Well you look at that? What! Solid rear axle and leaf spring technology. No wonder it's taking Ford forever to bring this truck to market. HAHAHA!

I doubt they put the 3.5 Ecoboost into it

2.7tt with a 10 speed will be class leading in terms of capability.
Anybody hear what the intended production numbers will be? I'm hoping for 200K a year, which will enough to dethrone the Tacoma.

Class leading sales for both mid-size and full size would be something for Ford or any manufacturer to attain.

Looking at the difference between this and my BT50 (Ranger) this is a US spec'd vehicle, with a half ton spring setup. The shock absorbers are identical, except I don't know the metering.

The diff is a 8.8". I wonder if the US version will come with an E Locker as standard across the board?

Judging by the position of the muffler this isn't designed for any off road activity, so an E Locker might not be apart of the equation.

I hope the muffler in the final Ranger is positioned differently.

Anyone know if they will offer a folding bench up front like the old Dakota? I don't need full size, but occasionally need to carry my family of 6 with gear. Even difficult to find full size that carries 6 now a days. I hate these consoles.

NoQDRTundra,
I would bet the engine choice in the US will be a 2.5/4, 2.7 EcoThirst and possibly the 3.2 diesel.

I did read an article where the Ranger Raptor is likely to get the 3.5 EcoThirst.

For the sake of great performance and handling, the engine line-up should include Ford's turbo 4 cylinder as an option.

Surely it weighs quite a bit less than the 2.7 or 3.3 or 3.5

Knowing how the current management at Ford thinks there's zero chance for a V8 of any kind. Too bad.

@Big Al: That diff is not an 8.8. Its cover is asymmetrical like the rear end in the half ton. I'm guessing they'll use this axle with EcoBoost option[s].

Interestingly, images of the Ranger regular cab work truck from last month clearly show a different axle with a front carrier design [smooth cover with no bolts like the old Ford 9 inch, except smaller]. This axle may be the standard 4-cylinder-only unit.

redbloodoxy,
Its the same housing and rear plate that is used for current Rangers and BT50s that use the 8.8". It's actually the same axle assembly.

I don't see this as needing any different. The 8.8 will manage an EcoBoost very easily.

Remember the diff is there to manage torque, not horsepower and the 3.2 diesels were destroying the same Getrag MT82 that is fitted to the 5litre Mustang, but not the diffs, they managed the diesels very well. The diff centres are the same as the Mustang and some F150s (up to 2012).

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

This is why the EcoThirsts aren't the best engines for FE. We have them at work and they don't return these fantastic FE figures the Ford fanboys claim. And they don't like really not weather.

They should have made it look more like a little F-series instead of a Ford Taurus!!

If they put the 2.7L TT in it, that thing will be a pocket rocket, but a thirsty one!! LOL....would be fun to drive but fill up

Yea, it looks pretty bland looking. Has a Taurus/Edge front end.

@papa, no reply as your comments come without knowledge..

Great vehicle, except that co development with GM, that would worry me as a buyer, as we all know how the GM sides of transmissions work out. I wonder if GM fans will count this truck in their sales when it comes out due to the fact that is has GM engineering in it, I know I would do that.

Finally copying the Tacoma or should I say Toyota trucks since the 1980's.

Leaf springs above the axle and lower shock mounts not sticking so far below the axle, wow, took Ford that long to finally catch up.

10-speed tranny? Good luck with long term reliability issues!

We all now know what the BRONCO will have. Sounds legit.

Leaf springs above the axle and lower shock mounts not sticking so far below the axle, wow, took Ford that long to finally catch up.

10-speed tranny? Good luck with long term reliability issues!

Posted by: oxi | Oct 11, 2017 9:46:37 AM

Ford has been building Trucks way longer before you were even born, I will listen to Ford before you. I like Toyo's, but you're making me hate them.

Enjoy your day.

I hate consoles too.

I would rather have a 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

@michigan, thumbs up on that.

@papa, I bet this truck will ride rough eh?

@Big Al: I agree the 8.8 is more than enough to manage the torque. This particular rear end does not look like an 8.8, however. This on'e diamond-shaped and the 8.8 is virtually square. Maybe I'm wrong...[?]

Ford needs a motor that fits between the shock towers. The 2.7 and the other DOHC V6 motors are a horrible fit for the Ranger because the cylinder heads are so wide.

The turbo 2.5 is a sweet fit. The Mustang 2.5 makes 300+ hp

Looks smaller then Midsize judging by the width of the truck. I would call it a compact.

Saw this same truck at Silverthorne a couple weeks ago coming home from archery Elk hunting, they always stop at the McDonalds

That front end sure looks like a 1st gen Tundra.

The rear under this truck is not the typical 8.8 which has 10 bolts. This appears to have 12... at least by my count. Unless it's a new Ford 8.8 center casting. In any case the 8.8 with the 31 spline axles was the one to have. One of Fords better axles.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You'd think Ford would come up with something with more of an aggressive look for the biggest truck market in the world. I don't think GM or Toyota has anything to worry about. Only people that will go after it are Ford fanbois already buying F150s

Finally copying the Tacoma or should I say Toyota trucks...

Posted by: oxi | Oct 11, 2017 9:46:37 AM

I have to agree with you. Ford is the worst at copying everyone else especially styling. Look at the current F150 it's a cross between a RAM and TOYOTA.

If it doesn't come with the diesel i will be out.

I am certain the Ranger will sell very well, and am glad to see a mid size Ford is coming soon.

The cab( inlayed doors ,windows, mirrors, roof line, rear window,) look very much the same as the current Colorado, and has the same shortening of the rear crew cab window toward the bed. It will be a good looking truck in person.

Look at the current F150 it's a cross between a RAM and TOYOTA.

Posted by: What the heck | Oct 11, 2017 3:14:45 PM

You actually have it backwards, RAM/Toy copied the F-150.

:D

Lots of gum flapping, little substance. The smell of fear in the GM squids is palpable.

Lots of gum flapping, little substance. The smell of fear in the GM squids is palpable.

Posted by: GM Blows Chunks | Oct 11, 2017 3:48:21 PM

I think I speak for everyone on this site, even the jelly fish poster above. Bring the damn Ranger back already. Geez..... We will see just how well it stacks up against the competition. If the Ranger gains traction, the F-150 will be taking a hit. I don't think the Ranger will affect the taco or GM mid size twins one little bit.

GM finished the session higher today. Ford? Ford stock was down for the day. Ho hum.

Ill welcome this competition being a tacoma owner. Keeping the suspension stupid simple and steel is what will work. Having a base 4wd 4cyl model with a 5 speed manual or auto and cloth seats and a rubber floor is what will move these things.

I have alot of friends who want the ranger back but not in a 30k+ pretty boy truck. My friends work their trucks and worrying about blue tooth and leaky sunroofs, failing window regs. and a touchscreen that has absolutely no business in a truck. Leaf springs, steel lower control arms and 4 bangers is what they should focus on. Leave the ecojunks and leather and all the other stupid doodads for the office worker/weekend warriors.

I really don't understand the excitement over the upcoming Ranger. My 2012 Ranger was a rolling dumpster fire of a truck. Absolutely terrible gas mileage, body rust at the spot welds, junk transmission, cheap interior that had dozens of rattles, cheap brakes that constantly needed replacement, and junk wheel bearings. Brake parts and wheel bearings were genuine Ford parts and they were garbage.

That rear axle appears to be the same Dana M220 that the 2015+ Colorado uses. Which is surprising because previous spy shots posted on here showed a 3rd member style rear axle similar to the Hino axle used on the 3rd gen Tacoma.
Hopefully Ford doesn't use those junk plastic gear IWE's for the 4x4 system. They're completely worthless on the F-150 and Raptor.

Having a base 4wd 4cyl model with a 5 speed manual or auto and cloth seats and a rubber floor is what will move these things.
Posted by: Mvanbrunt | Oct 11, 2017

@mvanbrunt

I agree with your viewpoint but I'm not sure that Ford wants to devote so much shop-floor capacity to a model that competes with the Nissan Frontier base model at $24k or thereabouts.

I bet you'll see an ocean of $35k Rangers before you see very many stripped 4x4 four bangers.

I agree with your viewpoint but I'm not sure that Ford wants to devote so much shop-floor capacity to a model that competes with the Nissan Frontier base model at $24k or thereabouts.

I bet you'll see an ocean of $35k Rangers before you see very many stripped 4x4 four bangers.

Posted by: papajim | Oct 11, 2017 6:37:15 PM

Agree 100%

Dealer lots will be flooded with mid to upper trims, all loaded with extra equipment to drive up transaction prices. $35-38k will be the typical advertised price. There will be plenty of cheaper versions built but they're destined for fleet sales if anything.

Looks smaller then Midsize judging by the width of the truck. I would call it a compact.
Posted by: Ron | Oct 11, 2017 12:11:14 PM

It is, last week I did a side-by-side comparison of a US Colorado to my global Ranger plus a global Colorado aka Isuzu;
GOVT motors definitely fattened the US version by flexing buldges outer skin and more length, otherwise the inside cabin space interior are pretty much identical.
So if this is the final version of the US Ranger, then it will be slighly smaller than GOVT motor's twins...

@rammins

Several years ago I was predicting that the midsize market would be a dud, and I was partly right.

It's been fun to watch, but if Honda can't sell but 35 or 40 thousand Ridgelines it becomes hard to imagine how "success" will be defined in this market.

I've said more than once that the business conditions that made compact trucks a success 40 years ago, no longer exist in North America.

Ford isn't building other models that allow the Ranger to be sourced from an existing catalog of Ford parts the same way they could in 1986. Ditto for GM and the rest.

This results in a truck that has to retail in the same price range as a work-truck half ton. The half ton has much more versatility and power. It's a hard case to make.

I would have to see the final Ranger to judge it. It could be the newer Ranger and Bronco share the same platform and styling which would be better than having a Bronco based on a front wheel drive platform. I doubt the Ranger will look like the Global Ranger--it will be more Americanized more like a smaller F-150.

the newer Ranger and Bronco share the same platform and styling which would be better than having a Bronco based on a front wheel drive platform. Posted by: Jeff S | Oct 11, 2017

@Jeff S

Why didn't Ford win with the Sport Trac?

It was based on the rear-drive Explorer they were building in those days...a huge improvement over what GM and Ram had back then.

It was available with a six speed auto, and a 4.6 litre V8 Should have been a winner.

@papa jim--I didn't even mention the Sports Trac, This Ranger will most likely be less like a Sports Trac and more like a Colorado/Canyon. GM was testing Global Colorados in the US and everyone thought that the Colorado would look like the Global version with the same drive trains--didn't happen the US Colorado was different and the next generation of Global Colorado looked more like the American version. Colorado/Canyon has had larger sales than GM thought it would have and much larger than many on this site said it would. I don't think Ford would be coming out with a US Ranger if they did not think it would sell and I doubt Ford would be introducing the Ranger if the Colorado/Canyon would have flopped. If anything the GM twins success has been a game changer. Also I doubt the Ranger will just be in a crew cab like the Ridgeline or Sports Trac. Ford would sell a number of extended cab Rangers. Sport Trac is yesterday's news and Ford would have done better to add a crew cab to the original Ranger as Chevy and GMC did with the S-10 and Sonoma.

I didn't even mention the Sports Trac

@Jeff S

No -- I understand.

I keep bringing it up because it was a rear-drive SUV and Pickup build on the same platform as the Explorer. It had an up to date drivetrain, and independent suspension all four wheels. It even had good reviews from Consumer Reports.

You seem to think that the Bronco won't succeed as a Front-drive SUV, so I think the Explorer/Sport Trac is very relevant.

Ford has missed the opening in the market by a country mile. They should have been doing this at least five years ago. The train has left the station.

The Avalanche was based on the Silverado but it did not sell as well as a crew cab Silverado. It is possible that the Avalanche was perceived by most truck owners as too unique and not truck like enough. The same thing could be said of the Sports Trac which even though similar to an Explorer it was different enough not to be accepted even though it might have been more advanced than the competition. The Lincoln pickups were based on the F-150 but then Lincoln pickups were not perceived as being as truck like as the Platinum or King Ranch versions of the F-150 even though they are very expensive. The Ranger name carries more credibility than the Sports Trac name just as Silverado has more credibility than Avalanche. Not everyone makes a totally rational decision when buying a vehicle.

Sport Trac was similar to an Explorer which both were similar to the Ranger at the time the Sport Trac came out. The present Explorer is totally different and is based on the Taurus and not the Ranger.

@ Frank,

Nice try liberal...

Toyota has been building trucks in this class much longer than Ford, in fact Toyota had the first 4x4 in this class, so please educate yourself before you speak!

@Jeff S

Please explain why you mentioned the Bronco in this discussion. You said the Bronco needed to be a rear drive vehicle. Just trying to understand.

@Trucky048
Biggest Truck market in the world? Global Pickup market will be 2.4 million in 2020.
If they can get a factory in Thailand , Hyundai will start building their" Hilux Fighter" . It will be NOT the US Mini Pickup
Us Ranger will be virtually identical to the Global one except for differing weights, payloads and engines

https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/hi-po-hyundai-ute-under-consideration-109338/

That axle definitely has a 12 bolt cover, but the asymmetry could be just from the camera angle. It's a very square shape (like the 8.8) I thought the F150 used a mix of 8.8 and baby sterling)
Engine wise, I think we'll see the a turbo four and the 2.7EB. A NA 4 is too small, and the turbo4 and 3.3 is an overlap. This thing would be an absolute riot with the 2.7EB. The 2.2 Duratorq seems a bit small, but with the 10 speed it could work. The Lion V6 is expensive, but Jeep is supposed to use a V6 diesel in the JL Wrangler and JT Scrambler.
While the T6 currently only uses inline engines, the Bronco that will be on the same chassis would be DOA without at least the 2.7 EB, and it really should have an optional V8.

The late generation Rangers were very reliable but nothing is perfect. I have one friend with a 2500 GMC that's a driveway queen because he has s mid 90s Ranger as a DD. Another friend with a beautiful Ram 1500 has 2 mid 90s Rangers. They don't own anything else Ford but insist this was the best truck Ford ever made. All sticks and the 2.3 and a 3.0. None are pretty, but used hard and reliable. We'll see if the next gen is as good