2019 Ford Ranger Video: We've Seen This Movie Before

  017_RANGER__90A4900 II

Right on schedule. Unlike other pickup truck makers, Ford seems to have discovered a solid formula when it comes to slowly revealing information about upcoming trucks. Ford did it with the F-150, then the Super Duty and now with the return of the Ranger for model-year 2019.

Don't get us wrong, we like getting as much information about Ford's testing procedures as it pushes its vehicles before they become available to us, but the releasing of information in dribs-and-drabs formula is a little tired by this point. And Ford has just done it again with the Ranger in video form.

Yes, Ford put the Ranger on the shaker table; it rips it around the sand dunes; it runs it over punishing road surfaces with robotic drivers. And it even does some towing up and down one of the most famous desert hill climbs in the country. Of course we like that, but the most telling piece of this first Ranger testing video released by Ford is that it ends with shots of the new truck running through the Australian Outback. This is likely to be the image Ford will want new truck buyers to keep in their heads when thinking about swapping their family crossover or full-size sedan for the mid-size 2019 Ford Ranger.

After all, the name of the video below is "Tough Tested for Adventure." This is our first not-so-subtle clue about how Ford will be promoting its "entry-level" pickup: ready for adventure. It's certainly not a new approach, but it's one that's worked many times before and will likely work again.

No doubt we'll be seeing more videos from Ford, like we saw with the release of the 2017 F-150 Raptor — but we'll reserve judgement until we get a closer look at the Ford Ranger's frame and chassis, and spend a little time behind the wheel playing around with the trail control and Terrain Management System. Until then, we have to say it looks pretty good on dirt and we really like the idea of a special-edition Aussie Ranger for our next Outback excursion, especially if it comes equipped with a small diesel engine.

Manufacturer images

 



Comments

couldn't make.

@ HD RamKing: Good to know, thanks for sharing. We'll see if Ford addresses this with the Ranger 2.3 EB.

https://youtu.be/xWN7o3yO9nI

Here is TFL review of new powder stroke diesel!! It limped home. Another joke!!!

@Ecoboost Rules
The Ford 2.3L Ecoboost engine to be used in the New Ranger will be the same as 2.3L in the Explorer, Mustang, Focus RS & Lincoln MKC; all with different power output.

Posted by: Ecoboost Rules:
#1 the 2.3 Eco-Boost is NOT the same engine in the Mustang
----Same engine, different tune and gearing.

#2 nobody wants to talk about the 25-30 MPG with the Ranger
---- Honestly one of the things I'm looking for.

#3 the 4.3 V6 has better performance # than the 5.3
---- Irrelevant to the discussion since the first year Ranger isn't going to have either engine--at least, according to these early reports.

#4 the 5.7 Hemi has high HP numbers but dead in torque
--- Again irrelevant to the discussion. But in the case of a small truck, torque is really more important than horses, up to a point. Give me 200 horses and 230 torque and I'll be happy. I'm not a Jeremy Clarkson where I need the most power available for everyday driving. 112 horses in a 3500# vehicle moves it well enough in cool air, but it loses a good 20 horses in hot air unless it's turbocharged.

#5 the Ranger is going to sell cause people trust Ford
---- I don't trust Ford. Every Ford I've had has had issues, including my current one. But in this case, Ford appears to be the only one making what I need in this Ranger, even if it's not what I want.

I have a niece that drives a 2016 Mustang 2.3EB. One thing my brother mentioned about the car is that on hot summer days the engine falls on its face. ---- Posted by: HD RamKing

---- Try recommending a cold air injection kit for that Mustang. Obviously it's the hot air that's killing the horsepower, so pulling air from outside the car rather than inside the engine compartment will have a positive effect. What you're talking about is a very common problem for almost every engine, ESPECIALLY normally-aspirated engines. You may not be noticing it on your big V8 simply because you already have more horses on board than you really need and don't realize that the hot air is sapping almost 20% of your power.

"Regarding mid size versus full size: Nobody ever got fired for bringing too big a knife to a knife fight."
---- Posted by: papajim


No, but people have died for bringing too big a "knife" to a knife fight. Sure, that big knife is impressive and if your fight is in a wide-open area then sure, that big knife is perfect. But sometimes that knife fight is in a narrow hallway or even a closet. You try to swing it and it constantly gets caught on walls or obstacles, while your opponent with a little dagger is just weaving that blade around those obstacles and straight into your heart.

Oh, absolutely a true mid-sized or compact truck has its advantages over full sized. It all depends on the environment in which it is used.

Vulpine!

re: knife

Do you ever read the stuff you write before pushing the button? Can you say metaphor? A rhetorical device.

Re: air temperature for gasoline engines.

The only reason to be concerned about intake air temps is the possibility that higher temperatures may adversely alter the desired stoichiometric air fuel ratio that engineers considered for the particular engine and intake.

The fuel systems in modern cars were using an ideal temperature of 100 degrees F back in the 80s and 90s but my current Silverado runs so smooth under all conditions that I had not thought about it for quite a while.

"Believe me! Ford would NEVER use a lack-luster engine in the Ranger if they knew it wouldn't outperform every other truck out there. You'll all be surprised what the 2.3 Eco-Boost can do."
---- Posted by: Ecoboost Rules

Dude, cool your jets. You may be a big fan of EcoBoost but it's not the ultimate ultimate. Ford has more than once put engines in their pickup trucks that meet the need but can't outrun the competition. I'm driving a Ranger with a 2.3 under the hood and it tops out at around 115 horses... in a 3500# body. Granted, it's not an EcoBoost but the point is that for a 21 year old truck it gets over 20mpg city and 25+ mpg highway at highway speeds.

And honestly, that's the point of the EcoBoost... use the smallest available engine for best EMPTY economy while still offering enough power to handle the occasional full load. Good aerodynamics helps reduce drag at highway speeds, letting the the engine run with a reduced load at lower revs and the turbo gives the boost needed to make that pass safely and quickly. But the point is that the turbo is not meant to run at full output full time; it's there for the extra oomph when needed, not to go racing. That's a different engine.

That said, I am considering the new Ranger, with the 2.3 EcoBoost, and I expect it to perform a lot better than my existing ranger with the 2.3 NA dual ignition. Cold air it more than meets my performance needs (quite lively, though not fast) but summertime heat saps that poor thing's power, just like it did my V6 Camaro, oh-so-long ago.
Oh, and I make a small modification, too. Seems the A/C compressor would run in ANY setting other than Off or Face. On the cooling side it ran as expected in AC mode but on the heating side, it ran full time in every single setting, whether defrost was turned on or not. I installed a manual kill switch for the compressor which means the compressor doesn't run at all unless I want it to... and when it runs, it chills that cab down in no time flat.

@Vulpine

Please catch up. The SOHC two valve Pinto/Ranger engine you're making reference to is a great little engine (I had one that rolled over 250k miles), but it's a slug compared to the modern 2.3 that Ford co-engineered with Mazda about 20 years ago.

The modern 2.3 is all alloy, twin cam, 4 valve and has sophisticated systems for managing-eliminating vibration. It's not even the same motor except the displacement. And it makes more power per cubic inch.

Speaking of which, check out Shane Tecklenburg on google. Shane does stuff with four cylinder engines that will put your mind to rest regarding intake air temps.

---- Posted by: papajim
"re: knife
Do you ever read the stuff you write before pushing the button? Can you say metaphor? A rhetorical device."
---- Clearly you missed my metaphor.

Re: air temperature for gasoline engines.
The only reason to be concerned about intake air temps is the possibility that higher temperatures may adversely alter the desired stoichiometric air fuel ratio that engineers considered for the particular engine and intake."
---- Which is why summertime heat has such an obvious effect on the engines I mentioned. When the performance of an engine changes so drastically between hot and cold air operation, it becomes quite clear that modifying the air intake will improve summertime performance.

"The fuel systems in modern cars were using an ideal temperature of 100 degrees F back in the 80s and 90s but my current Silverado runs so smooth under all conditions that I had not thought about it for quite a while."
---- 100° outside air temperature doesn't take into account the temperature under the hood. Like the inside of the car, that temperature can skyrocket, especially when the engine warms up. Remember, coolant temperature is usually set to between 185°F to 195°F and I've seen thermostats for even higher temperatures. If the air intake is under that hood and behind the radiator, the air density is already drastically reduced and affects performance. Just because your big V8 Silverado runs well doesn't mean a smaller engine will.

"Please catch up. The SOHC two valve Pinto/Ranger engine you're making reference to is a great little engine (I had one that rolled over 250k miles), but it's a slug compared to the modern 2.3 that Ford co-engineered with Mazda about 20 years ago."
---- Which one are you talking about, the original single electronic ignition model or the double electronic ignition model? The one under my hood uses two spark plugs per cylinder and it's still weak as a kitten in hot weather... especially after the engine heat-soaks after running for a few miles and is shut down during load/unload and re-started. Makes me want to put an electric fan under the hood to replace the stock belt-driven fan as well as installing a cold-air injection system. I expect between them I could even add a few horses over the stock 112.

@Vulpine

I thought I made it easy.

If your Ranger is really 20+ years old it has the iron-block Pinto 2.3 from the 1970s. Single overhead cam, 2 valves per cylinder, makes about 120 hp. Very good little motor!

Ford dropped it, and replaced it with the 2.3 all alloy twin cam 4 valve 2.3 they partnered with Mazda to create. Today's 2.3 is a derivative of the all alloy 4 valve engine. It has been produced both with and w/o turbo.

If the 5.3 “ blows the 2.7 out of the water when it comes to horsepower “, then that must mean, by that persons logic, the 2.7L blows the 5.3L out of the water when it comes to torque.

Posted by: Lyle. | May 9, 2018 11:07:08 PM


The 5.3 has a 30 HP advantage on regular 87 octane and a 55 HP advantage on E85. The 5.3 is down 17 lb-ft on 87 octane and has a 16 lb-ft advantage on E85.

So yeah, it's fair to say that Ramking has a point here. The 5.3 has a huge advantage.


-----------------------------------------------------
2.7L - 325HP @5000rpm, 400 lbs/ft @2750rpn ( and much broader torque power band )

5.3L - 355HP @ 5600rpm, 383 lbs/ft @4100rpm ( gotta rev it to the moon to get its peak torque.
Posted by: Lyle. | May 9, 2018 11:07:08 PM


Peak torque is meaningless.


GM's Gen V LS-based V8's are famous for their flat torque curves. Just because peak torque is at 5600 RPM, doesn't mean it isn't making 90% of that torque at 2500 RPM.

Peak torque is also not important because these engines are always going to be bolted up to automatic transmissions. The only time you're making the advertised torque on any engine is at wide open throttle. So the instant you floor it, the transmission is programmed to downshift to the lowest gear possible and the engine RPM is going to shoot up and OUT of that low-down torque instantly.

Unless your truck has absolutely horrible gearing, the transmission will never shift into a gear at wide open throttle that drops the engine speed anywhere close to 2000 RPM.

@Brick

You said it perfectly. My work is done here.

Sigh......... this blog is a vast wasteland of childish stup!dity!

@ amateur hour

How so? What have u offered to it?

2.7L - 325HP @5000rpm, 400 lbs/ft @2750rpn ( and much broader torque power band )

5.3L - 355HP @ 5600rpm, 383 lbs/ft @4100rpm ( gotta rev it to the moon to get its peak torque.
Posted by: Lyle. | May 9, 2018 11:07:08 PM


Peak torque is meaningless.


GM's Gen V LS-based V8's are famous for their flat torque curves. Just because peak torque is at 5600 RPM, doesn't mean it isn't making 90% of that torque at 2500 RPM.

Peak torque is also not important because these engines are always going to be bolted up to automatic transmissions. The only time you're making the advertised torque on any engine is at wide open throttle. So the instant you floor it, the transmission is programmed to downshift to the lowest gear possible and the engine RPM is going to shoot up and OUT of that low-down torque instantly.

Unless your truck has absolutely horrible gearing, the transmission will never shift into a gear at wide open throttle that drops the engine speed anywhere close to 2000 RPM.


Posted by: Brick | May 10, 2018 4:21:19 PM

everything you have written makes sense and i agree except i stumbled across this article

http://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

what's interesting to me is when it comes to the big 3 diesel's the Ram has the most TQ but the least HP and is the slowest, but when it comes to gas with turbos these smaller engines give the V8's a run for there money, i feel the TQ on the Eco-Boost plays a bigger role than most realize, but it may also have to do with the F-150 being lighter

@ DLE

Thanks for the link. Tuck your tail TNTroll

“ So to see if these numbers make sense, let’s take a look at some other tests. Motor Trend has tested both of these trucks in the sprint from 0-60 mph, both loaded and unloaded (7,000 pound trailer). The Chevy 5.3 does this in 6.9 and 19.5 seconds respectively. The Ford does this in 6.5 and 16.2 seconds. That’s .4 and 3.3 seconds faster than the Chevy, looks like that corroborates 5-star’s dyno numbers! Let’s look at something a little more real-world, 45-65 mph performance, loaded and unloaded again, Chevy: 3.6/15.5 seconds, Ford: 3.2/9.4 seconds. The Ford sets itself apart even further here.

Finally, let’s take a look at mpg’s, the Chevy is rated at 16 city/22 highway, the Ford is rated a little higher at 18 city /23 highway. But Motor Trend also got some real world numbers here, with Chevy doing 13 mpg city and 19 mpg highway and the Ford coming in at 17 city, 22 highway. That’s 4 miles per gallon better in the city and 3 more on the highway! That, along with superior performance sure has me sold on the 2.7 liter EcoBoost over the 5.3 liter EcoTec3 from GM “

The 2.7 ( first generation ) best the snot out of the 5.3L in every metric.

@ Lyle

Lol....again u said apples to.apples since I can't reprogram the 5.3L out of its fuel.economy. plus doesn't the 2.7L have 2 turbos??? So your apples to apples isnt apples to apples. You Ford fanboys are absolute clowns when its comes to this.

Its good u come out of hiding to gloat over this comparison. I'll give the 2.7L the win but it won't last for reliability like the 5.3L will. It has 19 years behind its PROVEN track record. Your 2.7L already has issues and its been out for 3 years. But hey gloat all u want..again put E85 in the 5.3L and its power figures go up!! Did the article mention that???//premium vs unleaded.....why didn't they make it E85 vs premium?? Now that would make it really interesting

BTW... I proved u wrong on the duramax didn't I. Lmfao

Owe by the way its a ford site and those dyno numbers for the 5.3L are very similar to the dyni numbers a 4.3L NA motor puts out. Like many commenters on the site have said.....i think someone fudged the numbers bc every other 5.3 L has laid down over 305 HP!!?? Hmmm something fishy.

Here is a credible site:

http://www.google.com/amp/gmauthority.com/blog/2013/07/lingenfelter-performance-puts-the-2014-silverado-on-the-dyno-with-video/amp/

Just look at what it puts down with E85

Do u have anything to say now Lyle??

everything you have written makes sense and i agree except i stumbled across this article

http://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

what's interesting to me is when it comes to the big 3 diesel's the Ram has the most TQ but the least HP and is the slowest, but when it comes to gas with turbos these smaller engines give the V8's a run for there money, i feel the TQ on the Eco-Boost plays a bigger role than most realize, but it may also have to do with the F-150 being lighter

Posted by: DLE | May 10, 2018 5:53:49 PM

That 5.3 dyno run was made on a Dyno Dynamics dynomometer. It's one of the easiest dynos to use incorrectly and the easiest to manipulate results on. The shop that made that dyno chart is a custom shop that specializes in Ford tunes. Their dyno chart is a joke and completely inconsistent with any other shop that has dyno'd the two trucks.

Livernois Motorsports dyno'd a 2014 Silverado 5.3 and got 301 RWHP and 326 lb-ft stock. Their 2.7 EB F-150 made 271 RWHP and 339 lb-ft.

Lingenfelter's stock 2014 Silverado running 87 octane gasoline made 302 hp and 332 lb-ft. Running E85, that increased to 321 rwhp and 355 lb-ft.

@ Brick

Just like I stated before....a little fishy!!! But the fanboys drink it up like cool aide!!

Different dyno, different day.

But head to head, the F150 2.7L trounced the Silverado 1500 5.3L.

I like focus on the dyno results and completely ignore the head 2 head comparison

Of course you would Lyle, your 2.7 is bolted to a pop can on wheels. Of course the truck that's 800 lbs lighter is going to be faster even with a weaker engine.

I 'ma Ford guy and I 'll say it.

Ecoboost 2.3 will get 27 MPG in a 2 wheel drive and about 35MPG in 4x4 trim.

It will be slower than the colorado 0-60

It will probably equal it in towing capacity. When towing its going to be a pig. It will probably tow more confortably than the 3.6 liter colorado but it will be a gas pig while doing so. That's what Ecoboost gives you.

Decent fuel economy when unloaded, Power when you need it.

Different dyno, different day.

Posted by: Lyle. | May 10, 2018 8:42:09 PM

Doesn't change the fact that 5star's dyno results have something seriously off with them. I'm not saying they intentionally did it, but they're doing something wrong.

I would believe Livernois's results over 5star's any day of the week. Especially since both Lingenfelter and Hennessey have also released dyno results of a stock Gen V 5.3 and their numbers match up very closely


-----------------------------------

But head to head, the F150 2.7L trounced the Silverado 1500 5.3L.

I like focus on the dyno results and completely ignore the head 2 head comparison
Posted by: Lyle. | May 10, 2018 8:42:09 PM

The F-150 has an ~800 lb advantage, yet it was only .2 seconds faster in the quarter mile than the 5.3 Silverado while hauling 1500 lbs.

"The Silverado's eight-speed transmission gave it a wallop of acceleration from a dead stop, even without a pair of turbochargers or a turbocharged diesel engine under the hood. Smack the accelerator and the engine immediately jumped to 2,000 rpm, accelerating to 20 mph faster than the F-150 (1.5 seconds to 1.58 seconds) before the Ford picked up steam and ran off with the win."

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/02/texas-truck-showdown-2016-mpg-acceleration.html#more

And that was without running E85 in the 5.3.

The 2.7 is going to have a rough time against a lighter 2019 Silverado w/ the 5.3.

You Ford fanboys are absolute clowns when its comes to this.

Posted by: TNTGMC | May 10, 2018 7:17:11 PM

dude what is with you and calling people names, i simply posted it as i found it interesting and i agree with Brick something maybe off, but i also know 5 Star Tuning has a very solid reputation

@ DLE

U think a clown is name calling?? Clowns are comic performers who employ slapstick or similar types of physical comedy.

I only name call or insult when I have been insulted...hence...basically just Frank bc he is a very grumpy old man

That wasn't directed towards you anyways....it was toward lyle bc he came out of hiding to try and prove me wrong. He called me out!

@HDramking
Stick to Fiat, your detailed knowledge of Ford is lacking. The Mustang 2.3 and Ranger 2.3 have some significant differences - such as a cross drilled block for cooling, forged crank and rods, coated pistons, turbo inlet wheel size and many more differences. It’s a unique design for the Ranger application. It’s shares more in common with the Focus RS motor then the Mustang 2.3 - which are very different.

The turbo 2.3 with a mild boost is the powerplant that the last Ranger needed. Who can understand why Ford wasn't offering it then? They were using that turbo 2.3 in several Mazda's around that time and they started offering it in Lincolns even.

Why are you guys arguing 2.7 vs 5.3? Apples and Oranges. It’s 5.3 vs 5.0 - at least they are NA V8s of similar displacement.

TNTGMC

no problem, you fanboys are all the same when defending you're brands

Why are you guys arguing 2.7 vs 5.3? Apples and Oranges. It’s 5.3 vs 5.0 - at least they are NA V8s of similar displacement.

@Grnzel

THANK YOU!!! Finally someone understands. Lyle posts apples to apples, but its NOT!!!! Now, the new 5.0L Ford has come out with along with the 10 spd is very Nice. It will beat the 5.3L now! But with the new 19 models coming out and with the 450lbs weight loss. It will be a great comparison! Also, as long as GM figures out how to program it better!!

My whole thing with the 5.3L has been its programming. When I eliminated it, it got way better economy and was a beast to drive!!

There is no reason that a modern 5.0 or 5.3 would not impress especially with the correct tuning (instead of CAFE tune). When I was a kid, GM had a 5.0 Z28 that screamed. Ford had Shelby 289s that were positively shrill.

Today's engines have better guts than the old V8s of Papajim's childhood. Steel crank/rods, variable valve timing, electronic fuel management and spark management.

Who could ask for more?

All that said, this is about Rangers. Let's see what the 2.3 Ecoboost Ranger can do with proper tune. Should be a blast.

Say what you want. It's a free country. But the facts are when the Ranger beats the Colorado both in sales and in the shootout, papajim should be very embarrassed just as Holden fans are down under.

@,) Biggie

And when it doesn't beat it are u gonna come up with excuses like the Fanboys did with the Duramax beating your super dooty, or the 6.2 beating the 3.5 ecobust??

@HDramking
Stick to Fiat, your detailed knowledge of Ford is lacking. The Mustang 2.3 and Ranger 2.3 have some significant differences - such as a cross drilled block for cooling, forged crank and rods, coated pistons, turbo inlet wheel size and many more differences. It’s a unique design for the Ranger application. It’s shares more in common with the Focus RS motor then the Mustang 2.3 - which are very different.
Posted by: Grnzel | May 11, 2018 8:24:42 AM


Mustang 2.3 Ecoboost:
coated pistons? check. (almost all pistons are coated these days btw)
forged crank & conrods? check. (no forged pistons?)

The rest are pretty minor variations of the same engine design. We don't know which turbo Ford plans on using. Ford still has to meet emissions regulations, cutting out all the sedans may put added pressure to maximize fuel economy for the new Ranger, and Jim Hackett isn't the type to give new buyers anything extra for free. He made it quite clear that Ford is now focused on cost-cutting the current vehicle lineup, not spending more money for bragging rights. Maybe Ford will have a higher output engine for the baby Raptor, but it'll be at the expense of fuel economy and a premium fuel requirement.

The 2019 Ranger won't have anywhere near as much power as the Focus RS or Mustang, as both of those engines require 93 octane to make their advertised power output. Unless Ford plans on using a more expensive and complex water-to-air charge coolers... which is the issue with the 2.3 Ecoboost so far. The stock intercooler doesn't have enough thermal capacity to cool the intake air effectively in the hot summer air. Intake air temps can easily climb above 200F. Its small size is also restricting flow through the core. If Ford wants to meet or beat the towing and payload ratings of the competition, the engine will have to be tuned to safely handle truck-like loads on the engine. They could tune it aggressively, but at the risk of engine damage or shortened engine life.

Biggie Smalls is delusional

Meh. Gime it with the n/a 3.5 and a 5 spd.

Meh. Gime it with the n/a 3.5 and a 5 spd.

Why, it’s better than the 4 cylinder Colorado which I wouldn't recommend to my worst enemy, and it's estimated to have more torque and better fuel economy than the GM V6 in the Colorado. It’s powerful and efficient. Plus it will have a 10 speed vs a 6 speed and 8 speed in the Holden designed Corado. Stick around and you might learn a thing or two or just keep burying your head in the sand. Your choice.

I agree with Big Al. The Ranger also has a better ride.

Ford lost a potential customer in me.

I want a SMALL truck for hauling mountain bikes, yard stuff, appliances, camping gear, and other weekend warrior things. I have zero use for "best in class" unless it's price & economy.

The old Ranger was the perfect size: 200" overall length, 6 ft (and change) bed, low enough to load/unload over the side, extended cab with clamshell doors for locking a toolbox in the cab.

That's what I want: same dimensions/configuration, weight kept to <3500 lb, a modern 2.5L 4 cylinder engine tuned for ~200 lb-ft torque, modern crash safety, real-world combined mpg in the mid to high 20s, and a starting price of a midsize sedan.

I don't want a touch screen; I don't want luxury in a truck. I don't want steps & handles to get in the bed because that means it's too big. I will never put even close to 1000 lb in it. I don't need 300 hp or lb-ft. I don't care for turbos. And I don't need a10 speed transmission.

The key to a successful smaller truck is separation from full size trucks: much smaller, much lighter, much cheaper, much more efficient, much less capable.

@Vulpine

If smaller was the answer the Big 3 would be building one. The truck you describe is on used car lots all over North America. They built millions of S10s and Rangers and you can buy a clean used truck with either label for five grand and change.



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