Spied Again! Future Ford Ranger

Spied! Future Ford Ranger

New photos of left-hand-drive future Ford Ranger mules reveal a bit more about Ford's next-generation global small truck. The single and double cab versions seen in these photos appear to share a common wheelbase, though the lumpy sheet metal they wear is strictly a placeholder for the future body-on-frame cab and cargo box we've yet to see. Overall, the new Ranger, expected by 2012, appears a bit larger than the current Ranger sold in the U.S., which isn't available in a four-door crew cab configuration.

The new pickup likely means all Ford Ranger models will be built on a single global platform, code-named T6, that's being designed in Australia. The current U.S.-built and overseas Ford Ranger models share only their names.

An industry source says the T6 Ranger for the U.S. will likely be powered by a new 1.6-liter, four-cylinder direct-injection, turbocharged EcoBoost engine producing at least 175 horsepower and 180 pounds-feet of torque.

P.S. For our good friends at Truck Trend, the black mule pictured above is this mystery truck. And the reason it's riding so low is that there's steel ballast in the bed to simulate a heavy payload.

Spied! Future Ford Ranger


Good to see more news. But there definitely needs to be an extended cab truck in the lineup, to allow for 5-person capacity (like the 4-door), but still give you a usable 6-foot bed.

People may like 4 full doors, but you can't do ANYTHING worth while with a 4-foot bed. They're pointless. You might as well buy an SUV if you're so concerned about 2 full seating rows. I bet most people would get more use out of having that space enclosed and connected anyways.

Honestly, what's the point of having to drop your tailgate all the time just to fit your kid's Hot Wheel in the back? Not to mention a mountain or motocross bike, skis or snowboards, or, heaven forbid, some real working materials like sheets of plywood, loads of dirt or gravel, etc. etc.

If they're going to make a 4-door version, then they MUST offer an option for a 6-foot bed, as Toyota does with the Tacoma. Even though it will lengthen the vehicle towards F-150 territory and decrease departure angle if the wheelbase is kept the same, it must be an option.

...If Ford can make an extended cab with a more logical cab design than the current Ranger (ie. a fold-up full bench, not 2 fold-up kiddie seats) that can truly sit 2-3 adults, then I think it will the no-brainer choice for most people who agree with my point above.

Insiders at Ford have already leaked that the 1.6 Eco-boost engine is not going to be in the Ranger T6, The packaging for the 1.6 compared to the 1.8 liter engine is different. The Former 2.0 Eco-boost engine has also been canned. The T6 and the Explorer will share the 1.8 liter Eco-boost engine. There are strong indications that the other engine will be the 2.5 liter Eco-boost 4 cylinder.

@Mackintire: That may happen but we hear the 1.6-L is definitely in play for the Ranger. Stay tuned. :-)

Lets have some displacement under the hood. 1.6L, 1.8L.....good grief, it is a truck not an ATV.

Looks like a hopeless Colorado/Canyon rip-off to me. Note to Ford- If you are going to copy the looks of another vehicle, copy one that looks good! All hail the mighty Tacoma. No competition on the horizon.......

The Eco-Boost 1.8 liter has approx 180HP and 200lbs of torque with over 80% of that available from 1600 RPM to 6000 RPM.

The 2.5 should have at least 260HP.

They have the torque curves of a diesel.

All hail the mighty Tacoma my @$$ , weak rear springs endless recalls (or as Toyota calls them service campaigns) and the oh so cool self destructing frame , tupperware bed and my personal favorite the looks that could and surely have gaged a maggot , and Toyota knew that the frame of the Tacoma was so substandard that they could not make '7.5 long beds and chassis cabs like the previous generation Toyota trucks had .

this new ranger will probably be a very good truck and it would most likely be the better than most small pickups, and i test drove the tacoma and its not that fast my ranger felt just as fast and its an 04

Still think they should make the F-100 with the V-6 Ecoboost Turbo. I know its not going to happen, but that the best way to go. This Ranger here showing doesn't look good. OH well!!!

i never had a ranger
i do love my 4.0 v6 taco can pull the heck out of a 6500 pound trailer filled to capacity
the bed isn't cheap tuperware plastics, its high strength thermo plastics reinforced with fiberglass, it won't rot crack melt and is dent proof and will out last any other truck bed out there hell it may even out live my taco
and i have only had one recall on my 2005 taco and i got it new in 2004 and toyota fixed it free of charge i have driven 54000 miles without any other mechanical problems or recalls
you probly drove a 2.7 inline 4 if it didn't seem much stronger than your ranger.
may i mention also that my truck passed many rangers on the side of road that caught on fire over heated,or dropped drive shaft and to show that i ain't a jerk to ranger owners i got out to help push a strangers ford ranger about a mile to his house , he and i both didn't have lines to atached our trucks so i got out and pushed him a mile home . so if you want to trash talk a taco think again they are better than the ranger has been for a while now

I don't own a Ranger if that was directed at me , and I damn well don't own a crappy new Tacoma . I did have three Toyota's (1986 4x4 pickup , 1985 Toyota 4x4 pickup threw a rod , 1991 Toyota Corolla threw a rod) I lost my Toyota kool aid addiction pretty fast when Toyota dummed down the US Toyota trucks and sold the good stuff everywhere else .

Like a mullet: car in the front truck in the back.
In other words, it doesn't look good. Why can't it look like a truck from the front? The hood slopes down too quickly and I can't imagine this thing looking like an off-road machine.

nice to see 6 lug nut axles on there, but it is way to ugly, the front end and windshield are both way to sloped for a truck, and hopefully itll sit higher then that load or no load

also dont mind the eco boost enignes, just not sure about turbos needing replacement after 150k, almost all ranger can go 150k+ now with no real problems, heard the turbos can go 300k so we'll see

Did anybody actually read the article? The sheetmetal means nothing at this point. The production truck will look totally different.

RayD reading and understanding is not the same thing. Apparently only some of us can do both.

i love how some people take comments against their chosen truck like someone spit on their mother, get over it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, im a chevy guy and drive a zr2 S10, colorados suck, and so do tacos? how queer... oh no now im going to hell!

give it chance and lets build it in america! tcap assembly is of the best in the nation.

I currently have an 03 4.0 4x4 Ranger. It is simply a rock. Never any problems and has been worked very, very hard in the construction business. I have had 4 others in my company service and have the highest respect for Rangers. They just get the work done. It is time for Ford to update it but start with offering a real back seat and four doors and I totally agree about the 6' bed. That will be the key. This is a market that Ford could own if they make it flexible and a mans truck at the same time.

The 1.6L Eco-boost engine should be fine for a base model reg. cab pickup, but the 2.5L Eco-boost eng. should be a second option for reg. cabs & extended cab pickups. The 3.5L Eco-boost V-6 should be an option for top of the line ext.cab versions & 4dr/crewcab pickups. This will put the Ranger ahead of most if not all small trucks in the segment.

My '85 Ranger is at 470,000 and still going. I hope whatever Ford makes is worthy of replacing it whenever it finally decides that it's ready for it's dirt nap. For utility and value, nothing comes close to the Ranger!!!

The Ranger is way overdue for a clean sheet re-engineer granted. But with the news that has come our way today from on high (atmospheric mpg standards...) the EcoBoost power trains will certainly play a part. They, along with the truck, just NEED to be robust, and idiot proof, no more Mondeo or Focus product launches. As people (read families that currently use a Supercrew as the family car) downsize in the coming years, Ford needs to be ready with a Ranger variant of a Supercrew (as well as Regular and Supercab) to maintain and enhance truck leadership. Include working versions as well with realistically sized beds to be sure. But what the Supercrew has done to the F150 product mix is irrefutable. GM and Crapsler, reduced to shells of their former selves, will have a hard time regaining this market segment after the Government tells them what they have to build.

Given the needs of the market and the demands of the new fuel-economy regulations, getting the new Ranger to the US and giving it the 1.6L eco-boost as the base and 2.5L Eco-Boost as the top end makes a lot of sense. The 3.5L Eco-Boost would be wild overkill in the Ranger (right now even the F-150 doesn't have an option that makes that much horsepower). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see an even lower base engine--maybe the 2.0L without Eco-Boost, a la the Transit Connect?

And given the recent trends in Ford styling, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until we see the real sheet metal on this thing.

The Twin Cities Assembly Plant Has The Highiest Quality In it's class, over Toyota,Honda,or any of the others , they deserve to build the new Ranger whatever it is

Folks, no one truck is better than the next. All motor vehicle manufacturers have recall lists on every vehicle that they make. Yes some vehicles will be more reliable than others, but ultimately they all break down the same. And if you dont believe me just go online and look up all the recalls on the specific vehicle that you have an interest in. So it all comes down to what the customer in question tastes are and what they will drive in the end. Nobody is perfect and they never will be perfect. One good example of a crapy car manufacturer, Rolls Royce and Bentley, they charge just a tad over a quarter of a million dollars for one of their vehicles and guess what they are the most unraliable cars in the world probably worse than Daewoo or Hyundai. You would think that a car that costs nearly half a mil would a least have a bulletproof engine that would never die. Go figure, guess they spend all that money on leather seats that can make you confortable while you sit on the side of the road and wait for AAA. Same case scenario for the rest of the automakers. I'm an auto mechanic and I enjoy what I do, being doing it for 18 years and I've seen everything under the sun. Until and automaker can make a vehicle that my great grand children can drive and has not broken down by that time, than that automaker can take the trophy of worlds most dependable vehicle, until then, the new Ranger looks good, I do agree with previous posts that it needs a 6 foot bed, maybe the rest of the world don't haul things like we do here in the good ol' US of A, and it sucks when you have to put your gate down even if it has a bed extender to haul something.

if ford is listening to this blog, and if they want to get out of this this domestic buying slump a double cab with a { SIX FOOT BED} better be an option or all those ranger owners who have been waiting for this overdue pick-up, will , i will gauratee you will be trading in your rangers for ,dare i say it,a tacoma !

My 96 Ranger has 300,000 on the original 4.0L with no engine problems at all. I replaced the 5 speed manual trans at 263,000 miles when it died. Other than that, nothing but regular maintenance. If Ford will come out with a Ranger with a decent diesel drive train in a Crew cab with a 6 or 7 ft bed; I'll buy four of them (I have that many trucks that I would replace). That 4' bed crap is for soceer moms, not people that need a truck to haul things that they use to earn a living.

I would LOVE to see a crew cab ranger with a diesel engine, they have them EVERYWHERE else in the world, but not in the US, WHY?????

European market is mainly diesel, their cars have evolved in that base and they are really reliable, South American market the same, the rangers there look pretty similar to those here, (not the European dough), and they pack a small v6 2.8 diesel, I'm not sure how many horses or lbs. of torque, but they use them for work there and they are good at it, in the US we need more fuel efficient vehicles, stop the E85 crap, cut that hybrid nonsense, and start making vehicles lighter and more efficient.

I used to have a small VW Gol (similar to the VW Fox but hatchback, sort of scirocco) and the little car packed a 1.6 diesel engine, yielding over 50 miles per gallon on highway. you can put 5 adults pretty comfortable inside and still have power to pass cars in 1 lane roads.

In Spain (i lived there for 2008-2009) they have other brand vehicles, (peugeot, citroen, renault, fiat, etc.) they have small pick ups, even smaller that the rangers, they load over 1200 lbs. and the power train is a small 1.9 diesel (non turbo) fill up the tank with 14 gallons of diesel and yields about 380 miles!!!!


I had a 97' Ranger for years, worked with it, and played with it.. Never hand any trouble except for the usual wear and tear, even after putting it through hell on a sat night and on the farm. Hauled everthing i needed it too and got me everywhere in the back country that i wanted to go. Put a set of rough tires on it and it will go anywhere. That is about the same with every small pick up. I once pulled a Nissan Titan out of a mud hole with it, then turned around and drove through the mud hole it was stuck in,and made it through. The new fords just don't look tough, and that 1.8 bull**** just isn't goning to get the job done. When I buy a truck, i plan on working with it, and i need a 4x4 with a little something behind it. I've drove other small trucks, and yeah all do pretty good, but now everyone is trying to get good gas mileage, which is great, but they are taking away to much power. That is fine for people who just want a truck, but when you need it for working and you want it to play in, you don't want that sacrifice that power for great gas mileage. Hopefully they will stick with some work model trucks with some good power behind them.

Isn't the sheet metel from a Mazda BT-50 (only sold overseas)?

Ford has been especially smart lately, especially avoiding a government takeover and sale to foreign investors. This truck is not one of those smart examples. The only mistakes they've made worse than this was selling Jaguar, which followed by a number of years the other Jaguar-related mistake, buying Jaguar in the first place. How can both buying Jaguar and selling Jaguar be a mistake? You have to change your thinking a bit, for example, AMF saved Harley Davidson, twice. Ask any Harley Owner of that era, and he will decry AMF. But, in truth Harley Davidson as a company would not exist today had AMF not bought them, and subsequently sold them to empolyees and investors.
Sort of the same with Jaguar, Ford saved them, fixed them, improved the quality and range of the line, then sold them for bottom-dollar. A schmuck move.

Going to a BIGGER platform is a BIG mistake. Buyers like the Ranger due to it's size and Ford quality. 4 door Lariat? Isn't that what your Explorer is for? You guys at the new Global-Ford are making some fundamental mistakes in both marketing and design. I've yet to see an truck manfr. offer a factory bed cap. It took 90 yrs just to get a spare tire and rear bumper (former options) I'll be in the market for a compact truck but if it's the size of a 70's F-150?, Nope, I'll pass.

I read an earlier artical, that stated Ford woould end US production of the Ranger after the 2011 Model. The artical stated Ford feared that the Upsized Ranger would eat into F-150 Sales too much. So if they sell Trucks what the hell is the difference?????

I saw these with 4 doors 4x4 manual trans in Afghanistan. Couldn't get them stuck. Harass little truck. Trade my fx4 f150 in for one of these any time.

The comments to this entry are closed.