2019 Ford Ranger Suspension: Spied

2019 Ford Ranger_1

Our spy photographers caught the 2019 Ford Ranger mid-size pickup truck testing in Colorado's Rocky Mountains. Here's what they had to say:

"This time we were able to get a look underneath the 2019 Ford Ranger, revealing the suspension bits.

"Ford is testing the U.S.-bound Ranger ahead of the truck's reintroduction to the states for model-year 2019. While it's hard to tell if it will look much different from the Ranger sold globally, expect typical Ford truck cues in a smaller package.

"The North American version may wear its own unique styling as the Southeast Asian markets that most mid-size pickups are developed for seem to prefer more aerodynamic, carlike styling for their pickups.

"Expect a full complement of EcoBoost four- and six-cylinder engines and perhaps a diesel. Ford may use the direct-injected twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V-6 as the premium choice. Ford's new 10-speed automatic transmission, co-developed with GM, is also expected to be part of the package.

"Expect two-wheel drive to be standard, with part-time four-wheel drive available as an option.

"The Ranger should be unveiled sometime in 2018."

Spiedbilde images

2019 Ford Ranger_2

2019 Ford Ranger_4

2019 Ford Ranger_5

2019 Ford Ranger_6

Ranger_Rockies_3

Comments

@papajim- the Bronco needs to be on a proper FR, body-on-frame platform to make sense. Reviving (and defiling) an old name, just to add something between the Edge and (getting even bigger) crossover Explorer won't fly. Toyota is currently enjoying the BOF midsize pie all to itself, and I think Ford aims to get a slice.
I think the Sport-trac ultimately failed because a. it was heavy, so the V6 versions were slugs b. the V8 was excellent, but got to be expensive, and dealers didn't know how to sell a civilized, garagable alternative to the almighty F150. c. ultimately Ford kept it until they moved the Explorer to a car platform.

@Mr Knowitall

The whole topic of Bronco started with Jeff S yesterday. I could not understand his point. I think the body/frame platform is great for the largest SUVs, like the Suburbans and Tahoes.

The old school Explorer was popular in its day but the arrival of Crossover SUVs in the same class as the Acadia and the Enclave made people understand how much they lose with the body/frame architecture --- too heavy, too clumsy.

I can't picture a winning SUV design based on Ranger or Colorado sized frames.

@papa jim--I mentioned the Bronco because Ford is making both the Bronco and the Ranger in the same facility. Why is this important? Because both are more likely to be rear wheel drive and share the same platform if they are sharing the same plant. Ford has stated in the past that having both the Bronco and Ranger made in the same plant gives them the flexibility to adjust the production of either model depending on the demand. For example if the Bronco is in more demand the plant will produce more Broncos and less Rangers and the opposite is true if there is more demand for Rangers than Broncos. In order for Ford to do this both vehicles most likely will share platforms and parts.

As for Ford being too late to the midsize truck market that could very well be true, but we will have to wait and see. Just a lot of information that we do not know. We haven't even seen what the Ranger or Bronco will look like just mules. It is possible that we will get a glimpse of both the Ranger and Bronco during one of the car shows next year. GM did the same thing when announcing the new Colorado with many of us believing it would be the same as the Global Colorado and we thought there would be no Canyon. Too little information available to make an informed opinion.

@Jeff, papa is notorious for using his lack of knowledge and insights to portray something different that what it is or could be. Just as he will bash a vehicle with never driving it, or tell folks that all half tons ride bad, when he doesnt even own one. I agree with the lets wait and see approach, then we can discuss when we actually know what will happen.

"I don't know if the turbo 4 is a good option. Our Rangers weigh in at 2.2 tonnes or 4 800lbs dry."

OUCH! That's heavy. That suggests these things, again, are much bigger than they need to be for their purpose.

A lot of things to consider here and to tell you the truth I'm not very confident of that leaf spring suspension. My '97 Ranger is leaf and it absolutely loves to dance when it hits a rough road, unless it's carrying a few hundred pounds in the bed. I'd think coil springs or a fully-independent rear would be more compliant.

@Roadwhale

Regular unleaded is 2.29 in my neighborhood this morning. FYI

@oxi,

fvck your Toyotas

This trvll called me a Liberal, hahahaha

@papajim- the 2020 Bronco being built on the same (sorter) platform as the 2019 Ranger is not a matter of guessing or opinion. Its established fact. The rear suspension could be leaf (cost cutting)or coil (more likely), but it will have a solid rear axle. the Bronco aims somewhere between the 4Runner and the Wrangler.

TOOO big with the Quad cab and that wimpy bed. We just bought a vintage 4WD Ranger and it's perfectly sized for when we don't need to big truck for work. Yep, work. This thing looks like another hauler for Suburban life.

@wixman
"I really don't understand the excitement over the upcoming Ranger. My 2012 Ranger was a rolling dumpster fire of a truck. Absolutely terrible gas mileage, body rust at the spot welds, junk transmission, cheap interior that had dozens of rattles, cheap brakes that constantly needed replacement, and junk wheel bearings. Brake parts and wheel bearings were genuine Ford parts and they were garbage."
My 2008 Ranger FX4 complete different experience 250k miles and running strong, zero complaints.Normal maintenance and replacement items. Starter replaced at 180k. Other than that has run great and reliable every day. 18-19 mpg. Can't wait to see new Ranger. If I don't like , I will go F150. Granted there will be examples that disappoint, my Ford's have all lived long,long and very strong.

but it will have a solid rear axle. the Bronco aims somewhere between the 4Runner and the Wrangler. Posted by: Mr Knowitall | Oct 12, 2017

@knowitall, Mr

You clearly have more info than me. The first of these Bronco's has yet to leave the assembly line. Same for the latest iteration of the Ranger.

A body/frame SUV built on the current T6 Ranger platform is going to be clumsy, heavy, gas-guzzling---and worse, it will be big on the outside and small on the inside.

Previous attempts at this have been a bust.

The previous-gen Durango circa 2005, the previous gen body/frame Nissan Pathfinder circa 2005, the IRS Ranger circa 2008, the first gen Kia Sorento, the Kia Borrego, the rear drive GM mid sizers.

All were too heavy, too clumsy, too cramped inside, rough riding compared to popular SUVS and CUVS like the Pilot, new Grand Cherokee & Durango, the Ford Explorer circa 2013, the Flex, etc.

@papajim as he mentions Honda Ridgeline the Ridgeline is not Honda's bread and butter and will never be. It's a assembly line filler. After over 10yrs still a bunch of people don't even know about the Ridgeline. There are many that are misinformed about the vehicle. Many are clueless as to what it has to offer.
I don't need the towing or the hard core off-road vehicle.
But the Ridgeline can do some off-roading and can tow 5,000LBS
It's Bed size is larger then some in segment.
Buying a full size truck that handles and drives worst then a Ridgeline does not make since if you don't need those capabilities.
Try a search on this video takes about Ridgeline full size Ford Ram ect. Honda Ridgeline The Un-Truck, truck

I don't need the towing or the hard core off-road vehicle.

@Ridgeline owner

Why not just drive a CR-V or a Sante Fe?

I think the best word would be overbuying
papajim and others always bring up price as mention with Ridgeline. Always hear I can get a full-size for that price.
But does that full-size handle better probably not at all because Ridgeline is not traditional body on frame and does not suffer from the drawbacks of body on frame.
As said do you need 10,000lbs towing?
I don't never or will need something that has to boulder hop.
But I knew Ford would come back into midsize segment.
The Sport Trac is why we purchased the Generation 1 Ridgeline almost 11yrs ago. Nothing compares when you want a great daily driver or road pickup truck.

@Ridgeline

About 8 years ago I test-drove a Pilot and a Ridgeline on the same afternoon.

Both were ok, but the Ridgeline had a huge turning circle and sounded rough on the smoothest roads.

It was probably just making "tire noise" but it was still nowhere near as appealing as the Silverado I bought.

The cheapest Pilot we could find on the lot was about $40k. The Ridgeline was a few years old and had 40k miles on it. The dealer wanted $25k for it. My Chevy was $17k less than two years old. Not a contest.

@Mr Knowitall
Outside NA it will be all diesel. US versions will have the 2.7EB

@Robt Ryan

the 2.7EB is way too wide to be a sensible choice for a truck that people say is narrow compared to the Colorado. The DOHC heads on the Colorado and the proposed Ranger are just too wide if you are meaning a V6.

This is why I've been saying that the 4 cylinder Mustang turbo which makes 300 + HP is perfect and fits between the shock towers.

Granted there will be examples that disappoint, my Ford's have all lived long,long and very strong.
Posted by: FXDX1450 | Oct 12, 2017 12:55:46 PM

I wish I had your luck. The last couple Ford trucks I owned were terrible too. The 5.4 Triton is one of the worst engines ever made and the torque of the 3.5 ecoboost isn't worth having to put up with all the reliability problems. Cheap timing chains and constant limp mode issues. Not to mention highway vibration problems that the dealer gave up on fixing. Ford must have stolen GM's chevy shake idea for the 2015+ trucks.

Ford needs a motor that fits between the shock towers. The 2.7 and the other DOHC V6 motors are a horrible fit for the Ranger because the cylinder heads are so wide.
The turbo 2.5 is a sweet fit. The Mustang 2.5 makes 300+ hp

Posted by: papajim | Oct 11, 2017 12:02:43 PM

If I am loyal to any other brand that competes in this segment, I'm praying Ford put's the 2.7 Eco in the Ranger. We all know it will beat a GM 5.3 empty by a few tenths, and completely destroy it pulling 7,000 lbs. This will force all manufacturers to offer more powerful engines to compete and the consumer wins.

@2.7EcoBoostRoost

So if the motor does not fit in the engine compartment, should they put it in the bed -- or maybe on the roof?

Again, we cannot speculate on what this new Ranger will look like or what type of drive train. We don't know what engines will be going in it. Maybe next year we will find out more information.

@Jeff S

we don't need to speculate about whether a 4 cylinder will fit between the shock towers. It will.

It's not speculation to point out that Ford already has a 2.5 liter Mustang engine that makes 300+ HP

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Good day, sir!

please share your wisdom. Refute my comment properly

For their fuel economy and exterior size, the Wrangler is cramped, clumsy, loud... they sell like hot cakes.

The engine itself isn't that wide. The turbo sticks out a bit though. That can slide back a bit to fit the compartment better.

Incidentally, I think I saw Bronco prototype at Hines drive last night. Flat black, sporting a Raptor like grille. Boxy shape, like the previous Escape.

They will need a well-equipped manual version that gets decent mileage. I repeat, a six-speed manual, equipped not stripped, version that gets good mileage. I would have paid the $35K for the TRD Pro manual version had the mileage been better.

"Regular unleaded is 2.29 in my neighborhood this morning. FYI"
---- Posted by: papajim | Oct 12, 2017 9:29:56 AM

Improving, but still not $2.09, which is what ours was before the storms.

"A body/frame SUV built on the current T6 Ranger platform is going to be clumsy, heavy, gas-guzzling---and worse, it will be big on the outside and small on the inside.
"Previous attempts at this have been a bust.
"The previous-gen Durango circa 2005, the previous gen body/frame Nissan Pathfinder circa 2005, the IRS Ranger circa 2008, the first gen Kia Sorento, the Kia Borrego, the rear drive GM mid sizers.
"All were too heavy, too clumsy, too cramped inside, rough riding compared to popular SUVS and CUVS like the Pilot, new Grand Cherokee & Durango, the Ford Explorer circa 2013, the Flex, etc."
---- Posted by: papajim | Oct 12, 2017 1:06:38 PM

Remember, Papa, this thing is meant to compete with the Wrangler, which means comfort is not as high on the priority list as capability. The Wrangler itself, as a BoF SUV, is reasonably comfortable for what it is. Sure, it rides like a truck but that's because it IS a truck. The Wrangler is essentially unbeaten as a factory off-road vehicle with only limited exceptions that tend to ride about equally to it. You simply don't see other rigs competing with the Wrangler except out in the desert where speed is supposedly more important than rock crawling. I wouldn't bet against the Bronco being a relatively hard-riding rig if it's going to be anywhere near as capable as the original.

"@Ridgeline owner: Why not just drive a CR-V or a Sante Fe?"
---- Posted by: papajim | Oct 12, 2017 1:27:24 PM

Open bed.

@Bob- just curious- what would you call decent mileage? Fuelly and FE.gov show the manual getting about the same economy as the auto, but of course the sample size is small.

"About 8 years ago I test-drove a Pilot and a Ridgeline on the same afternoon.

Both were ok, but the Ridgeline had a huge turning circle and sounded rough on the smoothest roads.
"It was probably just making "tire noise" but it was still nowhere near as appealing as the Silverado I bought.
"The cheapest Pilot we could find on the lot was about $40k. The Ridgeline was a few years old and had 40k miles on it. The dealer wanted $25k for it. My Chevy was $17k less than two years old. Not a contest."
---- Posted by: papajim | Oct 12, 2017 2:09:43 PM

So you're basing all your arguments on a test drive of a vehicle 8 years ago that has since been replaced? Maybe you need to test drive the new one, hmmmm?

strike that- I can't seem to find that info now....

@Jeff S

papajim is a brat with Kraut on top, he doesn’t like a strong Ford Ranger, doesn’t like Ford, and roots for Ford demise.

Jimbob da'papa,
How can you make such ridiculous statements, DenverMike.

Where and how can you even think a V6 or even a V8 will not fit in the front of a Ranger? What nonsense manchild.

How did they fit double overhead cam engine into the smaller midsizers and even the D20 in 1986?

Wow, how can you justify all the trash you have put out DenverMike.

Maybe the EPA should stop your emissions on this site. Start drinking DEF and clean out your DPF.

@Big Al

Do you ever read the crap you write before hitting the button?

Please recite the number of Ford "midsizers" that ever had V6 DOHC engines, or for that matter a D20 in 1986.

A 4 cylinder Ford Ranger with DOHC first appeared around 2001 but I cannot remember a DOHC V6 in any Ranger ever in North America anyway.

Perhaps you can put down the koolaid long enough to share some of your peculiar brand of enlightenment.

So you're basing all your arguments on a test drive of a vehicle 8 years ago that has since been replaced? Posted by: Road Whale | Oct 13, 2017

@roadwhale

have you EVER driven one?

Please share your impressions.

@papajim Sorry if your impression of Ridgeline you drove 8 years ago was not great. Plenty of things could have been in play with your test drive. If this was a used vehicle the previous owner or dealership could have changed the original tires. The Gen 1 Ridgeline loves it's Michelin LTX tires some people changed to more off-road or just different type tires this will mess up it's great handling. Improper inflation is another issue that could cause it to ride bad. If it was used vehicle who knows.
But the trade mark of a Ridgeline is it's agile handling, quiet smooth stable ride. Gen 1 Ridgeline 2006-2014 was not really never updated only gearing ratio and stuff like intake was done so better low end grunt & acceleration.
So if the Pilot you drove was a few years newer then it could have been newer redesign. The vehicles really don't compare because Ridgeline is braced and beefed up for truck duty.
Ridgeline started life as say 03-04 Acura MDX. Released early 2005 as 2006 model.

@papajim you are correct about large turning radius on Gen 1 Ridgeline tis was noted by other publications but most all reviews give it high marks for ride and drivability. pickuptrucks.com was at 2008 Honda Ridgeline combo Element Meet were we went to Honda Plant and their Tech Research Center were the Ridgeline was put thru it's paces during the day. The Chief Engineer was their. I had met him the previous year 2007 in St Louis at Meet.
He was engineer at GM worked on S-10 pickup and other GM models.
2nd Generation Ridgeline Chief Engineer worked on 1st Generation Ridgeline. Pleas go out and test drive new 2017-2018 Ridgeline. RTL-E is highest trim other then Black Edition
Pilot and Acura MDX are built on Ridgeline Platform it was designed for truck but Acura/Honda released those 2 vehicles first in 2014 & 2015

@papajim you are correct about large turning radius on Gen 1 Ridgeline tis was noted by other publications but most all reviews give it high marks for ride and drivability. pickuptrucks.com was at 2008 Honda Ridgeline combo Element Meet were we went to Honda Plant and their Tech Research Center were the Ridgeline was put thru it's paces during the day. The Chief Engineer was their. I had met him the previous year 2007 in St Louis at Meet.
He was engineer at GM worked on S-10 pickup and other GM models.
2nd Generation Ridgeline Chief Engineer worked on 1st Generation Ridgeline. Pleas go out and test drive new 2017-2018 Ridgeline. RTL-E is highest trim other then Black Edition
Pilot and Acura MDX are built on Ridgeline Platform it was designed for truck but Acura/Honda released those 2 vehicles first in 2014 & 2015

@papajim Why not a drive CR-V or Sante Fe?
They are not pickup truck and have open bed of.
They also do not have an in-bed trunk storage that other pickup trucks lack. You can put on a Tonneau Cover but if you have to remove it or open it up for hauling something you have lost your covered storage. Ridgeline in-bed trunk is there just like small car trunk. With Ridgeline being braced and suspension beefed up for truck duty it's a different vehicle. It's a lot more to Ridgeline then just adding a bed to a Pilot or MDX. It's sad that that's is some peoples perception.
But back to Ford Ranger I am not sure what this vehicle will really be. Seems to me mid size is good but what will it do to F-150. How much will they put into it to compete.

thanks for the extra information. The Honda is a fine truck but the market for midsize makes me wonder how you get $40k for one.

Seems to me mid size is good but what will it do to F-150. How much will they put into it to compete. Posted by: RIDGELINE OWNER 2007 | Oct 13, 2017

@RO2007

Ford is releasing a model that was available elsewhere in the world more than five years ago.

The North American version of the T6 (Ranger) will have a few details that differ, but if you want to see the Ranger, go to Wikipedia and see photos of various T6s from around the world.



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 | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us