot–a silver SuperCrew XLT Sport 4×4. Basically the polar opposite of my 2011 XL in almost every way, but it lacks one notable feature that mine’s got: the trailer hitch receiver!