Global Ranger Could Be Right Size for U.S.

2 Global Ranger front

Is it just our imagination or is there more buzz about the small-truck segment? Sure, companies like Ford (with the Ranger) and Ram (with the Dakota) have walked away from the marketplace in the last 18 months, but with fuel prices fluctuating and average fuel economy becoming more important, we can't help but think there's a big opportunity here for some company.

At the recent Chicago Auto Show we talked to Ford executives about the possibility of a smaller, entry-level pickup truck making sense in a changing U.S. market. Of course, that got us speculating about the use of the new unibody platform used in the Transit Connect and Transit, both of which are already slated for U.S. consumption. Ford's position always has been clear though: With the strong and efficient F-150 V-6 - in many cases outperforming midsize truck capability and fuel economy - there is no real demand for another midsize pickup. But what if that demand was hidden, and what if there was a way to price a new, smaller truck competitively?

Of course, Ford already has a popular global platform in the Ranger, which can be outfitted as a solid, bare-bones midsize pickup truck. As noted, Ford has been consistent about why bringing the global Ranger to the U.S. doesn't make sense. Simply put, the Ranger is too big and too strong, which is fine for markets that don't offer the F-150 but not so good for the U.S.

Recently we heard about a global Ranger sitting at the offices of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, a trade association made up of companies that make or sell aftermarket automotive parts (these are the people who put on the SEMA Show). SEMA bought the Ranger so it would be available for members who might want to make parts for it and sell them overseas. We paid SEMA a visit to see what all the fuss is about since we haven't seen a new Ranger since the redesign in 2011.

During the visit we took quite a few photos and had a chance to place it next to a 2013 Ram 1500 Crew Cab 4x2 shortbed. The Ranger is definitely smaller, but not by much, and it gave us a good idea about its size. As with many other midsize pickups in the U.S., it looks like the size inflation that took compact pickups into the midsize category could eventually take them from midsize to full size if manufacturers are not careful.

Still, by stripping a little content and repackaging a few existing powertrain options, it's difficult to believe this platform couldn't once again be a solid player in the segment. Whether Ford decides to push for something new on a unibody platform — possibly redefining what a small pickup truck can be — or whether it adapts the global Ranger into an F-100, for example, we assume it will largely depend on how the bean counters make the business case. Either way, it could be good for those of us looking for a strong, economical and fuel-efficient way to carry and haul a decently sized load.

For more photos of the Global Ranger, go to our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pickuptrucksdotcom.

1 Global Ranger shop

3 Global Ranger rear

4 Global Ranger side rear

5 Global Ranger front side

6 Global Ranger action

Comments

I would think that there would be a market for this type of truck.
Not a bad looking truck.

As we Aussies have said, the Ranger and other Midsize Diesel Pickups are only fractionally smaller than a full size in the US.
Still you do not have the plethora of Cut Away Vans, Light Trucks and MDT/HDT trucks we get here. Different markets. Still we do not get a "Car/Utes " like the F250/F350 either.

@devo340 C'mon man! If there was a market for this Ranger wouldn't the Honda Ridgeline be flying off the shelf?

They call that a bed on that thing? Well, it might not even have enough room for a rear axle, just one. Maybe it will truck an engine block?

Complete with overrated payload specs!

Put them at GVWR at see how they do.

Bet that little sucker can roll over in a big hurry.

But I'm sure there is quite the market for it, it just isn't with me.

Might as well get an Explorer Sport Trac.

@TRz @ Tom. Agreed the F150 has a small payload what 1600lb? Barely can carry anything.

@TR4xTom,
It can tow a 27ft 5thwheel. Doubt a F150 can do this and achieve the mileage? At least tow it for starters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wfnEpk1HSg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yke_S5HYdo

With those tie downs on the side that ranger actually looks almost exactly like the sport track. Do the two trucks share the same dimensions as well?

@Papa Jim
Two completely different vehicles, ones a truck the other a car platform.

@TRX4 Tom
Should I respond to your crap. Really, you make yourself foolish, are you a school kid?

Are you trolling? Or are you a guerilla marketer?

Roll over? Explorer Sport Trac? GVWR?

These style of vehicles will have a market in the US. Especially with fleet buyers that buy single cabs.

A SUV buyer would consider them also, like I did.

Does everyone have to have a dual cab 1/2 ton because you do.

What is your point. What are you scared of? Do you work for Fiat?

If it has no chance why the trade barriers?

Wow. I knew the Ranger was smaller but look at the difference between the RAM 4x2 and a 4x4 ranger. That Ranger is significantly smaller and garage-able. How is it that the tacoma being about 90% the size of the tundra sold 130000+ units last year and there is no market for a mid size?

Sell this ranger in North America and i will buy it. Just need a 6 foot box and a sunroof.

@phillyguy.
This iis basically for the Asian Market, that is why a narrower track and tie downs. All of then have to have minimum payload of 2,200lbs.(definitely no Sporttrac or F150 for that matter).
Isuzu builds it Pickups with a huge leeway for overloading in Asia. 4000lbs is not uncommon.

@RJC,
Not much difference in size for the 4X2 or 4 X4. With a Ute bed it is as long or longer than the the RAM. Garageable depends on what bed you have on it.

I could see why ford wont bring the ranger to NA. it is at least 90-95% the size of that dodge and its only availabe in crewcab and a useless shortbox. You'de be better off with an f150.

@Papa Jim
Two completely different vehicles, ones a truck the other a car platform.

@TRX4 Tom
Should I respond to your crap. Really, you make yourself foolish, are you a school kid?

Are you trolling? Or are you a guerilla marketer?

Roll over? Explorer Sport Trac? GVWR?

These style of vehicles will have a market in the US. Especially with fleet buyers that buy single cabs.

A SUV buyer would consider them also, like I did.

Does everyone have to have a dual cab 1/2 ton because you do.

What is your point. What are you scared of? Do you work for Fiat?

If it has no chance why the trade barriers?

@JohnM They have a 7ft bed as well. No Crewcab is only one option quite a few more options.
http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/models/4x2

I would like to know what country this Ranger is built for.

Also if we had an auto show or something similar to this SEMA event with a US pickup, you would get permission to drive it on our roads for a test.

It's a pity you can't do that with this Ranger in the US. I would love for PUTC to do a test with one.

@Mark Williams
What country is this Ranger earmarked for?

We don't have that rear step bumper.

It appears to be a base model. Does it have the 2.5 gasoline engine, 2.2 diesel or the 3.2 diesel.

I would like to know what country this Ranger is built for.

Also if we had an auto show or something similar to this SEMA event with a US pickup, you would get permission to drive it on our roads for a test.

It's a pity you can't do that with this Ranger in the US. I would love for PUTC to do a test with one.

@Mark Williams
What country is this Ranger earmarked for?

We don't have that rear step bumper.

It appears to be a base model. Does it have the 2.5 gasoline engine, 2.2 diesel or the 3.2 diesel.

@Papa Jim
Two completely different vehicles, ones a truck the other a car platform.

@TRX4 Tom
Should I respond to your crap. Really, you make yourself foolish, are you a school kid?

Are you trolling? Or are you a guerilla marketer?

Roll over? Explorer Sport Trac? GVWR?

These style of vehicles will have a market in the US. Especially with fleet buyers that buy single cabs.

A SUV buyer would consider them also, like I did.

Does everyone have to have a dual cab 1/2 ton because you do.

What is your point. What are you scared of? Do you work for Fiat?

If it has no chance why the trade barriers?

@Papa Jim
Two completely different vehicles, ones a truck the other a car platform.

@TRX4 Tom
Should I respond to your crap. Really, you make yourself foolish, are you a school kid?

Are you trolling? Or are you a guerilla marketer?

Roll over? Explorer Sport Trac? GVWR?

These style of vehicles will have a market in the US. Especially with fleet buyers that buy single cabs.

A SUV buyer would consider them also, like I did.

Does everyone have to have a dual cab 1/2 ton because you do.

What is your point. What are you scared of? Do you work for Fiat?

If it has no chance why the trade barriers?

@ big al

I believe these rangers are developed for the aussie and european markets.

Ranger would do well in the US if priced competitively with the Tacoma, especially if it has an available 3.2 "Power Stroke" diesel. It has to be cheaper than the F-150. Remember, the Ranger XLT diesel sells internationally for about the same price as a fully-loaded Cummins mega cab costs in the United States.

Too big in all the places it should be smaller and too small in the one place where it should be bigger. I won't be buying a Ford Ranger/F-100 because Ford is right--it's hardly any different from the existing F-150.

However, if the manufacturers brought out a truck that rides lower, is physically shorter and still offers a full 6' bed and uses a 4-cyl as its prime mover (a tiny diesel would almost be ideal) I believe they'd be surprised at how readily it would be adopted by people who need part-time load-carrying capability with an everyday driver that still gives decent fuel mileage. I, for one, would welcome something the size of the old Mitsubishi Mighty Max, the Ford Courier, the Chevy Luv and others. They served a good purpose when they were available and they would serve that same purpose today.

@JohnM Australian, South African and Asian Markets(that is why they are narrow. Asian markets require narrower Pickups)

@Alex,
The 3.2 Diesel is an "old" diesel" new for the US, but it cannot be upgraded to Euro V1. So it could be sold at Tacoma prices.I doubt it though. The Transit is gong to be using the same engine and the development costs have already been absorbed by its use in Europe. The 3.2 maybe the basis for a diesel option in a new F150.

Their at it again. What a pity.

You know it only happens when I question certain people.

I wonder if PUTC can find out who it is.

TRX4 Tom, why? I could add more aliases, but I won't.

You know if you write like you did in the above post, why not have someone question you? Justify you comments, please.

Can you personally believe what you wrote? I mean really, why would a global vehicle be designed to roll over easily?

The Sport Trac can't deliver the same performance. The GVWR, I have debated with you and you recognised the capacity of the vehicles already.

You will drive people from this site, is that your purpose? Read some of the stuff by a guy called Tom Lemon.

Other than the tail lights being just a little too big for the rest of the vehicle, I like the looks and the size of the Ranger. I'd consider buying one if Ford brought it here.

@Alex
Why does it have to be cheaper than a F-150?

Cars are sold at different prices and are different sizes.

Even pickups are sold at different prices, even though they are similar.

If a 3.2 4x4 dual cab high end Ranger could be sold for $40k, I think their would be a market.

I do understand the full sizers having a market. But if an outdated and expensive Tacoma can sell the numbers they do then a very modern diesel mid sizer would have a good chance.

I think we'll find out when the Colorado comes out, especially if there is a diesel variant. But I would think the 3.2 would be a better engine.

@DWFields.
" I won't be buying a Ford Ranger/F-100 because Ford is right--it's hardly any different from the existing F-150."

Yes just a "Ute'. It shows how much the "small Utes" have grown. The is still pretty small compared to some of the Behemoths on Australian Roads. I remember back when a Surburban was a "Big" SUV. Now they a slightly larger SUV.

@Alex
Why does it have to be cheaper than a F-150?

Cars are sold at different prices and are different sizes.

Even pickups are sold at different prices, even though they are similar.

If a 3.2 4x4 dual cab high end Ranger could be sold for $40k, I think their would be a market.

I do understand the full sizers having a market. But if an outdated and expensive Tacoma can sell the numbers they do then a very modern diesel mid sizer would have a good chance.

I think we'll find out when the Colorado comes out, especially if there is a diesel variant. But I would think the 3.2 would be a better engine.

@Big Al, that's if they want to sell them. Obviously comparing the same trim level. Obviously an F-150 XL 4x2 single cab V6 would be cheaper than a Ranger crew 4x4 XLT diesel. But if we were comparing both trucks with similar specs, I would definitely expect the Ranger to be cheaper, just like the Tacoma is cheaper than the Tundra.

I know this is off-topic, but what's the latest on Ford's development of the hydraulic hybrid F-150? I would love that technology with a small diesel engine in a very capable truck!

@Robert Ryan

Thanks for the info, it really makes me mad that they can put 2200+ lb payload capacities on trucks overseas, but those require an HD here. I am actually looking at military surplus trailers right now like the m1101 and m1102 to haul larger and heavier things right now. Pity smaller trucks don't show up here. Oh well.

Here is a roadtest of a New MAHINDRA Pickup. on the PICKUP .Com Facebook Page. They are terrible, but it very much impressed the US tester.
http://jalopnik.com/mahindra-genio-double-cab-pickup-the-jalopnik-review-350905882

I have to agree with TRX4 Tom--that bed is too damn small.

I see some advantages to a midsize pickup, but it needs to have some room!

Here would be my dream pickup:

--midsize
--crewcab
--6.5' bed
--400 ft/lbs torque
--tow 9000 lbs
--2500lbs payload
--4x4
--manual transmission
--decent off-road ability
--super reliable
--cheap

Dav,
There are a lot more bed sizes available.

@Dav,
http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/models

@Big Al & Robert Ryan: School kid? LOL. Work for Fiat? Lol.

Does it ever occur to you that somebody that needs a big truck to carry something, space, not always max payload numbers, might not like this truck, be it they drive a Tundra, Ram, F-150, or Silverado?

Do you not think it would have more tendacy to roll over? If pushed hard. I know, not a good way to drive a pickup, yet, it happens. Short wheelbases, fairly tall center of gravity, not as wide, Oh, who am I talking to, Big Al is some sort of Engineer, he should already know this.

There must be a reason why we have rollover ratings (not to be confused with roof strength.)

You talk about payload ratings, Robert Ryan. Great, but where can you put anything in that little bed? Is it just like you all to just say "if we want to move something that takes space, we just get a trailer?" Wow, save lots of fuel like that. Same old argument you guys dont understand. I bet the F-150 can tow whatever this can, and do alot better more comfortable (not only from a driving standpoint, but interior.

"TRX4 Tom, why? I could add more aliases, but I won't." There you go again Al. Accussing me of Aliases! Sounds like you are the troll. You get all buthurt cause I don't like your style of truck and you want to push it on the rest of the world. I simply said, PUT THEM AT GVWR and test them, see how they drive, stop. All that stuff. Instead of that lame comparison of Global pickups we had on here monthes again. All based on opinion, for the most part.

You guys get all wrapped up over little trucks. I did say "I bet theres quite a market for it, it just isn't for me" Did you read that, Big Al? You need bigger glasses?

You can question all you want, but you are hard headed. Hello, some of us NEED space, in the interior, the bedsize. Be it Toyota, Ford, Ram or Chevy. There you go Al, try to spin it into a Fiat thing.

No, I certainly aint a schoolkid. I actually use my truck, as opposed to you. You talk about your mileage, lol, we drive cars to get better mileage, when we don't need trucks.

Take your accusations and, well, you know, troll!

Lengthen the wheelbase and put a longer bed on it, it would not only be more functional, but better looking.

Ford stopped selling rangers because of their decreased sales. Research showed decreased sales from other brands aswell. I guess they figured small was out, but I think with all new technology and options on bigger trucks who wants to buy underpowered overpriced incapable basic trucks that remain unchanged over 10 years. All they needed to do was redesign and update add new features and technologies and people would buy. The ranger was best selling for years and are still everywhere just became old and boring compared to the newest half tons i guess. They need to keep ranger name if they bring a small truck back because people trust what they know. People still prefer an s10 over a colorado because they know what an s10 is. Every time you change the name you have to build a new fan base and credibility.

See, I am not the only one that thinks the bed is small! I looked allover for BT-50 interior specs. If that cab isn't as big as my quad cab, (that's not the biggest by the way, that's about the same as a Tundra Double, smaller then a Ram and Ford crew, and both of those are smaller then the Megacab and Crewmax-so it's not about bigger is always better, it's about having adequate space) it wouldn't suit me. It doesn't look like it is. One thing I mentioned on the Tacoma thread, width. Al, you can talk all day about having headroom, and legroom, but width is yet another measurement. Just becaue it might say seating for 5, it isn't the same. I like Elbow room, you know? I also have moved alot of stuff in the cab. Although my big screen tv didn't fit in the cab, damn the luck!

Uh oh, now because Dav said that, Al will accuse me of being Dav. Same old story

Ford could sell alot of them just by having the diesel and manual trans combo option alone. But they could also just put that drive train into the F150. I'd Imagine a 3.2 I5 wouldn't have any problems fitting under the hood and they would be the only fullsize with a manual too. But instead they make some silly 2.0 quad turbo v6 mounted to a 10 spd auto lol.

We dont need no little trucks . No space, too crammped and so bland they look like cars with a little out of proportion bed so ugly! It's to much of a tradeoff. I understand why the have a strong frame because its narrower and shoter but still not better than our trucks!!!

Darn,that RAM looks good.Gotta buy a RAM with a HEMI and 8 speed,my F-150 just doesnt have enough balls with the 5.4.

There wont be a market for smaller trucks because the fuel mileage is the same or close to a full size..

Second the price will be the same as a full size,so that is what killed off the small trucks,price and mpg.The Dakota in most cases was priced higher then the RAM 1500 so thats why sales lagged behind after the redesigned 2005 model.

Diesels wont be popular because of the extra cost to buy,then maintaining a Diesel costs you triple of maintaining a gas engine.Diesels are known to cause cancer,big issue in Europe with small Diesel cars everywhere,you cant breath there,its stinks,between Diesels and smelly people who live in Europe as they never have a shower everyday like Americans and Canadians.Europeans shower/bathe once every 3 weeks or so.Most European appartments/houses dont have a shower or tub,they bucket wash.And Obama wants America to be like Europe lol !

Plus every new Diesel you need to add DEF (Eurea) even cars and small suv's have that now and every 3-5,000 miles you have to add it to your Diesel exhaust and up to $10 a gallon and 5 gallons or so it adds up.And extra maint of a Diesel just isnt worth it unless you use it for towing with a fullsize one ton truck or rig otherwise gas is best.

I drove a new Diesel Audi and I smelt like Diesel after 1.5 hours in it,unreal.Diesels and small trucks are a no go.My educated opinion.

We had Diesel half tons in America before and they didnt sell that good,due to the fact they are expensive to buy and maintain,and with todays def it doesnt add up,you are better with a gas engine as every company has good mpg with a gas truck.

I'm with Tom. The tiny bed is a joke and useless for real hauling.

@Tom with a Ranger
Tom I have the Mazda equivalent with the 3.2 diesel and it is a good vehicle.

There would be a very large market in the US for a vehicle like this and the other 8 brands we have.

I think they will compliment your full size market and increase pickup ownership numbers in the US.

They are surprisingly torquey and are very good at towing large loads.

As for the guys whining about the size of the beds most of them probably won't load theirs because it will get a scratch.

The vehicles are quite versitile and have a reasonable payload.

For all of the people who fear, I'm not saying stop full size trucks, just allow these vehicles to compete fairly in your market.

@TRX4 Tom
The Ranger is apparently the world's safest pickup truck.

The Ranger is safer than a M series Mercedes.

The BT50 (like my ute), VW Amarok, Holden Colorado, Izuzu Dmax are all 5 star ENCAP and ANCAP.

So they appear to be safe enough, but there's always room for improvement.

Because of the safety of the vehicles families are buying them more. They are a very flexible alterantive to a smaller SUV and in many cases return better mpgs.

Wouldn't you buy a safer vehicle to protect your family?

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/1C9CC2C50BF64592CA257935007F69CF

@TRX4 Tom
If they get any better I suppose they can make safety ratings with 6 stars :)

Oh, by the way have you heard from Tom Terrific lately :) :) :)

The global Range would do good in markets without F-150s or full-size. If I lived in Zimbabwee, I'd give it a good consideration.

The global crew cab Ranger is basically an F-150 super cab with the bed chopped off to unusable and narrowed by about 11" down the center.
Reduce the F-150's payload by several hundred lbs (or don't opt for the Heavy Duty Payload Pkg) and then reduce the F-150's towing by several thousand lbs and there you have a global Ranger.

Other than that And if you don't mind paying More than the far more capable F-150, then yeah, a few 1000 global Rangers would sell in America. The Sport Trac sold OK, didn't it?

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/features/#page=FeatureCategory1&bannerid=7113804|90207700|51377621&referrer=microsoft.com

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/

In all reality Ford dropped the ball on this one, Ford already had a very good platform in the last Ranger, it was small weighed a lot less, and with the newer engines that Ford has developed, would have been a great start to bringing them up to date! just imagine a last generation Ranger with a new 3.7 V-6 as the top engine, and the newer 4cyl as a base engine! with the newer automatic trans, and a newer 6spd man! and the bst part is, the truck itself needed NOTHING! just an upgraded interior, and drivetrain! that is all it needed! and that is without the new small diesel! with that engine, the truck would get at the least 30mpg hyw and 25 cty! why in the world have they spent all this $$$$ for the "new Ranger"?? I can see there is a market for it overseas, but here? no way! we already have the F-150! there is very little difference in size! give us back the nice small Ranger! with udated interior and powertrain, and you will have a best seller again in that marketplace!

People buy the Tacoma because it is proven and reliable. And ever looked at a used Tacoma 3-7 years old? They hold their value very very well.

The bed of my 2000 Ranger is 45" high at the center of the rear wheel. The lowest measurement of a 2012 F150 is 54". I don't need a big high truck. Put the ecoboost in a Ranger and you should get better mpg. Ford doesn't build a USA Ranger because they've brainwashed the public and they are selling the F150's at a premium. Tide makes more money on the bigger boxes but they also sell smaller boxes.

I would like to see the Global Ranger next to the Toyota Tacoma. I bet they are very similar in size and the Tacoma sells well in the U.S.A.

If a manufacture(s) would put in an updated powertrain in mid-size pickup that helped widen the fuel economy gap between full size and mid size trucks I believe the market for mid size trucks would increase. The Tacoma is the best selling midsize truck and it has very dated engines and transmissions (4.0L V6 with 5sp auto and super old and under powered 2.7 I4 with 4sp auto) A direct injected I4 & V6, dual independent variable valve timing, 8 speed autos, electric power steering etc would really help the mid size trucks with fuel economy.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com