What is the wheelbase on that Jeep? It looks cartoonish in this depiction.

Needs to be offered single cab like the original Comanche

While both of these illustrations look pretty good, I’d say they are both too similar to current products on the market. The Ford Ranger shown is way too close to what other markets have right now with some Explorer wheels added on and a lower front fascia tweak.. Word on the street is that the next “global” Ranger that the North American market will finally get will be an all new design from the current Ranger (which just received a refresh for ’16). Don’t get me wrong this forbidden fruit is the best looking mid-size truck out there (in my eyes). As for the Jeep truck illustration, it looks like the current Jeep with the C-pillar moved forward and a bed slapped on with a weird rocker panel added. Nothing remarkable about that, but it doesn’t look too bad.

If that Ranger were available here in the US right now and had a crew cab, long bed with 2.3 or 2.7 Ecoboost, I’d part ways with my 2002 F-150 Lariat SuperCrew in a skinny minute. No more full size trucks for me... way too big and bloated for my needs. I really like the new GM mid-size twins and the new Tacoma, but I’m holding out for at least two more years before I buy a new truck… I want to see what Nissan, Ram/Jeep and Ford bring to the table with regards to a mid-size truck. Competition in the market is good for everyone, especially us, the consumers. Bring it Ford!

The jeep has the look nailed.

The Ford chasing the mid size GM twins in sales and looks. Follow the leader.

Keep guessing.

The Ranger looks almost identical to the current global Ranger.

The current generation of the global Ranger went on sale in 2010 with few updates. By the time the US Ranger goes on sale it should be time for a major redesign.

Ford won't be chasing mid size. It will be a compact.

Considering Ranger always outsold Chevy's toy offerings when it was in the market Ford is chasing nothing. I look for the returning Ranger to saturate this market and hurt its profitability for all parties involved. The silliness of pretend trucks is masked by their cool and imaginary use. The real value is in full size half ton V6 trucks if you really do need a truck but one of these toys will do.

The Jeep will have Niche appeal (like the Raptor, Hummer). It will be an offroad/status toy for those that buy it. The more it shares with the Wrangler the more cost effective it will be and the more cost effective it is the less it even needs to sell. Don't expect big sales numbers but it doesn't need them either. It wont have discounts and rebates, production will be low, costs low and the cool factor will be high. Even if it doesn't work it represent minimal investment (if they keep it close to the Wrangler) and not a big loss for Fiat.

The Ford chasing the mid size GM twins in sales and looks. Follow the leader.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jun 17, 2016 8:04:22 AM

Last I checked the mid sized leader is NOT GM. So I'm not sure if you meant Toyota or not but you should have.

Not sure how Ford is chasing in looks either because that Ranger has been out for a while.

And yes, at first the Ranger will be playing catch up to GM on sales but it will not take long for it to pass GM sales and close in on Toyota.

Now the big question, will all the GM fan girlies starting crying foul when Fseries and Ranger numbers combine show Ford as the sales leader as a manufacturer? That is the current Montra for GM truck sales. All 4 children combined against 1.

That Jeep truck had better offer a manual transmission, --- with ALL engine options, including a diesel...

===================

Hope jc is right. We don't need another midsize. We need a compact truck. Something that can be sold for less than 25,000 in 4x4 and 30 mpg with a gas engine. I'd keep my full size and buy one.

@GMSRGREAT,

The leader is the Toyota Tacoma!

Did not learn math in grade school?

Ford Ranger should have never left the U.S. market. Now they are much behind the Tacoma, and Canyon/Colorado. Ford Ranger needs to catch fast...

The Ford chasing the mid size GM twins in sales and looks. Follow the leader.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jun 17, 2016 8:04:22 AM

You need to inform yourself more, bro. That Ford design pre-dates the Colo-anyon twins. I won't tell you that it's better, though--you'll have to find that out for yourself. Think of it as homework.

Hope jc is right. We don't need another midsize. We need a compact truck. Something that can be sold for less than 25,000 in 4x4 and 30 mpg with a gas engine. I'd keep my full size and buy one.

Posted by: Beebe | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:22 AM

I would agree also. The current GM twinletts are rather large. By looks along they look like the size of F150s prior to 2004 before trucks really got big. However I'm sure the marketing gurus will be looking at trends and mountains of data to determine if a small Ranger like before would best fit the majority or if the current mid size size would be more profitable. I'm sure they have to look at crash test safety also and bigger is usually better.

Ford won't be chasing mid size. It will be a compact.

Posted by: JC | Jun 17, 2016 8:07:15 AM

Do some research--the Ford is a midsize.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/rejoice-midsize-ford-ranger-pickup-may-return-united-states

We'll see. But...

"Some experts have speculated the new Ranger will have to be downsized to further separate itself from the F-150 before Ford's Wayne, Mich., plant is ready to start making the pickups."

Also, guy at BOF who works in paint has seen the new Ranger and says it is aluminum.

Just two more mid size pickups. We need small pickups!

Who wants a tiny pickup truck? Why that small? If it gets to small it will be impractical. The current GM midsizers are only an inch or two larger then the old Ranger in specs. The beds are close as well. If you don't believe me go check one out. If you boys are still not convinced and want a trucklet that tiny then may I suggest Fisher Price?

"As for the Jeep truck illustration, it looks like the current Jeep with the C-pillar moved forward and a bed slapped on with a weird rocker panel added. Nothing remarkable about that, but it doesn’t look too bad."
-- Posted by: Brian in NC | Jun 17, 2016 7:49:11 AM

That's an almost direct take on the Crew Chief as seen at Moab over the Easter weekend, given Renegade taillights, the JKU's smoother body panels and an extended version of the JKU's stock side steps. There's some chance that the next Wrangler will be downsized a bit, but I believe that's unlikely, so it looks like they added a foot to the JKU's wheelbase of 116", making it 128"-130". I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they borrowed heavily from the JKU for nearly every aspect of the truck to reduce the need for separate body panels and doors.

The only likely exception would be if they choose to build a new Wagoneer and use that as the base platform for both SUV and truck. Marccione has said all along that he wanted a Wrangler-based truck, but with rumors of a new Wagoneer to be larger than the Grand Cherokee, it makes sense they'd want to maximize on its potential.

For myself, I'd much prefer to see Moab's Comanche given an extended cab but the same length bed, admittedly stretching the frame a bit. Like the Renegade used as its base, it wouldn't really need to be a Rubicon-level off-roader; very few of the old Comanches went farther off road than farms and logging trails outside of custom modified versions that bore little mechanical semblance to their stock models. I personally like the Renegade and think it would be ideal as a light duty truck.

With reference to the Jeep, it would be more appealing if offered in both two and four-door variants. But that would mean two chassis, unless the bed is a "bolt-on" to the existing chassis .... Nice rendition though.

"Ford won't be chasing mid size. It will be a compact."
-- Posted by: JC | Jun 17, 2016 8:07:15 AM

Don't bet on that. Ford's already commented that the next global Ranger will be bigger than the current one. So don't be surprised if it's as big as the GM twins.

That would leave things open for a new Courier though. While I haven't heard much lately about the Hyundai Santa Cruz, photo comparisons put it at a much more compact size of nearly three feet shorter in overall length WITH the 'extended' cab, almost a foot lower roofline and an approximate 4' wide bed (between very narrow wheel wells.) That would put it somewhat in line with several GM, FCA and other compact trucks popular in South America and expanding into Mexico (Tornado from Chevy, Strada/Ram 700 and one or two others I don't recall off the top of my head.)

Ford’s truck group marketing manager, Doug Scott, told USA Today last year that Ford was considering bringing a smaller pickup back to the U.S. but that its price and size would need to be different enough from the F-150 to make it worthwhile.

“We’re looking at it,” Scott told the paper. “We think we could sell a compact truck that’s more like the size of the old Ranger, that gets six or eight more miles per gallon [than a full-size truck], is $5,000 or $6,000 less, and that we could build in the U.S. to avoid the tariff on imported trucks.”

Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/rejoice-midsize-ford-ranger-pickup-may-return-united-states#ixzz4BqpCTKqN

@Clint: You're listing quite a lot as givens but basing it on very little real data. Yes, I do agree the old Rangers sold more than most of the other mid-sized trucks; Ford as a brand is one of the most popular in the world. I myself own a '97 Ranger and like it for many reasons, most especially its smaller size. However, if as Ford suggests the next Ranger is as big as the GM C-twins, it will be ignoring the people who want a truly smaller truck like myself. I am far more a fan of the Ram 700 than the Chevy Colorado so as a result I would very likely NOT be a buyer of the new Ranger any more than I have replaced my old Ranger with a new Colorado.

And this leads me to your statement about the Jeeps. You make an assumption there that may not be valid simply due to the popularity of Jeep overall. Since the JKU was introduced, Wrangler sales have skyrocketed to around four times its previous rates. Four-door Wranglers are more common on the streets than the two-door models ever were and they are far more common even on off-road trails than two-door versions. I remember TJ owners swearing a factory-stock JKU would not be able to handle even the more basic trails that TJs needed at least 2" of lift to manage. They were quite surprised when stock JKUs ran red-level trails at Rousch Creek in Pennsylvania. Since then, JKUs have seen some of the most extreme lifts and mods I've ever seen on any Jeep before, easily challenging the military Hummer for off-road prowess at a far lower cost. Quite honestly, unless the price tag runs in the $50-$60K range I expect the Wrangler-based pickup to explode on the market far better than the Raptor ever did. If it starts in the $30-$35K range then you might as well kiss the Raptor goodbye.

Hope jc is right. We don't need another midsize. We need a compact truck. Something that can be sold for less than 25,000 in 4x4 and 30 mpg with a gas engine. I'd keep my full size and buy one.
-- Posted by: Beebe | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:22 AM

I would agree also. The current GM twinletts are rather large. By looks along they look like the size of F150s prior to 2004 before trucks really got big. However I'm sure the marketing gurus will be looking at trends and mountains of data to determine if a small Ranger like before would best fit the majority or if the current mid size size would be more profitable. I'm sure they have to look at crash test safety also and bigger is usually better.
-- Posted by: LMAO | Jun 17, 2016 8:50:13 AM
----------------------------------

Strange how people here are starting to recognize the fact that today's pickup trucks are too large, after my presenting this point on PUTC now for the last four years or more. All too many kept insisting you needed BIG to be useful as a working truck yet today's big trucks are little better than family sedans for most owners.

If, and I do emphasize IF, true compact trucks return to the American market, I think we'll see a remarkable shift in what we see on the roads as crossover-style SUVs and full-sized trucks both lose market to more agile, smaller, pickups. Maybe then the full-sized truck can return to its original purpose--a true, working, machine.

It's good, that more midsize trucks are coming. This is my next one with 6.4 HEMI and upgraded 8 speed.

http://www.allpar.com/news/2016/06/2017-ram-power-wagon-laramie-caught-31987

"Who wants a tiny pickup truck? Why that small? If it gets to small it will be impractical. The current GM midsizers are only an inch or two larger then the old Ranger in specs. The beds are close as well. If you don't believe me go check one out. If you boys are still not convinced and want a trucklet that tiny then may I suggest Fisher Price?"
-- Posted by: Dan | Jun 17, 2016 9:12:17 AM

Why that small? Because someone who lives in a suburban environment or even urban environment may simply not have the space to maneuver today's Road Whales™. Today's full-size trucks need a minimum of 40' to turn around and a two-lane street is typically less than 30' wide. A '97 Ranger, smaller than today's mid-sized trucks, can make that turn easily without going off the pavement. Some of the older, more compact models could do even better. Agility like this makes them FAR more practical in a congested environment.

So practicality is in the eye of the user. If you absolutely need a large truck, then feel free to own one. But don't belittle the person who NEEDs a smaller one just to reach their job site or maneuver safely in dense traffic and narrow streets. Don't belittle the person who simply doesn't want a vehicle large enough to carry five people AND a compact car. Practicality is what serves the owner best under most circumstances and sometimes bigger is simply not better.

I like them both. The market is opening up again for smaller trucks with good pricing and good FE. The GM twins are nice but not to far down the ladder in size from the full size trucks and the prices are very close. The Ranger will be spot on if they make it the size of the old one. Sales would skyrocket I believe. Jeep needs a truck also and this one looks very sharp too. Try it in a regular cab for the old jeep truck look. Very sharp.

the market for these smaller trucks is abroad, not here.

Go to Africa, or the middle east, and you see Nissan and Toyota pickups everywhere.

Why? Lousy roads.

In much of North America -- apart from the cities that were built back before the automobile was invented--good roads are the rule and larger trucks are right at home. The modern half ton crew is the king of versatility -- it's why they're so popular.

@papa jim
You are right .Truck is swiss army pocket knife vehicle. They got ridiculously expensive, because of that.

The very size and price of a large crew cab pickup will eventually lead to them becoming out of range for most buyers. This will take some time but with increasing fuel economy and safety standards the prices of trucks will continue to rise. True you can get a large discount on a full size well equipped pickup but there is only so much discounting that the manufacturer will be willing to do. Also fuel prices will rise again. Now the manufacturers are doing well they might as well capitalize on the large pickup and suv craze but this will not last indefinitely. Ford and GM are in a much better position to transition to other types of vehicles and have had success in smaller and midsize crossovers and cars. FCA has more dependency on Ram and Jeep and does not have a competitive small and midsize crossover and cars.

Ford would be better with a true compact pickup in NA but I think that NA will have some form of the Global Ranger which is an excellent truck but will not give them a distinct advantage of being much smaller and more fuel efficient. Having said that I myself would be interested in the Global Ranger.

A big part of the future market for new trucks as well as any future new vehicles will be having enough good paying jobs to sustain the market for new vehicles especially those that are well optioned. Manufacturers will have more of a challenge to contain costs and meet the future efficiency standards while maintain prices that are affordable. There is a limit to how long you can extend a loan or how cheap you can make a lease. We will see more consolidations and mergers in the auto and truck manufacturing and more sharing of platforms and components. Containing costs and becoming more efficient will become more critical for the remaining manufacturers and more manufacturing will be outsourced to countries with lower labor rates.

@Jeff S

Jeff the cost of a truck is the difference between the price you paid for it new, and what you get when you sell it.

Homes in the suburbs out in California are priced five or ten times what they cost here in Florida, but the real cost is the difference between buy/sell price.

Please go back and read some of the stuff you were saying here on PUTC about this back in 2013-2014 before gas prices fell.

I agree with "Road Whale" on every aspect.... Jeep extended cab for me.... 6 foot bed so I can haul my hunting gear and deer/elk

Midsizers all the rage? Definitely fit in 235" long garages and make mall parking and U-turns easier. What's needed is a full size midsizer. More cab forward design and exclusive V6 engine compartment can reduce the length of a full sizer by 8"-10" if engineers were tasked to focus on that design. New V6 turbo technology is helping facilitate this shortening but not nearly fast enough because this country's love affair with V8 has not ended. Ford GT V6 Ecoboost might change that love affair this weekend at 24 hours of Lemans. I was born in 1966 when Ford GT took 1-2-3 at Lemans with a V8, but I, also like Ford, realize it is time to move onto V6's exclusively.

Take the Ecodiesel crew Cab at 237.9" long, 6'4" bed as example. Won't fit in a garage!

But if FCA redesigned for cab forward and V6 engine compartment exclusively, with some higher output Ecodiesels and Pentastar V6's, to appease the V8 die hards, then we could be down to 229" for the Crew Cab and even smaller for the Quad Cab. And even smaller yet when paired with a 5' bed, ie, a compact midsizer.

Colorado Crew Cab is 224.6" long with 6.0" bed. Not the 6'2" bed marketing claims because that is only at the bottom of the bed. I measured the top of the bed and it is 6.0". "Deceiving Marketing Specmanship." Tacoma is 221.3", but it's crew area is 3" smaller than Colorado.

Remember the engine compartment has no utility except for housing a power unit to pull loads or accelerate quickly. Let's hope Sergio Marchionne has tasked his designers to go the cab forward V6 exclusive route for next RAM, but I'm not holding my breath.

@Angelo Pietroforte

Your commentary seems to say that you find the V8 to excessive therefore the rest of us need to get in line and deep six the big block.

Good luck with that way of thinking. You'll do great with that approach.

I hope the next Ranger for sale in the U.S. is smaller than the current global Ranger. The last U.S. Ranger was long enough at 204 inches for the extended cab version. It needed to be about 3 or 4 inches wider and have the seats and the roof raised by about 3 or 4 inches since the seats were mounted too close to the floor. So I think the ideal dimensions for the new extended cab Ranger would be about 200 inches long x 73 inches wide x 69 inches tall with the seats mounted high off the floor as they are in most trucks.

@papa jim--My comments are not that difference, it is harder for the next generation to afford these trucks. Let me ask you one question--who is buying most of the new vehicles? Is it the older people like you and me or is it the younger generations? Unless there are more jobs created with wages above poverty level it will be hard to sustain the sales of premium optioned cars, suvs, crossovers, and trucks. After a while there is only so much credit you can sustain unless you have a steady good pay job. This is not so different than what you have stated before about the economy.

I understand that the value of anything is what a buyer is willing to pay for it. The problem is that even when the seller is willing to knock 10k or 15k off the price of a new vehicle how many units do you have to move. At the present time this formula works but will this always be the case. Just reducing the price of something doesn't guarantee that you will sell enough units to sustain a business. Higher paying and more stable jobs along with a more stable economy will sell more trucks, more houses, more appliances, and more consumer goods. Containing costs is a major concern with any business.

HA! Furd following GM once again.

@Angelo Pietroforte --I agree with your accessment of the the smaller engines requiring less space under the hood. Most of the F-150s sold have the EcoBoost engines and it is just a matter of time till most half ton trucks will come with V-6s and not V-8s which has happened with midsize cars which use to come with V-6s and now primarily come with I-4s. This is more of the matter of all the manufacturers finding many ways of meeting the new stricter fuel efficiency standards with smaller engines, lighter materials, multi gear automatics, and a host of other things. What papa jim doesn't understand that this is not being anti V-8 as much as this is what it is. Take a foot off the front of a full size half ton pickup and keep the bed and the interior with about the same dimensions and you have what is currently a midsize pickup. Once that happens then there is no market for a midsize pickup but then you have a market for a true compact truck. Ford went to aluminum body trucks mainly to reduce the weight of their trucks and GM and Ram will either take the same path or they will incorporate more aluminum with other lighter materials along with lighter and smaller engines and multi-geared automatic transmissions. All of these changes have and will continue to add to the costs of trucks.

@Papa Jim said
" Go to Africa, or the middle east, and you see Nissan and Toyota pickups everywhere."
Roads are only part of the equation. Going Off Road is a major part, towing a recreational vehicle or exploring back country is another.
US 1/2 tons are not that suitable for doing that( No, not a modified 1/2 Ton, but a standard family vehicle). Europeans have
Their Vans/Cab Chassis variants that are their " Swiss Army Knife". Global Pickups fulfill that function elsewhere

@Brian in NC
Yes the photo shown is the current Ranger
http://blog.caranddriver.com/ford-ranger-may-return-to-u-s-by-2018-for-reals/

I personally own as daily drivers a 14' Global Ford Ranger Wildtrak, '04 F150 Lightning & '13 F150 (I recently sold my '12 RAM 2500 Cummings as to many mechanical issues). So I can safely attest that although there is nothing like driving a full size truck - I enjoy tremendously my time in the Ranger - reason; it's amazingly nimble, sufficient comfortable room for 4 adults, decent load/towing specs & best part - easier to find parking. The 3.2 turbo diesel get's it moving with no problem (once you've gotten use to the slight turbo lag) & I'm often surprised of the untapped power & sufficiency when passing at 50-70mph. Sometimes, you really need to ask yourself - do I really need all the extra space of a full size truck that is carrying mostly air or need 400-500 hp to carry around my 200 lb mass??...no not really.

And as I said in past posts; I have friends/family with the best from all other brands (Nissan, Toy, Colorado, D-Max, Mishibitshi, VW Amarok) and we've all cross-driven each others trucks & hands down the Ranger tops them all in ride, quietness, power & off-road etc etc.

I can only imagine when Ford brings this current platform to the US that is already superior to everything that is out there & they will certainly make sure it will be improved again to mop the floor with the competition.

Lastly, I just hope Ford will not reduce the size from the current global version, I believe having it a few inches less in width/length will not make much difference in the end....but yes, the base model needs to be starting 25k....my 2 cents.

A taste of what to expect from current global Ranger if available in the US;

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/06/ford-ranger-3-2-tdci-wildtrak-f-150-another-universe/#more-1353554

A recent comparison of current global Ford Ranger (a 6 yr old platform) with the latest offerings from the best including the almighty Toyota HILUX & Nissan's spanking new Navara;

http://www.caradvice.com.au/388419/ute-comparison-ford-ranger-v-holden-colorado-v-isuzu-d-max-v-mazda-bt-50-v-mitsubishi-triton-v-nissan-navara-v-toyota-hilux-v-volkswagen-amarok-2/?plista

@Jeff
FCA has more dependency on Ram and Jeep and does not have a competitive small and midsize crossover and cars.

Wishful thinking.

@RAM--If FCA is doing so well in the car and crossover market then why is the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 piling up on dealer lots and why is Sergio talking about discontinuing them? I personally have nothing against either product but the market has spoken. FCA has yet to introduce a competitive compact and midsize crossover that will compete against Toyota, Honda, Ford, and GM. Instead Sergio diverted valuable funds over to Alfa Romeo which he claims the platforms will be shared with other FCA products. FCA needs to spend those funds on developing the next generation of Ram trucks, Jeeps, and competitive crossovers and FCA needs to put their emphasis on quality. To start with FCA should offer a 10 year and 100k warranty and stand behind it. I don't want to see any industry fail. The one thing that Sergio has stated that makes sense is outsourcing the production of compact and midsize cars. Sergio needs to stop using Ram and Jeep as just a cash cow to subsidize Fiat and Alfa Romeo.

@RAM--below are some links that are not Mopar fan based that prove my point.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/05/despite-fcas-clear-effort-chrysler-200-still-isnt-selling/

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/tag/chrysler-200/

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/04/dodge-takes-scalpel-dart-lineup/

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/03/plant-shutdown-extended-chrysler-200-continues-unpopular/

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/03/chrysler-200-demand-dries-fca-tries-clear-200-inventory-glut/

Let me ask you one question--who is buying most of the new vehicles? Is it the older people like you and me or is it the younger generations?

@Jeff S

You changed the subject--unemployment (and under-employment) of young families is a recent problem in America.

Up until about 10 years ago, America's young families were doing fine, making money and participating in the American dream.

Buying homes and new cars/suv's and trucks. Fast forward 10 years.

Now they're guests living in Mommy's basement! Which is a political/economic issue, not related to truck design or FE. 2016 is an election year. We'll see if the people who ran the US economy into the ditch get a dressing down over it (or not).

@Jeff
FCA is not doing great in the small cars, but Ford is doing even worse. It's general trend. At least FCA produces completely new Minivan, Ford doesn't even have and doing very well in Light Truck category, where FCA is #1.

Give yourself a favor and go to the Ford web site to check the May break down numbers please.

FIESTA -34.8 %
FOCUS -27.1 %
FUSION -21.5 %
C-MAX -28.5 %
TAURUS -37.4 %
POLICE INTERCEPTOR SEDAN -23.9 %

@RAM we don't always agree but your Ford stats are very revealing.

Ford's product line apart from the Mustang and the F150 is old, bald and toothless

Ranger? dead on arrival
Expedition? a blip on the radar
Flex? are you kidding?
Explorer? recycled Volvo (first gen) XC90
Taurus? more recycled Volvo 1990s tech

Jeff S lives in an economically devastated part of the country so he's not surprised that the rest of America labors along in a near-recession.

The big auto makers are very afraid of the lousy consumer sentiment today. The risk of investing huge money in new product development is forcing the FCA, GM and Ford managers/execs to carefully avoid risk.

Hence, no new ideas. Example: Ford's big investment in weight reduction and turbo sixes is not showing a huge return yet.