2019 Ford Ranger Wildtrak Hits the Road: Spied

RangerWildtrakMI.d02.KGP.ed II

If the response to our recent Ford Ranger Raptor post is any indication, there are plenty of mid-size pickup truck enthusiasts looking forward to the Ford Ranger's return to the U.S. market. We're guessing plenty more are looking forward to high-performance versions of the Ranger as well.

So, feast your eyes on the photos below, just sent by our spy shooters who caught the globally popular Ford Ranger Wildtrak testing outside Detroit.

Here's what they had to say:

"The Wildtrak trim level has served the global markets as the Ranger's top-end model and its unmistakable design cues are clearly evident on this prototype. The 2019 Ford Ranger Wildtrak will continue to offer special buttresses aft of the C-pillar, along with the higher bed-sill extensions that run along the outer edges of the box.

"The proper U.S.-spec left-hand-drive interior shows the prominent orange stitching on the dash, seats, armrests and shift boot - all cues from past Wildtrak models. The seats have fabric camouflage covers, likely to hide the usual Wildtrak graphic that typically adorns the seats.

"This Wildtrak prototype also had a 115-volt power outlet bolted into the driver's side of the truck bed sidewall, forward toward the bulkhead.

"Underneath, the Ford Ranger Wildtrak looks to have a higher ground clearance. The usual side-exit exhaust on the Ranger FX4 has been moved well up within the underbody, protected by the frame, allowing better departure angles.

"This particular Ranger Wildtrak prototype is a diesel, confirmed both by a sticker on the fuel-filler door and by the black smoke that belched out of the prototype on its cold, subzero start. The exhaust can clearly be seen emanating from the Wildtrak's underbody, instead of out the side."

KGP Photography images


RangerWildtrakMI.d09.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.d12.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.g04.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.g09.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.g15.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.u01.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.u06.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.u08.KGP.ed II

RangerWildtrakMI.v01.KGP.ed II



Interesting. I wonder why the shorty tailpipe?

Looks like a Tacoma from the front and a HiLux from the side rear...

My 2005 X-Runner had a plug in option that I used for my air compressor when airing my street tires and BFG R1's at the track that was in my bed.

Better get some skid plates for that front end...

Wish some of the manufactures would build a midsize truck with a regular cab, 8' bed and a manual!

Looks like a Toyota rear axle.

Wonder if the rear is a center carrier type like the old school 9”? Note the bolts in the rear facing chassis shot.

My 1986 Toyota 4x4 had it's 8 inch rear axle with leaf springs mounted above the axle, wow it took Ford over 30 years to do what Toyota did back in the 1980's... same with the Colorado!

I just don't see the usefulness or purpose of the "special buttresses" aft of the C-Pillar. The roll bars on the special Colorado packages, or even after market roll bars look MUCH better in my opinion.

What is popular in the rest of the world may not be popular here. Kind of looks like an Avalanche....Does not look like black diesel smoke to me,,, just saying

Wth, why is ford using Toyota axles?

front end looks like 2019 Ram, small headlights small oval shape grille , just a car front end with a big bumper

@Mark Williams
Here is the Australian Wildtrak. What differences I cannot tell from the US camp version. WildTrack has a base weight of 4,900lbs a GVWR of 7,200lbs

the early numbers on the 2.3 Eco-Boost is 310 HP and 355 Torque

My 1986 Toyota 4x4 had it's 8 inch rear axle with leaf springs mounted above the axle, wow it took Ford over 30 years to do what Toyota did back in the 1980's... same with the Colorado!

Posted by: oxi

The original Ranger had leafs over the axle and used an 8.8. Look it up.

GM's were under-slung.

the early numbers on the 2.3 Eco-Boost is 310 HP and 355 Torque
Posted by: Ecoboost Rules | Feb 26, 2018


The truck in the story is a diesel.

Looks externally identical to the Australian Car( if you watched the video review he used the term Ute once and for the rest of the time car)

@Mark Williams
If they are running I assume the 3.2 Diesel, then the 2.3 Ecoboost will not be the only engine for the Ranger in the US
This is contrary to what was said on the announcement on its
Introduction in the US

Dumb! 5 years late and 1 engine option and hard plastic which is then what every offers today in a midsize truck! This junk will not sell with the most troublesome eco turd engine ever built! This junk fail doing car duty LOL!!!!!! Ford you failed! LMBO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prediction: Ford will determine the future of diesel Rangers based on how well GM does selling diesels in the midsize twins. I've not read much happy news re the 3.2 to consider it a likely choice

@Johnny Doe. Let me correct you.....your parents failed. You post like 10yr old. Your posts are all too predictable. Agreed its late but it will sell every bit as well ad the GM twins. The old Ranger never had any issues outselling the S-10

Oh look a butt hurt cry baby fordtard lmbo! Sorry dude Ford fell asleep at the wheel 5 years ago. Go cry like a girls else where!

Oh look a butt hurt cry baby fordtard lmbo! Sorry dude Ford fell asleep at the wheel 5 years ago. Go cry like a girls else where!

@ Jonny Doe. Thanks for proving my point. I could have written your response for you. The only valid point you had was Ford was late bringing back the Ranger, which I agreed with. The rest was your 10 yr old vocabulary / intellect

So this will be the ghey appearance package to compete with the Colorado "Trail Boss"?

6.2 is so butt hurt I love the taste of little Fordtard tears LMBO!!!!!!!!!!!

The old Ranger never had any issues outselling the S-10
Posted by: Smokin’ a 6.2 | Feb 26, 2018

Talk about "smokin'" I don't know about sales, but my old 4.3 S10 never had a problem smoking Mustang GTs (auto trans models) and ANY Ranger I ever saw at traffic lights back in the early 1990s. The 4.3 in those days was only rated at 150 HP but the torque from the 4.3 was undeniable.

@Papajim. I don’t disagree with you on the 4.3l. Not sure but I think the early 90’s Ranger with the 4.0l was no slouch either. I had a 85 S10 with the 2.5 and MT. Great truck but the body rusted out. Moved on to a 94 ranger then a 98. The 94 was the better of the 2. As for sales, the mid 90’s through the early 2000’s The Ranger easily out sold the S10. One of my all time favorite trucks was the original s10 ZR2. Never had ine but always admired it.

It is amazing they continue to mask the same truck they have been building over seas for 4 years. Does Ford think people don't have the inter net ?

It is amazing they continue to mask the same truck they have been building over seas for 4 years. Does Ford think people don't have the inter net ?

Anyone know when these are due on dealer lots?

It was reported by The Lasco Press that the first Ranger has come through the Michigan assembly line. The picture shows a black crew cab FX4. Cannot be certain, but looks to be Lariet.


you're going to be sooooo jealous when a 4 cyl, 2.3 engine in the Ranger will not ONLY out-perform but will get better gas mileage than your V8

The rear differential is the 8.8", 31 spline. The housing and axle is identical to the one on my BT50.

The 8.8" was used as a 9" replacement.

You've not read "much happy news" on the 3.2?

What have you read and can you please post the links supporting your comment as proof.

Every article I've read consider the 3.2 a great engine.

I own a 3.2 Ford diesel and I can attest it's an awesome engine. Not a race engine, but is massively torquey and great off road and on the highway.

@ smokin

My first purchase of a truck was a 2001 S10 ZR2. Absolutely loved the truck. The 4.3L then produced 190 HP. I never had one mechanical issue with truck. The only thing I hated about it was the rugged fender flares on bed of truck where prone to chip the paint away. The whole truck looked perfect except for the flares. They were also notorious for rusting if u didn't clean and whipe them down regularly. But it I still loved it. To this day would take one again if I could find one not beat to death

I am not able to do your homework for you Al. The 3.2 has had loads of problems with electronics, fuel injectors and cooling system issues. Very happy to learn that your Mazda has been trouble free

I don't think any U.S. ranger will have the 3.2 diesel. Ford would not put a bigger diesel in the ranger than the f-150. Best guess is an inline fuel rail diesel. I wish @Mark Williams would ban a couple of you who only insult each other over what you drive.

As for the old s10, my only experience was with 1999 4cyl a/t, and it had 3 tranny's before it hit 200k. Engine was solid.

Had a 2006 ranger v6 five speed single cab that was amazing and fun. Super light for that engine. Could bark the tires in second and third.


My S10 was an '88 first year for the 4.3 It was only available that year with the 4L60 if I remember correctly, which was a rugged SOB that outlasted the truck. I've mostly heard good stuff about that unit.

I think it was also used in muscle cars, Suburbans and big Caddies from that era. I don't know which auto was used in the 94 S10 but by then they had electronics, which the 4L60 did not.

@papajim I'm pretty sure that was the same tranny that was in my 91 v6 Corsica. And boy was it strong, once pulled a 85 suburban on a chain up a 15 grade for 3 miles. The car had 175k at that pont and it never hesitated. I kept it under 30 mph but it wasn't because the car was having problems.


I searched and can't find the information. Can you please the links regarding the reliabiliy issues. They might come in handy.

Again, you want to give the perception of your knowledge, but you just don't have that knowledge, like economics. Yes?

Looks like the moderators are actually working but are deleting comments critical of the poor moderation.

@Big Al - fanboys will be fanboys which make up 99% of poor posts on this site.

@Big Al - I like the Colorado and any of the comparisons I've read i.e. V6/8 speed versus diesel/6 speed, they all say the same thing. The gasser is only good at high RPM running. At "normal" speeds on the street or off-road it tends to gear hunt and isn't very satisfying to drive. The diesel on the other hand is much better behaved on and off-road for all but open desert running.

If the Ranger comes up with a more refined package in the Raptor Ranger or standard Ranger with a better performing drivetrain, I might lean towards the Ranger diesel.

@ Rowdy Douillard --I have a 99 S-10 with the 2.2 I4 but with a 5 speed manual. It has been an excellent truck during the past 19 years. I always liked the S-10s and the Rangers

Anyone who wants to check out the record for Ford's 3.2 diesel can google it.

The complaints will be pretty easy to see. Cooling system, electronics and fuel injectors.

And please, what is the advantage to 5 cylinder engines? Is anybody going that route anymore? Dumb.

They had to cut the tailpipe to install the hitch. I bet it has a weird, baffled exhaust sound.
Just making it work for testing. Around here we call that
"South San Antonio Engineering".
At least CO2 wont invade the cab like when they did this on the Explorer.

This is identical to my global Ranger Wildtrak & happy the US market will finally have access to a fantastic piece of machine. Also, the 3.2 TD is a an amazing & trouble free; I got almost 80 000 kms on mine & running as strong since day 1& blows away all the latest offerings from Nissan, Isuzu (aka cheby), Mitshibuitshi & VW Amarok.
I suggest everyone to ignore negative postings from old timer's still stuck in the '70's raving about S10's past glorys...


80,000 kilometers? That's hardly getting warmed up in my opinion. Brag about your 3.2 pipe smoker after it's got 200k miles on it.

The comments to this entry are closed.