Spied: 2016 Global Ford Ranger

Ranger.flc01.KGP.ed-X2 II

GM is about to find out, with the addition of the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon, if the U.S. market is interested in a small, less expensive and relatively versatile little pickup truck. Some analysts say that much will depend on the pickups' price, and depending on the customer reaction, other small truckmakers will be ready to respond. We've always thought the global Ford Ranger was a strong player, but Ford has said that the Ranger's price and sales volume wouldn't work in the U.S. and that's why it's not available here. Of course, it never hurts to be ready just in case.

This report from our spy shooters in the Rocky Mountains seems to bear that strategy out.

"We recently caught Ford engineers testing a prototype of an updated global Ford Ranger in the mountains of Colorado. The face-lifted prototype captured here gets a new front fascia and the camouflaged interior (partially revealed) shows that the interior is also getting some attention.

"The midcycle face-lift could be seen as a new chance for Ford to better tailor the Ranger for U.S. tastes — just as GM overhauled its global Colorado pickup specifically for the U.S. market. Of course, it would be very interesting to see the Ranger hit the U.S. market in light of the increased focus on smaller trucks from GM, Nissan and a new Toyota Tacoma likely in the works. But we know that's unlikely.

"With Ford's attentions and investment centered on launching the new aluminum F-150, and developing a thoroughly overhauled Super Duty lineup, it's unlikely that a U.S.-spec Ranger is very high on the priority list for Ford's U.S. product planners. Of course, if the compact pickup segment started to take off, however, one wonders how long it could continue to ignore this market segment."

KGP Photography images


Ranger.flc10.KGP.ed-X2 II

Ranger.flc11.KGP.ed-X2 II

Ranger.flc12.KGP.ed-X2 II

Ranger.flc05.KGP.ed-X2 II



The best version of the Ford Sport Trac did not sell well. That was the V8 Six Speed with IRS.

It was a leader in a pretty lame category at that time but it was pricey in the V8 trim. The V6 was lame

There are a lot of Ranger fans here in the US, if Ford built a new Ranger here it wouldn't have a hard time selling. Interesting that they are testing it in Colorado. Seems pointless if there is no intentions of ever selling it here.

This truck isn't coming to US. Not a chance. 0% probability.
Next generation, maybe, but not this one.
It takes years to set everything up for production. They don't even have a facility to build one here. Minnesota plant is closed down. They can retool existing production line in about 2 month, but to build one from stretch is another story.

Are you spinning and trolling again?

A global Ranger can carry 3 080lbs.

What does a 2013 Ford F-250SRW 4x4 172.4"wb carry? 3 020lbs.


So Mr UAW, I gave a link.

Also, DenverDunce, interpret what I have written, don't put spin on it and troll like a loser.

Before you answer research and read what a person writes and don't try and take this out of context again.

Remember, this issue is what started your Denverdumbass multi posts.

You are one full of $hit individual.

These trucks are not small, their midsize 9/10 of a full size truck.

Trucks in this category will be much more interesting if they offer a 4 cyl diesel.

Not enough market for a midsize.
Antiquated, outdated compact Ford Ranger only sold 70K plus units it's last year.
Global Ford Ranger is too large, Ford has no compact truck anymore, midsize market is too small, too close to full size trucks, too competitive to justify investment.

I really like rangers, great truck, were cheap starting at $13'999 in Canada. This new truck is no ranger, it's big and more expensive. I wouldn't consider it over an F150 unless its significantly cheaper, even then its so ugly I may pass anyways. The F150 starts at $19'264 CAD. That will be hard to beat.
I don't see where it fits in the lineup.

Global ranger will never come here. No way Ford gives up on F series being the best selling vehicle in the US.

Do not be surprises if the built in more platform flexibility into the upcomming new F150. If the can flex the width down to 85% they could release a F100 to compete with Tacoma and GMs new twins but a little smaller. Plus the sales count as "F series". Would love to see them stock with 2.3 eb and 4 cyl diesel. With the new 2.7 eb and 5 cyl diesel as upgrades.

This is Ford's plan B.

If the Colorado does well Ford most likely will offer the Ranger.

If the aluminium F150 under-performs Ford most likely will offer the Ranger.

If FTA's are signed with the EU, Thailand, South Africa, or Venezuela (places global Ranger is built)

If pigs fly ;)

@Big Al

Just because the global Ranger has that payload does not mean it would have the same payload here. As I have explained countless of times our rating system is different to meet emission standards based on GVWR classes. Look here for reference just i have posted before http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification and https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php . So you can't compare the payload of an Australian truck to a US truck because the regulations on how that payload number effects it's class is different in both countries. I can guarantee you that a global Ranger would have a lower payload here because it would probably be in the LLDT class which has a max GVWR of 6,000lbs. Taking that 6,000lbs GVWR and subtracting the 4,500 lbs of the truck would make it substantially less that 3,000lbs payload that the global Ranger has. So again for the final time, the standards and regulations don't compare so continuing to compare vehicles from each standard is just silly.

Given the reality that an aluminum Ranger will not work, a new steel Ranger could weigh close to the same as the 2015 F-150’s smaller versions. The main reason for a smaller truck is affordability. Although some do like smaller trucks, there is no business case for them if they are not more fuel efficient by a substantial margin when compared to their siblings on the showroom floor. Sure Ford could make a hybrid or some other un-sellable version to post good fuel economy, but Ford has not done anything that dumb in a long time. Fuel economy is the main reason a new Ranger makes little sense.

The F-150 is a make or break bet by Ford, and they will succeed. Diluting that effort by looking at a small truck, to sell in much smaller numbers, for no fuel economy gain, was not the kind of questionable move Ford’s outgoing manager was known for making.

2015 Ford F-150 aluminum kills hope for new Ranger to fight Chevy Colorado - See more at: http://www.torquenews.com/1083/2015-ford-f-150-aluminum-kills-hope-new-ranger-challenge-chevy-colorado#sthash.pcF4ENam.dpuf

The market is such that Ford is unlikely to bring the ranger here until the chicken tax is repealed.

Honestly, these are great trucks. In global trim in many cases they are more capable than some of the lower level half ton trucks in payload and towing.

With the midsize diesels they get way better gas mileage than any truck half ton or midsize. I wis in Latin America recently and averaged 28MPG with the whole family of 4 and luggage on a ~300 mile round trip that involved some high speed 6070mph highway driving climbing some 5-6% grades as well as some rough road "offroading".

The problem? Its twofold, first every great midsize truck that comes here is completely emasculated when it reaches our shores just look at the Tacoma vs a Hilux. A Tacoma doesnt have even half the capability of the Hilux (bed payload is 3300lbs! for the Hilux for example and thats the short box crewcab)

Second, we are deliberately limiting our options by our closed minded regulation of "efficiency" such as all the nonsense attached to modern diesel engines and then the segmenting regulations for CO2 emissions based on vehicle footprint making a global midsize pickup that gets 30+ MPG's appear worse off than a V8 gas half ton that weighs 1000lbs more and maybe only gets 21-22 MPG's because the increased size of the half ton puts it in a different less stringent vehicle category.

The second aspect is, the US road system/ infrastructure doesn't really necessitate midsize vehicles. Off-roading as far as work trucks is concerned involves bouncing around in a muddy pasture or driving on logging roads. Unless it is muddy, 4x4 isn't even really needed in 99% of these cases. Cities are generally accessible to large vehicles and in most cases parking isn't too difficult. Most people have enough space even in a small home to park a crew cab full-size in their garage and maybe only have to remove the trailer ball to get the door to close. So the midsize vehicle really only appeals to someone who has an ATV or mountain bike or just wants a lifestyle vehicle and is maybe used to smaller cars so is intimidated by stepping up to a fullsize.

In the US driving 100-200 miles for a "daytrip" is not uncommon, and with a family of 4 having the extra room afforded by a fullsize makes a ton of difference in comfort, at only a modest sacrifice to economy compared to current midsize offerings. Until we get some seriously competitive global midsize trucks in the US, that attitude isnt going to change anytime soon, and lets face it, the big 3 wont do that because a truly competitive midsize truck would decimate half ton sales.

If you could get a sporty midsize truck with a premium interior (Global Ranger) that towed nearly 8k (global Colorado) and/or hauled ~3500lbs in the bed (Ranger, Colorado, and Hilux) and got 30+ MPG unloaded (any of the global diesels), the lower level half tons would disappear.

Looks like a mini crew-cab tundra

There are lots of Global Rangers roaming S. Texas. They come up from Mexico. Some people claim they are 90% the size of an F-150, and that's just not true. They are tall, but they are not very long and not nearly as wide. 80% of an F-150 is more accurate.

I would love to have a Ranger here, but like other posters have mentioned, a true compact truck might make more sense. I don't know if another midsize truck is the answer (unless it is priced right).

@ALL1 and all the other detractors,

The more you push the more I will become resolute.

What I find intriguing is that you have labelled me a midsize zealot, when in fact I don't support anything.

I give midsize feedback because you guys don't have what we have.

You seem to talk about midsizers much more than I do, you must very interested in them.

Give it up, between all of you I don't think you are convincing.

It's all well and good to be loyal. But loyalty can only go so far.

When there is a plethora of facts and data supporting an argument it becomes rather boring. Sort of like re-inventing the wheel, if you have heard of that phrase.

Most of the time the impression I'm gaining is that I'm debating the same person, but with different names.

Post what you want, I have proven all of you are just ignorant and fearful of what you deem the unknown.

Our country went more or less what you are going through now. You have nothing to worry about. No matter what happens in your vehicle market there will always be some form of light commercial vehicle.

@Big Al(maybe)

I surely hope that is not the real you which I am thinking it is not considering what time it is in Northern Australia. If that is the real then that last post made you look dumber then a 5 lb sack of stupid. The payload difference has nothing to do with popularity and has everything to do with our emissions and vehicle class standards/regulations. The global Ranger would be in the LLDT truck class here just like the current Tacoma, Frontier, and GM twins which would dramatically effect it's payload rating here since it cannot exceed 6,000lbs GVWR. If you don't like it then go take it up with our EPA, but don't forget to come back to tell us how far that got you.

@Big Al Form OZ

Im inclined to think that if the Ranger made it here it would not have the same capabilities it has in OZ as it has to meet diffrent regulation that the US government puts on vehicles.
To illistrate i will use the Escape/Kuga Comparison similar to the one i used in the past to ajust the cost of a Ranger in the US market.

2014 Escape
Engine Max. Trailer Weight (Lbs.)
2.5L I-4 FWD 1500
1.6L EcoBoost FWD/4WD 2000
2.0L EcoBoost FWD/4WD 2000
2.0L EcoBoost FWD/4WD w/ Trailer Tow 3500

2014 Austrailian Spec Kuga (Braked Trailer)
1.6L EcoBoost Petrol FWD 3306.9
1.6L EcoBoost Petrol AWD 2645.5
2.0L TDCi Diesel AWD 3306.9

If you look at the comparably equiped vehicles you can see that the 1.6 escape can only tow 2000lbs reguardless of Drive type, where as the Kuga tows 3306.9lbs (1500kg) in FWD and 2645.5 (1200kg) in AWD

Looking at the 4x4 XLT Double Pick-Up 3.2 Diesel Auto (better MPG than Manual)
Trailer Tow 3500kg 7716lbs
Payload 1041kg 2295lbs
Fuel economy (L/100km)(Auto) 9.2 or 25.56 MPG
If it comes to America it will have rughly 75% of the Tow rating basd on the diffrences of the 4wd Kuga and escape, or 5833lbs towing, and probably no more than 1700lbs Payload in the best equiped senario.

That's the real BAFO's post, but reposted by someone else. It's been a running joke here for a year now. The people reposting his posts are illustrating Al's absurdity by being absurd (reposting Al's posts.) Also, sometimes BAFO will get lazy and google himself to find one of his own posts to posts.

@papa jim
I would almost agree with the statement or your interpretation of the US pickup market. You have removed the competition from your statement and comparison.

This taints your credibility, sort of like DiM. Papa DiM?

Except you have negated to mention a couple of things. It appears you have had a DiM'esque moment.

First, what about what we receive as global pickups? These should be entered into your argument as they are part of your argument. You just can't place certain biases on your arguments to attempt to gain more credence from you comment, ie, remove global competition when it suits.

Your comment lacks credibility due to your reluctance to make all pickups inclusive, whether global or US.

You only mention US midsizers, which are on par with tractors.

Second, FE? Well, as I've mentioned to many, US policy makes alternative diesel energy less viable and competitive with gasoline. We have pickups that already get 40mpg on the highway, with all of the bling that you hold so close to your heart. I do think our pickup truck and even commercial vehicle fleet FE average is better than the US. So, how good is your FE over your 1/2 ton pickup fleet?

Seating upgrades??? Is this like eating at Micky's, "I want an upgrade" as you pointed out. Why not just make a truck with the best possible seats?? So, a basic pickup in the US comes with a plank on top of two cement blocks??

Off Road package?? WTF?? If you make a 4x4, why do you need an off road package?? In Australia if we had to buy a off road package for an off road vehicle the company will go broke. A Raptor isn't the best example of an off roader either.

Outside of the US, an off road package is buying a 4x4 instead of a 2WD.

As you have displayed with your comment, the US pickup truck is built to a bare minimum, hence all of the upgrading required to make it competitive to a global midsizer.

No wonder you guys don't want to chicken tax removed. That's the way your argument appears papa DiM.

@papa DiM and UAW DiM,
So far I've been quite accurate in my predictions of the changes occurring in your pickup market. I never thought of aluminium pickups. But, people are prepared spend lots on SUVs.

All along people like yourselves will argue.

But, Australia has travelled where you guys are heading right now.

Even as close as 2004, people in Australia thought Ford and Holden V8s will be around forever. How wrong they were.

I would even hazard to guess that these aluminium pickups might even be the last of the full size 1/2 ton.

Hard for you guys to fathom. But some will live in the past. Many British did this up into the 60s, remember Britannia once ruled.

Even in the 20th century many British (and other Europeans) refused to believe in the rise of the US. Just like the attitude you two have. Adjusting is hard and I have empathy for you guys.

"We will not change, how is this possible".

Maybe you two should travel around the world, or at least use google.

That's what scares you, there are vehicles that can replace what you thought were invincible. Like our Holden and Ford utes, an Australian icon, gone, like the horse and cart.

What I find really odd is you guys want to protect and industry. But, yet claim that this industry is so strong that no competition will ever overcome it.

So, papa jim and DiM, should the chicken tax, and other technical trade barriers, ie, protectionism of gasoline engines, design, CAFE, etc be lifted?

You guys claim that the strength of the US full size pickup market is that great what impact would removing these barriers have? None apparently according to you.

@Paul aka DenverDetroit,
Why do you persist?

It appears the UAW lies and misinforms. You still are bullying and trying to use stand over tactics. Look at what you are trying to do to me.

You guys obviously think I'm a problem or you would not go to the lengths you go to multiposting under my name or writing blogs that will attract a response.

Trash America? I doubt it, I'll not talk something up or distort and mislead. Are you telling me that the US is in fine shape?

Read your above comment on tax. How much taxation was used to pay out your UAW pensions? Americans on little income are paying for your poor decisions. And you don't even accept responsibility, its always someones else's fault.

Explain that to my cousin who is needy and requires insulin.

You UAW guys will lie and misinform. You will tarnish and destroy if you don't get your way.

I might not see the US in the eyes of the UAW. But how well did you guys see it. You are selfish and don't give a damn about your fellow Americans.

Look at Detroit, you done a fine job in that city. How can we expect you to make responsible decisions for a whole country without ruining it.

FE is as important to me as anyone in the US, probably less so. Many have this view that running a vehicle is cheaper in the US. But in fact most in the US drive little cars.

And a REAL buyer looking for a truck would place runnings costs as paramount to a purchase.

So, there are very few in the US who wouldn't consider FE important.

Half the trucks sold in the US are life style vehicles the rest business and I would assume that over half of the so called business trucks are write offs and not used for anything more than a daily driver.

I see many small cars in the US. This leads me to believe FE is important in the US.

This Colorado will be coming out around the time of the aluminium Ford. So, how much will a aluminium Ford cost to get into?

The steel Colorado might be a lot more attractive. It will tow as well as most would require from a full size pickup, carry a family of 1.8 kids.

I think you will see the argument for a full size truck gradually diminish as the cost of buying and operating them increases, just like what happened to cars in the US.

Pickups will tend to migrate more into the 'SUV' market more than they have now. These will be replaced with Euro style commercials. This trend is already starting.

Remember many NEW full size buyers are the ones living the middle class dream. Not many can afford to own and operate a full size truck.

You are living in hope. The reality is the US pickup market will never be the same as the past. Many who blog on this site only look into the 'grand old days'.

Look at what is impacting and going to impact your pickup market. Exactly what killed the road barges of yesteryear. CAFE.

Pickups will gradually rise in price, until many can't afford them. Already the majority of the US population can't afford a pickup, that's why most drive 4 cylinder cars.

@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster/Tom Wilkinson at Chevy/mark49/Tom#3/Truck Crazy or whoever you want to call yourself.

Quit the crap, really.

It's getting long in the tooth.

You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.

Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.

Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.

Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.

If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.

It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.


@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster/Tom Wilkinson at Chevy/mark49/Tom#3/Truck Crazy/carilloskis or whoever you want to call yourself.

Quit the crap, really.

It's getting long in the tooth.

You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.

Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.

Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.

Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.

If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.

It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.


What is it with all these short bed pickups?!
(Ranger used to have a long bed option.)
You can't put much in the things. How's a homeowner/hobbyist, whatever, supposed to [safely] transport a few sheets of plywood, etc., anymore?
Buy a trailer? PITA!

The loads I carry are light but long; I don't need or want a 1/2 or 3/4 ton pickup. I need a simple, lightweight, long bed pickup, but there's nothing out there anymore, yet there is a market for them.

The automakers follow each other around in circles, each trying to outdo the other with the same basic designs. Heaven forbid one of them would actually come up with something practical and useful for the middle- and lower-class market that can't afford to drop $25-35,000 on a second vehicle that gets lousy mileage.

@Big Al

Since you are being a little dense about this and I some free time to waste, I will do the math for you, but first I will explain a few things. In the US, we use gross vehicle weight ratings(GVWR) to classify each vehicle for emission and highway regulations. The GVWR of a vehicle is the total weight of the vehicle plus the rated weight it can carry such as drivers, passengers, and cargo which as also known as it's payload capacity. The EPA regulated class that the global Ranger would be in in the US would be the LLDT class (just as the Tacoma, Frontier, and GM twin as mentioned before) which has a max GVWR of 6,000lbs. This is Federally regulated and cannot be changed by the manufacturer. The only way for the manufacturer can increase a vehicle's payload in its class is to lighten up the vehicle. So given that, let's get into the math.

Let's take the global Ranger 4wd 3.2L super cab that PUTC tested a few years back in this article. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/11/2012-global-ford-ranger-road-test.html.

The truck had a curb weight of 4,412lbs. Since the LLDT class a max GVWR of 6,000lbs, we would just subtract weight of the vehicle from that GVWR which would leave you at 1,588 lbs payload. Again, this is regulated by the EPA and other government agencies.

However, it is not always the case that every vehicle has a GVWR of the max GVWR in it's class. For example, some Ram 1500s have only a 7,000lb GVWR restricted by the manufacturer even though the max GVWR in it's class is 8,500lbs. I know it's complicating, but I am sure if you read it slow enough and many times then it will eventually come to you.

@ALL1 If a US version of Ranger was sold( which I very much doubt), it would be like the glorified Lifestyle Vehicle Chevrolet Colorado. That is a vehicle with much softer springing and considerably less capability than the Global version, in many ways. No way you are you going to get a MidSize vehicle with a much larger payload than a 1/2ton. From a marketing exercise it does not make much sense.
The 2015 Ranger is being tested in Colorado because the Mountains are much higher than you would get in Australia or South Africa, the two main development sites for the Global Ranger

@ALL1 Correct about GVWR and GCVWR . US vehicles are optimised as mainly sedans with some truck like ability, so payloads are vastly less. A 1/2ton is not much of a work vehicle, slightly better than the midsize Lifestyle Vehicles like the Tacoma. 3/4 and 1 tons are more suited to heavier work.
Here the midsizers would be flogged to death as work vehicles, used as "cars" or carrying heavy TC's or pulling 26-30ft 5vers that would be too much for a US 1/2Ton.

They get a Utility Bed up to 9ft long. Otherwise a trailer,which is no big deal. Keeps smaller beds clean

Your on the money, as I posted earlier, you cannot have a Midsizer have a much greater payload than a 1/2 ton , it would be a disaster from a marketing point of view.
Manufacturers are basically making 1/2tons into my old phrase
"SUV's with Beds"( Big Al from Oz, my phrase not DenMikes) as such the larger 3/4, 1 tons and Vans will become the default work vehicles.

Down under, weight scales are more liberal and requirements much reduced.

Exactly opposite US tow ratings are reduced here a 3/4 ton Diesel has a 9,900lb tow rating.US 1/2tons are only built for modest work loads.

Big Al-- This is an insightful link into the consequences of income disparity. Most of the guys on this site assume that the ability to afford full size loaded down trucks will last forever not realizing that what created the American dream is no longer true.


I don't think profit in the US is a dirty word.

I think profit is harder to come by and the ones looking for profit are envious. The dirty part of profit is many can see wealth created, but not distributed equitably. This is causing the polarization.

You can see some of the comments here on PUTC.

As for the US being a 'free country', well it might not be as free as you think.

Taxation, consumerism and profit isn't freedom. It is a function of freedom, it is a part of freedom.

Since I've started blogging the past couple of years I have found that many in the US have a different perspective on what freedom is.

Here's an interesting article from a couple of days ago. Read the article, yes income and wealth do contribute, but health like Lou pointed out and many other areas are a measure of how we are as a people.


@TRX4 Tom
Seriously, have a look at the message you are conveying.

The first aspect you must look at is, how much credence is in my story. If you know you're submitting a comment that distorts, people will recognise this. You can't gloss over comments that you "state" as a truthful or sincere, when you distort.

I want to write and read constructive debating. You are overly competitive, to the point where you distort. This will destroy your credibility. Please take this into account.

The multi posting probably is annoying not just me but others. This is a tactic used by guerilla marketers on social media and forum sites, like this one.

If you are frustrated, then don't submit comments. Take a "breather" collect yourself and then try and write a credible comment.

@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?


@TRX4 Tom, Luentenslager (including Tom Lemon)
"Did I just read ANCAP said safest truck in the world?"

Reading most of your posts I can see why you make so many errors.

You really are a fool. I would have thought people choosen for marketing would be smarter.

TRX4 Tom and your other aliases, you are dumber than dog s.................wow, try and add quality and truth in your statements. But from what I've read truth and guerilla marketing have nothing to do with each other.

@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 US has differing design regulations from the rest of the UNECE to protect its vehicle manufacturers. Eventually (read sooner than later) this will start to cost the US consumer.

Even on US roads the global Ranger wouldn't be considered a small or even medium vehicle.

@Big Al--That was the point of the link I posted in that profit is not bad but below living wages is counterproductive. Even Henry Ford was wise enough to see that paying his workers a living wage would enable them to become buyers of his cars. Better to pay a living wages and create consumers and taxpayers than to have workers earning subsistence wages and having to rely on food stamps and medicaid. We will never have a perfect system but a living wage benefits our economy as a whole.

"a living wage benefits our economy"

@Jeff S.,
Put down your carrot stick...

Economics 101: Minimum Wage and Living Wage

Being the kind compassionate souls we Americans are, we often get tricked into believing things because we want them to be true. Wages, jobs, and poverty are often passionately debated and exceptionally prone to hopeful misinformation and logical fallacies. Minimum wage and the idea of a “living wage” are examples of just that. They sound good and helpful but in practice they do more bad than good. They displace jobs and discourage hiring, cause increases in price levels, and they don't help the majority actually raise their quality of life. If this all sounds shocking and contradicts everything you believe to be true, then you are exactly the kind of person who needs to continue reading. Suck it up and keep an open mind. We all have the same goal and that is to improve everyone's quality of life.

In economics we refer to workers as labor. Capital is made up of certain property, equipment and resources used to create a good. An increase in the cost of labor increases the value of capital relative to labor. In the early 20th century elevators were operated by an operator who manned the controls. When these workers unionized and asked for pay increases the push button elevator took off. Today it is near impossible to find an elevator operator. This was a trade off when capital became more valuable compared to labor. When a minimum wage increase goes into effect businesses start taking action. Some of these actions include suspending hiring, laying off workers, investing in automation, or revamping operations to run efficiently with fewer employees. I can’t possibly outline all actions a business might take but I can tell you what businesses will not do in response to a minimum wage increase. They will not look for ways to hire more workers. Higher unemployment doesn’t help improve quality of life.

Another thing businesses do to adapt to a minimum wage increase is raise their prices. This is a change in price level. That means the people who were already unemployed and those who became unemployed because of the minimum wage increase are even worse off. They have no income and everything they need just got more expensive. Everyday Americans like small business owners, middle managers, blue collar workers; suffer from price level increases as well. Their wage doesn’t go as far as it used to so a minimum wage increase can operate like a pay cut for most Americans. Then you are left with the few Americans in entry level positions who benefitted from the minimum wage increase. Their paycheck increased but some of that is offset by the same price increases hurting other Americans. The result is ultimately a small quality of life increase by a few Americans and a quality of life decrease for most Americans.

Increasing minimum wage is like chasing a carrot on a stick. Imagine if we increased minimum wage to $100. How could a business possibly afford to hire anyone new? How could they keep all the employees they have? They couldn't. Could you still buy a candy bar for a buck? Absolutely not. Attacking poverty or quality of life through increased minimum wages will simply never work. It sounds good as a talking point and makes you think someone cares about the little guy but in practice it hurts most Americans.

The “living wage” is a vague concept that essentially attacks quality of life by raising wages. The problems with a “living wage” are essentially the same problems with minimum wage. “Living wage” is just more loosely defined. It is based on the idea that there is some minimum standard of living that people should be able to afford. Eighty years ago a “living wage” probably meant having the money to put food on the table and a roof over your head. Sixty years ago it might have meant having a house, a car, and a white picket fence. These days it is just as subjective. I would guess now it would include the previous items plus central air, a refrigerator, microwave, television, cell phone or something along those lines. Most Americans have these things and in the future I am sure people will think a “living wage” entails many more amenities. I want folks to have creature comforts but the concept of a living wage is that carrot dangling on a stick again. You cannot mandate pay raises to improve quality of life. Any action of the sort will do the same things minimum wage increases do. It will put people out of work and increase the price level. People calling for a “living wage” don't know what they are talking about. They are asking for a utopian pipe dream. They choose to look at the world through rose colored glasses. To these folks raising minimum wage, or paying some fictional “living wage” has only one effect and that is positive. This simplistic view is at the least careless and at the worst delusional.

There is only one way to raise quality of life and it is not through mandating higher minimum wages or assigning a “living wage.” You cannot bring wages up to the carrot, you can only bring the carrot down to your wages. The only way to afford a better life is to bring down the cost of items. You do that with innovation, by making businesses more effective and efficient, by developing better ways to manufacture and distribute goods. Things like this bring down the price of goods so we can get more for our money and improve our lives. Minimum wage creates higher unemployment and leads to a lower quality of life for most Americans. We need to educate ourselves and stop pretending that simple, feel good answers work in a complex economy. Good intentions do not always make for good results. You can slap lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig. Put down your carrot and stick and do something that will actually improve our quality of life.

Who gives a crap about the "Global Ford Ranger" they ran away from the Tacoma like little girls..

So Ford can go F%ck themselves.

Quality is Job None!

Big Al,

Seriously, consider getting a secure log-in. Your posts, and those of your detractors, have become a serious nuisance.

You called me out about my initial comment, but I honestly can't figure where you're coming from.

When the Sport Trac came out in 2001 (model year) it was miles ahead of the Toyota and Nissan competition. Chevy/GMC was still selling the 20 year old S10.

The Dakota was big on the outside and small on the inside, and funky all over (kind of like the chicks in the Aussie outback I bet).

So the Sport Trac V8 was king of the mountain. They updated in 2006 or so and it then had IRS which really separated it from the Chevy and the Dodge, but it was now competing with the modern Taco and the Frontier.

By then the US economy was starting to stall (2006 was the year that the Democrats took the Senate and the House, and global investment headed for parts unknown).

Ford had a cool trucklet but when properly equipped it was getting close to $40k. All wrong. Did not sell.

So, what part didn't you like again?

@Robert Ryan

I am guessing you didn't completely understand what I posted about the vehicle class GVWR regulations here. It is not the capability of the trucks that are limiting the payloads here, it is the standards and regulations .

The very same Ranger over there that has a payload of over 3,000lbs there would have a payload of half of that here. Why would that be? It is the very same truck with the exact same parts. It is because of the vehicle class it falls in like I stated above. The US and Australia's standards are completely different from each other which is why they rate the very same truck differently.

It is just how horsepower rating used to be higher in European car models in comparison to the very same car and engine in US models back in the day. They both used different standards on how they measured their power ratings and it wasn't until there was an SAE standard that they began to be the same. The same goes for FE rating between EU and US cars. The US uses a more rigorous testing than the EU standard which is partially why the EU mileage numbers are generally higher.

While it is true that some "half ton" class trucks here are basically speced out to be over-sized sedans, that is not the case with all brands and models. For example, take a 2014 F150 SCrew 4wd Ecoboost with an HD payload package rated at 2,310lbs payload and a curb weight of 5,850lbs. The gross axle weight rating(GAWR) for the front axle is 4,050lbs and 4,800lbs for the rear giving you a combined total of 8,850lbs that they are rated to handle. The front suspension coil is rated for 4,050lbs and the rear axe leaf spring is rated for 4,800lbs giving you the same combined rated of 8,850lbs. We both know the brakes and powertrain can handle more weight since it's tow rating is 11,300lbs so their is no weak spoke there. According to the axle and suspension rating of what it can handle, the truck is capable of a payload of 3,000lbs yet it has a payload of only 2,300lbs. Why? Because a rating of 3,000lbs payload plus the 5,850lbs curb weight would put the truck over the 8,500lbs max GVWR limit set for the LDT class that it is in. It is not the truck's capabilities that is the limiting factor, but rather the vehicle class regulations. However you are correct about some "half tons" being limited by their parts, but not all brands are that way.

Also, if you think that no body uses their "half tons" for towing heavy then you are dead wrong.....




The comments to this entry are closed.