Not too sure about throwing down the gauntlet, just typical PUTC hype for Ford products. Not really sure how you can throw down a gauntlet when the only powertrain option they are offering is a 4 cyl ecoboost from a Mustang...

Throwing down the gauntlet jest means you are challenging someone. Ford is definitely challenging the rest of the mid sized trucks by re-entering the market. Seems pretty easy to understand.
Ford will expand on the engines as needed. First things first, get a Ranger back in the lineup, with several levels of packages available. That's the most bang for the buck. Then grow from there.

I would also disagree on "throwing down the Guantlet" seems more like Ford sneaks into the back row...

Needs bigger tires. The EB compares well with the GM v6. Will be curious to see the head to head;
GM v6
HP 308 at 6800 (that’s pretty high)
TQ 275 at 4000
EB I4
HP 285 at 5000 (still kinda high)
TQ 305 at 2750 this is where the EB is better than the 6

Supercab looks like a winner!

Too bad there's no sign of a stripped Reg Cab option with stick shift and N/A 2.3 for the auto parts stores and Parks Departments.

Next step:

Skip the Raptor Ranger and go all out for a Shelby Ranger with 11 second quarter mile times and 0-60 times in the sub-5 second range.

Not too sure about throwing down the gauntlet, just typical PUTC hype for Ford products. Not really sure how you can throw down a gauntlet when the only powertrain option they are offering is a 4 cyl ecoboost from a Mustang...

Posted by: Tyler | Jan 18, 2018 7:21:52 AM

The 2.3L EcoBoost is better on paper than the Toyota V6 and Equal to or greater than the Colorado V6 ( slightly less HP, More Torque and @ lower rpm) in the current Explorer. I would bet Ford will have this tuned for 300-310 hp and 325 ftlb. It just seems to me that a 2.7L option would embarrass the competition where as the 2.3L will possibly slightly out perform the competition.

THERE GO THE F150 SALES, SHOULD HAVE CALLED IT A F100.

Glad I own two Toyota Tacoma's...

...should have called it an F100...Posted by: Chingon | Jan 18, 2018

Wrong! Very wrong.

When a company like Ford spends 30 years creating an identity around a particular product like the Ranger, you don't change the damn name!

Calling the midsize sedan a Ford 500 instead of calling it Taurus was a huge mistake for Ford. Dropping the name Bronco was a huge mistake for Ford and naming their next short wheelbase SUV an Escape was a huge mistake for Ford.

Dressing up a Pinto to look like a Mustang was a huge mistake for Ford. Building a big fat 1970s lead sled and calling it a Thunderbird was a huge mistake for Ford. Let's pray that the suits in Dearborn have learned a lesson about identity.

Great brands like Mercedes Benz, and Rolex, and Chanel, don't change their product names every time some marketing VP takes a notion to. Ford should have learned from them.

That ExtraCab model doesn't look too bad from the outside. Will need to replace the worthless back seats with some kind of utility shelving to make it worthwhile.

I'm sure the first year will be overpriced. The following year should see more engine options and some sales incentives as dealers start to stock up on them.

I think Ford is really smart with the ranger so far.

The design is already proven. It has received great reviews everywhere it is already available. And the development costs have already been paid for, so they can probably be competitive on price right out of the gate.

Some say waiting so long to bring it here was a mistake, but I think it is smart. The Colorado doesn't seem so new and great anymore. Some people will be ready to trade their Colorado's soon and they will be looking at this. It's kind of like the mustang vs. Camaro. They don't like to do upgrades at the same time. A new mustang came out and did well. Then the new Camaro came out and as a fresh new design it sold better than the mustang even though most comparisons still favored the mustang. Then the mustang was upgraded and took the crown again. And back and forth it has gone. The ranger will do well simply because it's a solid design new to North America.

One engine option is smart, especially a high performance 4 cylinder. It will probably be as powerful as any other midsize, but doesn't look good compared to half ton options of turbo v6 and v8. Less likely to steal sales from f150. If GM or Toyota do some power train upgrades then Ford has a powerful 2.7 ecoboost to win back more customers later.

Same for the interior. Ford made it just nice enough. They can do a refresh with upgraded materials and features in a few years and win over more customers.

You don't play all your cards at once. What Ford has here is a pretty good card to begin with. I would be surprised if it doesn't sell really well in the first year. Could easily sell more than Colorado if the price is competitive.

Some say waiting so long to bring it here was a mistake, but I think it is smart.

@Beebe

Ford's competitors sold millions of very average quality midsize trucks during the last five years. Ford's lousy mid-size strategy was a giant business failure that cost them billions of dollars, especially at a time when the stock market is negative on Ford stock.

Do you really think that is "smart?"

Wow. So old look, old powertrain and possibly payload news in the future is no lowlight, but HEMI with eTorque and RAM's more payload is ?
No worries . I expected that. That's why I don't come here very often. This web site has become a ford joke long time ago.

Glad I own two Toyota Tacoma's...

Posted by: oxi | Jan 18, 2018 8:59:30 AM

Yeah, just in case one breaks down, nobody will notice. :D

I agree with Tyler and Jason; how can PUTC make that claim when there are no specs or pricing to back up the statement?

My guess is Ford will position the Ranger by offering a very competitive price, that would be more fitting for a midsize truck.

I guess someone like to post under my username. This is the real chingon and I never would’ve say nothing bad about the number one truck on the planet THE FORD F-150 the real king of sales. Maybe is a GARBAGE MOTORS COMPANY GIRLY FAN THAT HE DOESN’T accept THAT THE NEW RANGER IS GONNA Knockout the poor Colorado and cayon both at the same time. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sweet truck albeit already dated. I like the removable carrier rear axle.

Nice truck.....I4turbo will make nice power ,and IF I were to have only one engine , but......GM offers a base I4 for fleet and inexpensive company trucks, a powerful V6 with a good 8 spd trans AND a good torquey diesel that gets good mileage. GM obviously wins the battle of powertrains .

Ford is nice but very middle of road on outside and inside.

A very solid but not earth shattering truck. Obviously Ford is being VERY cautious here.....Ranger WILL rob some F series sales.

Gm should not be worrying about Ford coming-although they are. They need try to go for first place and stop being content with second.

-CT

2018 F-150 2.7 4x4 10spd auto EPA: 19/24/21
2018 Colorado 2.8 4x4 EPA: 20/28/23
2018 Colorado 3.6 4x4 EPA: 17/24/19
2018 Tacoma 3.5 4x4 EPA: 18/22/20

Hypothetical's here:
2019 Ranger 2.7 4x4 10spd would be slightly better than F-150 assuming 400lbs less so we'll say EPA: 20/25/22, therefor I would guess we'll see the 2.3L have an EPA rating of 21/26/23. That would tie the Diesel GM for best combined MPG. It would be light years quicker than the diesel and tow as good except for towing mpg, the EcoBoost would suffer. Maybe the 2.3L is a great idea? Only time will tell.....

I love this truck and have been waiting for years to be able to buy one!!!! I'll take a '19 Lariat Super Crew FX2 in gray.... Oh, but wait!... I also want a long bed, so the deal is off. Until Ford makes a +12" long wheelbase so I can order a Super Crew WITH a long bed (like the GM twins and Taco) I'm no longer interested.

I'm no brand snob, but the only two trucks I've ever owned are /were Fords. I owned a '94 XLT SuperCab Ranger from '94-'02 and replaced that with my current truck a 2002 Lariat F-150 Super Crew (4x2), going strong with only 85k on the odometer.

I'm going to hope Ford won't make another mistake with this Ranger and not offer a Super Crew with a long bed option.

The design is already dated and it won't come out for almost a year! By then we will see a new truck from Jeep and this won't matter

On the extended cab does the rear door swing past 120 degrees?

BIG mistake if it doesn't.

Supercab looks interesting, but there's that damned solid seat plinth again, cluttering up the floor; just like the GM twins. Surely they can do better than that!

Gm should not be worrying about Ford coming-although they are. They need try to go for first place and stop being content with second.

-CT

Posted by: crunchtime | Jan 18, 2018 11:54:39 AM

GM is offering more choice to consumers and has been rewarded with becoming the top selling truck manufacturer 3 years running, stealing that title away from Ford.

What's with those bulging wheel wells? Those are almost identical to the Nissan Frontier, and the Frontier is a 10 year old design. I try not to get into the esthetics too much like square vs round wheel wells, because a truck should be more about capability than wheel wells, and maybe this sight is wearing on me. OK, never felt a fender should bulge like that unless one is putting a tire/rim combination that justifies. But that would be catering to after market suppliers.? My brother, has a 70Mach1 with flared fenders, and yes 30 years ago they did put bigger rims/tires on it.

Kind of hard to really get a full idea about this thing when information is given to us piecemeal. So much speculation. Now if it is priced like the Frontier, any negative comments in general, will go by the wayside. The kingcab bed doesn't look like it will be any bigger than 6.0' measured from the top of the bed. Ie 6'2" measured from the base of the bed. I'd bet my 2 cents on that. A few inches longer would of been a way to differentiate from everyone else, but if they price it like a Frontier they'd be justified to not differentiate.

@papajim
A giant business failure? GM invested in the colorado at the expense of their full size trucks. Ford invested in their full size trucks at the expense of midsize. Ford makes significantly more money on their full size trucks than GM on mid size and analysts also estimate ford makes the most profit per full size truck. Ford sold 93,000 more full size than GM last year, a number that has been growing ever since the ranger went away. GM sold 144,000 more mid size, a number that dropped slightly last year despite increasing pickup sales overall. And how do the profit margins compare for the mid-size? Probably not anywhere near the $13,000 per truck ford is estimated to make. If ford had brought the ranger sooner it would have cost them billions of dollars (not to mention they didn't have a factory to build it in) and they wouldn't have been able to invest so heavily in their full size trucks, which is an investment that has paid off very well according to most analysts.

I do believe Ford conceded the midsize market to the other players and others have been making money there, but it just didn't work for ford to do it before now. It would have hurt everybody in the midsize market. Ford would have struggled to compete with colorado if both were new at the same time. And most importantly Ford would not have been able to invest so much in the f series and probably wouldn't have gained the highly profitable market share in the full size market.

If ford had brought the ranger sooner it would have cost them billions of dollars

@Beebe

There's a large bridge in New York City that you can buy from me. Please cite some specifics to support your outrageous claim or go home.

It appears that the engine choices in the Ranger are, to say the least, underwelming. If it can't be had in a 6 ft box then I'm not interested. Perhaps the Raptor Ranger will have a decent engine.

Supercab is the one I would buy but that's just my need. Won't even touch it however without a V6 motor. Not interested in the Ecoboost no matter how efficient or powerful it is. They need more engine options but sadly i don't see it on the horizon

No worries . I expected that. That's why I don't come here very often. This web site has become a ford joke long time ago.

Posted by: RAM | Jan 18, 2018 10:14:13 AM

YUP, That kool aid is hard to kick. lol Stay thirsty my friends.

Put a Hemi in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGz8ACu9V5E

Dogging an engine without seeing it perform is just like judging a book by its cover, oh well that’s their ignorance

Maybe the 2.3L is a great idea? Only time will tell.....
Posted by: 2.7EcoBoostRoost | Jan 18, 2018

@2.7ecoboostroost

Wrong! The current 2.3 N/A engine has been in the Ranger and dozens of other Fords for a very long time.

The 2.3 Ford turbo engine has been around for almost 20 years. It is a proven and very versatile powerplant.

The 2.7 is the new kid on the block and it will take more time to know if the 2.7 will endure as well as the 2.3

@papajim
I did cite specific numbers. Do the math. Tell me where they were going to build it? I have given plenty of evidence to support my claim, and analysts have repeatedly said it was best that Ford did not enter the midsize market. Ford has gained in the full size market AND at the same time made their profit per truck shoot through the roof. Theycouldn't have done that if they were wasting billions of dollars working on an all new ranger and building a new factory for it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.autoblog.com/amp/2015/04/30/ford-f-150-profit-per-vehicle/

Wrong! The current 2.3 N/A engine has been in the Ranger and dozens of other Fords for a very long time.

The 2.3 Ford turbo engine has been around for almost 20 years. It is a proven and very versatile powerplant.

The 2.7 is the new kid on the block and it will take more time to know if the 2.7 will endure as well as the 2.3

Posted by: papajim | Jan 18, 2018 5:31:53 PM

I was referring to the 2.3L EcoBoost that Ford is putting in the Ranger. 20 years old? I was not aware Ford was making any EcoBoost engine 20 years ago. I know of the 2.3L Turbo of the 80's Mustang and T-Bird's. The non turbo 2.3 SOHC, 2.3 DOHC, and the 2.3 OHV engines. I simply meant by my comment "Maybe the 2.3L is a great idea? Only time will tell....." Was that time will tell if the 2.3L (EcoBoost) Ranger is the right one size fits all engine. It compares favorably against both GM and Toyota V6 engines and I would not be surprised if it puts up fuel economy numbers of the 2.8 Duramax. Only time will tell... ;-)

"The 2.7 is the new kid on the block and it will take more time to know if the 2.7 will endure as well as the 2.3"
----Posted by: papajim

If it has twice the horsepower of the old NA 2.3, I'll be happy. That 10-speed will be a big help too.

this is not a new ranger they build the same truck in mexico it look like the 2015 but whit some little hupgrade,,,why they made a bjg deal whit this,,

this is not a new ranger they build the same truck in mexico it look like the 2015 but whit some little hupgrade,,,why they made a bjg deal whit this,,

@ecoboost 2.7

The currrent ford ecoboost 2.3 is an evolutionary development that started with the 2.3L turbo (L3-VDT) in the early 2000s. They both use the same aluminum block but the heads, fuel injection and other goodies have evolved from the Mazda. The L3 was used in Lincolns and Mazdas.

@beebe--This time I agree with papa jim. This Ranger could have and should have been introduced as a replacement for the old Ranger years ago. I have withheld judgement up until now seeing that this Ranger is not much changed from the Global Ranger except less capacity. I don't think that releasing a Global Ranger that has less capacity will cost Ford billions. If Ford would have done like GM on the Colorado/Canyon then I would be more likely to agree with you since the twins were redesigned for the NA market even though they were based on the Global Colorado. Ford is late to the game but this Ranger will bring in additional profit to Ford with minimal investment. Beebe you have to remember that many of these Rangers will be sold as crew cabs with 4 wheel drive and the extras which will make them almost as profitable as the F-150. The stripper Ranger just like the stripper F-150 will have very little profit but the fully loaded Rangers will make up for the difference.

@papa jim--If this 2.3 Ecoboost is based on the Mazda engine then it should be a very good engine. Mazda makes some very good power trains.

If this 2.3 Ecoboost is based on the Mazda engine then it should be a very good engine. Mazda makes some very good power trains. Posted by: Jeff S | Jan 19, 2018

@Jeff, Mazda and Ford co-developed a lot of powertrain technology. Not just the engines themselves, but also the manufacturing technology.

This dates back more than 20 years.

I'm surprised how many readers on this site are evidently not aware that Ford once owned controlling positions in Volvo and Mazda, and may Ford products today (including a ton of safety tech) was developed during that period and is still in use.

@papajim
In a word NO
"Skip the Raptor Ranger and go all out for a Shelby Ranger with 11 second quarter mile times and 0-60 times in the sub-5 second range."

Supercab as you call it is pretty common here.

@Robert R.

Supercab is what Ford calls it. Shelby Ranger sounds like a lot more fun than another F150 off roader

@papajim
YOU might think it would be good but you are a committee of one. They are doing the Ranger Raptor with 2 Litre Diesel engines. Presumably these are better than the 3.5 Ecoboost and a modified 3.2 Diesel. Will it be a better OFF ROAD Ranger? Rather than a SAND DUNE JUMPER Raptor?

Count me not persuaded. Your skills in that regard are (bleep)

@papajim
You have demonstrated zero skills in prediction

@papa jim--I knew that Ford had ownership in Mazda and Volvo and that in the 90's Ford started to use Mazda power trains in the Escort and Ranger which vastly improved the quality of Ford's smaller vehicles. That is one reason why my wife and I bought a new Escort wagon in 1994. By 1991 the Escort shared drive trains and design with the Mazda 323 which was a plus. A shared power train with Mazda would be a plus and would definitely be something that would make me consider a Ranger. I do like the Colorado/Canyon and the fact that they both come with a 6 speed manual even though the manual is only offered in the Base and WT trim and only in the extended cab with a 4 cylinder in 2 wheel drive. The Frontier also offers a manual and the Tacoma offers it only with the V-6. I believe that Toyota and NIssan will both come out with newer midsize trucks.

@ Jeff S
The Ecoboost was primarily a German companies ideae t,hat Ford borrowed for the F150.. They are trying a twi boosted Petrol Colorado here as a GM " Raptor "

papajim...You have demonstrated zero skills in prediction
Posted by: Robert Ryan | Jan 19, 2018

@Robert R.

And you have zero recall ability. Three weeks ago I predicted that Ford's Ranger would offer a turbo 2.3 engine and you said I was a dope to think it. Wiff!