@Robert

The F150's weight ranges from 4685 to 6052 lbs.

Our trucks are big!

Like I say, I'd guess the new T6 will be 75%, or with your info, at most 80% of a full size.

The 'it's 90%, almost as big' claim by Ford is a marketing gimmick to calm North Americans who didn't realize the old Ranger was 88% by the same measurements.

Unless the new Ranger dwarfs its Aussie competitors.

The Tacoma is 91.2% the width of a F-150. Only nerds are going to calculate width x height x length and that' won't work anyway to as a vehicle isn't a simple shape.

I've said this in other threads, but I'll say it here. The Ranger had a great reputation as a cheap, basic, reliable, compact truck. "Cheap and Basic" doesn't fit into the new Ford product mantra, so changes need to be made. The new Ranger doesn't fit either - looks to foreign and old and would have to redone to fit modern American tastes and regulations.

Would it be easier to:
-Convince buyers to spend considerably more money (and likely without heavy incentives) on a larger, more capable Ranger, priced within a stones throw of the more capable F-150.

or

-Let the Ranger nameplate go away, and re-introduce a compact / midsize pickup as a F-100, which would a) shed the cheap, archaic stigma attached to the Ranger nameplate, and B) further pad total "F-Series" sales numbers for marketing purposes.

I know that one of The Mul's first acts was to resurrect the Taurus nameplate, but he's surely gotten a little more in tune with the Auto industry over the last few years, and likely sees that in certain situations, it's easier to build a new brand for new product rather than repair and old nameplate for a new a different product.

Oxi, The T6 Ranger will have double wishbone, coils spring front suspension and a new design long spring leaf set up on the rear.

The steering will be rack and pinion and there is a thought that it might get the electric steering set up that Ford seems to be fiting to all it's new vehicles.

The 800mm fording depth means more than you think, fitting a snorkel may stop water ingress into the engine, but it doesn't stop water getting into low hung electrical equipment and the cabin. That fording depth is a pretty big selling point in places like thailand where flash flooding is a common occurance.

On the size of the T6, it really is not that much bigger than the current US Ranger but it's quite a bit larger than the rest of the world ranger. Especially in width compared to the global Ranger, it's about 100mm (4") wider, the wheelbase is 200mm (8") longer, but over all length is only a slight increase (I think 50mm or 2")

Add 4 inches to the current rest of the world T6 Ranger and it is 90% the width of a F-150 and in Hi Rider form, 94% the width of a F-150.

Maybe Ford should plan a 2.0L and 3.5L ecoboost engines into get top HP, Torque, towing, and payload, but also keep two conventional engines.

@matt Ford is introducing an Ecoboost, 2 Litre engine for the Australian Ford Falcon, as an economy option. From all reports it performs like a 3 Litre V6. Outside the US small diesels are the norm for midsize pickups.

@Premier

Whatever buddy. I've worked with pickups all my life, believe me volume and weight do make a difference.

Might be something for Mike to illustrate somehow, seems to be a hard concept to grasp.

Robert the Holden Colorado comes from Thailand, there aren't any CKD vehicles built in Australia. Recently the Cruze assembly has been started in Aust with 50%+ imported components, but it is not ckd.

The issue I see with the Ranger in the US is that people expect to be able to buy the trucks at ~$14k, which would not be profitable. Pre-bailout (or UAW concessions in Ford's case) it would have been cheaper to keep the factory running than not, on the basis that people would have to have been paid either way, but all that has changed now. I'm sure a lot of you know more about this situation than me. On the other hand, with gas prices set to soar, how can there not be a market for a truck that simple physics says should be able to get sufficiently improved gas mileage?

I think the pick-up truck market has gone down the growth-creep across the board, and there is now a gap under the Ranger/Hilux/Tacoma/etc for a true compact truck. I agree with Nate M a smaller truck would be worthwhile, and think it would be possible to spin this off the T6 chassis - note that as it stands, all cab variants share a single wheelbase.

However Ford is very risk-averse currently, which I think may be the deciding factor.

@outback Ute, the Colorado is fitted where necessary with the Holden V6 and other changes to meet ADR's. Similar changes would happen with Colorado's reassembled in the US, to beat the Chicken Tax(i.e the US Colorado's will not have a diesel for starters. The Cruze is not CKD true and is built locally.

When I saw the torque ratings for the 2.2L and 3.2L, I thought, "No way, unless they are boosted," so I looked up the specs on the Ford Australia web site. I should have guessed that they were diesels. Here are the complete engine ratings:

2.2L I-4 TDCi diesel: 147 hp, 277 lb-ft
3.2L I-5 TDCi diesel: 197 hp, 347 lb-ft
2.5L I-4 Duratec gasoline: 164 hp, 167 lb-ft

Looks like a girl's truck!

@Dr.Cartwright...Drunken moneys everywhere will protest you for your callus statements about their styling skills...once they sober up of course.

Not feeling the Extended Cabs window and how it's raised at the rear, similar to the Colorado concept. Why not make it a square/rectangle shape like most. And it looks to be a pop-out window. Why didn't Ford do like they did with the F150 and make it roll up/down? Still not feeling that car like front clip, nor the taillights. But still prefer the Ranger looks over any compact/mid-size truck on the market, and over the Colorado concept. And the fact it can be equipped with a 6speed manual makes it much more appealing.

@Nate M
I agree with your comments. When you look at how old the Ranger is in terms of design and the age of the platform it's no wonder that sales have dropped. Ford is comparing the current Ranger with it's 2.3 I4 and 4.0 V6 which has not had a major redesign for close to two decades with the F-150 which has had two major redesigns will get nearly the same mileage with it's newer 3.7 V6 and possibly 4 cylinder Ecoboost. They don't seem to be considering what mileage would be if the Ranger had those same engines. With midsize pickup sales continuing to drop, I think the Ranger should remain compact, but now that the Explorer no longer rides on the same platform it wouldn't be cost effective. I personally think the "global" Ranger is too large for the U.S. market although they could always bring it to the market here as the F-100 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffm-ZnbR_dU

What I don't understand is that Ford said they were going to build more niche vehicles but until the Explorer sales explosion, isn't that what SUV's were?

Attention Ford employees. If anyone over there at FoMoCo is listening, PLEASE relay this note to your bosses.

I own a 2009 F-150, bought it new. Among my friends and family who also own a new 2006~2010 F-150, we all use our trucks in a very similar fashion: occasional commuting, running around on errands where we need bed stowage, and towing trailers under 7,500 pounds.

Are you listening? Because I think this is very important for you to know: We all love our F-150s, but ALL of us, 100% when I asked, we all said we would rather have bought a slightly larger Ranger with an efficient turbo-diesel engine.

I also own a business where we run one Ranger and three powerstroke F-250s. I don't know what else to say, except, if you don't build this type of truck for us soon, next time, we WILL look elsewhere for what we now want and need.

I think that both Ford and Chevy will sell thier midsizes in the U.S. regardless of what they are saying now, they just want to gage U.S. reaction. And just because plants where they both were formally built may close , doesn't mean they won't find another plant somewhere in the U.S.. They both don't have to tell us everything they plan.

I don't agree with the people who think a small truck won't sell well in the USA. I have an SUV now. I don't have any way to haul anything dirty like gravel or top soil. But those things don't need a truck as big as an F-150. If Ford brings a small light duty pickup to the US that gets good gas mileage and doesn't look like it's almost 15 years old I'll buy it.

Ford should sell the new Ranger in the US. I had a 96 Ranger, now I have an 05 Explorer Sport Trac which gets poor gas mileage. I would trade my Sport Trac in tomorrow for a new, modern Ranger with the diesel. Ford thinking that customers will step up and buy the F-150 is wrong. I won't simply because it's too big.

Hey Ford! I got a tripple dog dare for ya to sell this in the US with an Eco V6!

What would be so wrong about replacing the f-150? For those who require a true full size we still have the 250 and up. As cities grow larger and more crowded the new ranger will be much more appreciated for its size and still be a full functioning truck to head out and play hard and work hard. I loved my 1994 ranger and only got rid of it after over 174000 abusive and fun filled miles. I'm ready to abuse another.

What a nice size in the large cab with opposing doors!!!.. IMO, this is the perfect truck if it had 3 other features.

- Easy fold down open midgate that extends a small bed into the cab.
- Ram box like storage on the rails over the wheel wells creating a square bed exactly 4 feet wide.
- Deep under bed storage trunk like the Ridgeline

why does Ford have this in they sales promotion the dealers are senting out

I really wish they would wake up and sell this thing here. Did the powers that be ever stop to think that perhaps the reason the compact pickup truck sector started seeing declining sales is because year after year us consumers and small truck drivers were forced to sit by and watch Ford make update after update to the F-150 and Super Duty trucks all while the Ranger stayed virtually the same for almost 20 years?

Why would a Ford Ranger owner like myself be enticed to by another Ford Ranger when my 10 year old Ranger looks identical to a brand new Ranger?

I want options like a second row of seats, or a crew cab. I think something like this Ranger may be a little on the big side, but if they were to make a new midsized truck based on the same platform as say, the new Escape, I'd be interested. I don't really use my truck for towing, but I use it more for things like moving my motorcycle around, or having the ability to haul stuff (furniture, appliances, etc.) when necessary. I don't need an overkill full size truck because I am not pulling 15,000 lb. trailers or filling my bed with gravel and cinder blocks.