2019 Ford Ranger Vs. 2020 Jeep Gladiator: Tale of the Tape

image from p.widencdn.net

By Brian Normile

With new mid-size pickup trucks from Ford and Jeep set to duke it out, it's time to measure the upcoming 2019 Ford Ranger and 2020 Jeep Gladiator to see how they stack up, as we've already done with the Gladiator and its Wrangler system. We'll be comparing the Gladiator to the Super Crew 4x4 version of the Ranger, since those are the most comparable. They'd be even more comparable if Ford started offering a removable top and doors and fold-down windshield on the Ranger, but that seems unlikely.

Related: More 2018 L.A. Auto Show Coverage

The Basics

The Gladiator enters the ring with a length of 218 inches, a wheelbase of 137.3 inches, a width of 73.8 inches and a track width of either 62.9 inches front and rear, or 64.4 inches front and rear for Rubicon and Sport Max Tow models. Height depends on trim and top style: With a soft-top, most Gladiators are 75 inches tall while the Rubicon is 76.1 inches; with a hardtop, those figures drop to 73.1, or 74.1 for the Rubicon.

The Ranger, on the other hand, measures a shorter 210.8 inches long with a wheelbase of 126.8 inches. The Ford is a foot wider at 85.8 inches(that likely is the width from side mirror to side mirror unlike the Gladiator's width) but has a narrower track width of 61.4 inches front and rear, and it's a bit shorter at 71.5 inches tall.

JP020_039GL copy II

Off-Roading

The Gladiator's approach, breakover and departure angles are impressive. For Sport and Overland models, the numbers are 40.8/18.4/25 degrees approach/breakover/departure. The more off-road focused Rubicon boasts 43.4/20.3/26 degrees approach/breakover/departure. Ground clearance is 10 inches for the Sport and Overland and 11.1 inches for the Rubicon. Front and rear overhangs are consistent across all models at 29.7 inches in front and 51 inches in the rear.

The Ranger, meanwhile, has angles of 28.7/21.5/25.4 degrees approach/breakover/departure, ground clearance of 8.9 inches, and front and rear overhangs of 35.8 and 48.2 inches, respectively. Its shorter length and wheelbase helps the Ranger when it comes to breakover angles, and the shorter rear overhang keeps it respectable when it comes to departure angles, but the Gladiator can definitely attack tougher stuff up front.

Towing and Payload

Currently, we only have max payload and towing capacities for the Ranger Super Crew 4x4, at 1,560 and 7,500 pounds respectively. There's no word on how options and features will affect those figures. Gross combined weight and gross vehicle weight ratings are also unknown. As of now, the Ranger is only available with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder and 10-speed automatic with a 3.73:1 axle ratio.

The Gladiator is also a single-engine vehicle, with a 3.6-liter V-6 as its only current power plant. It does, however, offer different transmission options and two axle ratios, meaning its towing and payload figures vary considerably depending on configuration.

009_RANGER__90A0005 II

Related: We Sneak a Quick Drive in a 2019 Ford Ranger

Sport models equipped with the six-speed manual and 3.73:1 axle ratio have a towing capacity of 4,000 pounds. With the eight-speed automatic, that figure increases to 4,500 pounds. Keep the automatic and change the axle ratio to 4.10:1 and max towing jumps to 6,000 pounds. Finally, adding the Max Towing Package to all that gives a max trailer weight of 7,650 pounds. Payload capacities for Sport models start at 1,105 for automatic models with either axle ratio; those with the Max Towing Package can carry 1,535 pounds. The bare-bones manual Sport model can carry 1,600.

Gladiator Overland models can carry 1,140 pounds with the manual transmission or 1,120 pounds with the automatic. The beefed-up suspension of the Rubicon lets it carry more, but all the extra off-roading goodies likely cut into its payload capacity, so it's only a little more than the Overland at 1,200 pounds with the manual or 1,160 pounds with the automatic.

Cars.com graphic by Paul Dolan; manufacturer images

 

Jeep vs Ford 1

 

Comments

they don't compare.

The Ford is a truck for surface roads which can be adapted for off road. The Jeep is an off roader right out of the egg, capable of practical chores on the surface roads and highways. Very different trucks.

Both are going to be blown away by Rivian. These ancient technology trucks are boneyard bound.

I'm not dropping $80k-$90K on a Rivian when I can get either of these two for half the price or way less.

The Ranger will win most Test Drive Reviews because it's more civilized. It's more fitted to your avg daily couch truck owner. The Gladiator on the other hand will likely rule the off-road tests.

The Ranger will win most Test Drive Reviews because it's more civilized. It's more fitted to your avg daily couch truck owner. The Gladiator on the other hand will likely rule the off-road tests.

Did I miss the length of the Ranger's crew legroom? What kind of half Axx comparison is this. Oh, I forgot, it's Ford's trickle news feed well over a year period now on the Ranger! Glad those Italians and Japanese don't prescribe to the same marketing rollout methodologies. Oh, maybe crew legroom for the midsizer's is just not important in some people's views, especially those at FORD.

Last I checked Jeep moved the needle on the crew legroom length to be the midsize leading at 38.3". When one follows, they need to emphasize their strengths. Ford, I guess your not leading in the crew legroom length.?

I like em both.

My Italian father bought a 62 Falcon with 3 on the tree when he came to this country. I learned to work on cars with that first, then in 75 he bought a Ford Granada, and in 84 we bought a Mazda B2000 because it came with a rear bumper, sport rims, sport dual mirrors and stripes for less than the Ranger $ out the door. I keep an open mind when I comparison shop, but have no problem buying from whomever has the best value proposition for my needs. To me it just means that the marketing and engineering groups, and R&D were in better sync at the time with what the customer demand was. That is a dynamic target that is always in flux. And many have said, Rivian is going to be expensive, so maybe not the best value proposition when/if it comes out. Tesla S and X were clearly not the best value proposition at their times, at least for the mainstream, but maybe not for the excessively image conscious people out there because we know a lease can be had for almost anyone.

@papajim--Agree the Jeep has the off road capability that the Ranger does not have (also add that the Colorado doesn't have as well). Also those who want a Jeep truck are not going to even look at the Ranger or anything else and those who are Ford fans are not going to even look at the Gladiator. I would say that the Gladiator is far different than any other midsize truck.

Two great vehicles. GM has failed this week, layoffs, bad press union problems, loss of jobs, and a problem with silverado at a redwings hockey game, bankruptcy to follow, Ford continues to lead and gm follows then falls down hard.....

Two different vehicles, the gladiators biggest competitor is the JK. The gladiator is for Jeep people that want a small pickup bed.

Ford is a pavement pounder gas miser. Programmed as such, gear selection etc... Jeep is for off roading, active life style. Solid front axle, lockers front & rear, Sway bar disconnect, front bumper thats winch ready. With a front winshield thats drops so you can hunt on a ranch and haul your prize buck home in the bed. ZR2 is more of a competitor but falls short with its ifs front suspention. The Jeep will be the off road king the rest are wannabees. lol

Rivian? Come on.
You’re kidding, right? How are you going to charge that 180kWh battery? With a 100 Amp 240 Volt circuit, 80 Amp continuous, it would take nearly 10 hours.
Of course you probably wouldn’t use all 180kWh each day. Then again unless you live in 1955, you don’t have an extra 100 Amps capacity. 48 (continuous) is more common, so even with a 1/2 discharge, still almost 10 hours.
Welcome to the reality of electric cars.
You laser disc player, beta max, DAT first adopters can jump on the LiIon battery electric car bandwagon, I will stick with gasoline or diesel a while longer.

Jeep vs Ranger is kind of an odd comparison.
Different markets, different targets.

GM and Toyota own the mid size space. The Ford is too plain with nothing unique to draw customers to it. The Jeep, on the other hand, has a great shot at being a hit due to its standout styling. Great job Jeep!

@Nitro

Alligator mouth, hummingbird tail.

The automakers have spent a lot of money (and goodwill) trying to design the next car that the public will love as much as it does the Suburban, and the F150

The public isn't buying coupes and sedans no matter how you package it. Ten years ago Chrysler had sedans that were heavily reminiscent of the E Class Benz sedans and were a great value at the time. Ford and GM had nothing that compared.

Unless somebody has a crystal ball we don't know what buyers will want in five years, but something tells me it's gonna look a lot like a half ton truck.

Nitro..., You forgot that gm lost out to Ram over at Motor Trend...
The gm shills don’t want to hear that as they are standing around the gm koolaide dispensing machine... 🙈🙈🙈

@gmsrgreat Nice n succinct!

@papajim 5yrs hence. Yup, a half ton crew cab 6.5' bed truck with cab forward more than today so if fits in garage n everbody happy. A midsize with all the fullsize amenities, or dam nearly so. What a wonderful world it will be. Amen.

James need some help:
240V*100A*10hr=240kwh. You are saying average house can't even do 48A continuous which would only be at best 120kwh.? Yes that could be an issue. 3 phase circuitry is not my strength.

Serviced a 240Vac dryer plug once at an old rental, and after I replaced the blown fuse in the breaker box I noticed any combo, of any two, of the three terminals read 120Vac. Well not reading anything of 120 or 240 led me to the breaker box in the first place. Anyway, clearly AC is not DC and sqrt 2 is in the conversion equation from what I remember. Ill have to do more review...

@Angelo

Or you could move to residence with a larger garage. Much simpler.

Lose 10 Pounds In 1 Week With This Fat Shredder Diet Visit https://bit.ly/2Ucx0Xc

There is probably a much bigger market for the suburban wanabe off roaders than the real deal that will utilize the jeeps advantages... what sound system does ford offer....lol

@Jim

that is correct, but who's counting? Ford has surprised many reviewers with the 2019 Ranger. We'll know soon enough.

I predict that buyers will flock to the new Ranger and that it takes many F150 buyers into the Ranger column.

In another episode of apples and oranges. The Fiat is the cooler one and the one you want. The Ranger is the one you will be far happier with day in day out. Neither is for work or a value.

@papajim. Most all residences I've measured are that 234" long garage in Si Valley. And who knows if one bids high enough when that house comes along. Every year I'm getting older and the idea of moving becomes another choir in my mind. I'll just keep waiting my ideal truck, or for hell to freeze over. Ha.

Nitro..., You forgot that gm lost out to Ram over at Motor Trend...
The gm shills don’t want to hear that as they are standing around the gm koolaide dispensing machine... 🙈🙈🙈


Posted by: The Lawn Ranger | Dec 3, 2018 9:27:11 PM

Too bad Motor Trend is paid off just like Edmunds and anyone else who doesn't pick a GM as the winner. PUTC picked the Denali so they are non biased. I only post facts so Fu@k you!! You have no b@lls hood wink. I have big b@lls, wanna see them??

Nitro..., You forgot that gm lost out to Ram over at Motor Trend...
The gm shills don’t want to hear that as they are standing around the gm koolaide dispensing machine... 🙈🙈🙈


Posted by: The Lawn Ranger | Dec 3, 2018 9:27:11 PM

Too bad Motor Trend is paid off just like Edmunds and anyone else who doesn't pick a GM as the winner. PUTC picked the Denali so they are non biased. I only post facts so Fu@k you!! You have no b@lls hood wink. I have big b@lls, wanna see them??

@PapaJim
If you look at TFLTRUCK first drive of 2019 Ranger with Roman & son Tommy video. On the test drive the are following behind a whit 2nd Generation Ridgeline. Roman mentions that. Then he checks out the dashboard and plastic in the Ranger. He later says it's steering feels like truck.
Now when he did first test drive of 2017 Ridgeline down in Texas he said drives like car.

Sadly, neither would be my pick, since a 6 foot bed isn't available in a crew cab configuration. NEXT!

I drove and sat in the back seat of a '19 Ranger SuperCrew at the Charlotte Auto Show on Nov. 17th... The interior and rear legroom are easily best in class. I'm 5'8" and 205 pounds and had inches of knee room with the drivers seat set where it would be if I were driving.

Brian in NC.
Do you have a dimension for rear legroom on the Ranger? I'm curious since Gladiator is supposed to be 38.3". I haven't seen one yet for Ranger. I'm 5'8" 140lbs so kind of hard for me to quantify what you are saying since it is a pretty qualitative statement, and we are not tall.

You've got the Ranger's max payload way under reported in this write up. It's actually 1860. That's segment leading and, higher by just a tad than my RCSB F150 with the 2.7L Ecoboost.

I think for car sales to eventually improve auto makes will have to go back to a sedan with good headroom, leg room, and a larger a more accessible

I think for car sales to eventually improve auto makes will have to go back to a sedan with good headroom, leg room, and a larger a more accessible trunk. For now it is not that big of a concern for auto makers if they can sell crossover, suvs, and pickups are selling well especially since they have a higher profit margin. Many of the crossovers do not get that much less in mpgs than their sedan counterparts. If eventually buyers want a sedan especially one with better headroom, legroom, and trunk space then the market might change. Sloping roof lines might look nice but passengers don't really want to have their heads hit the rear glass and mail slot trunk openings make most sedan trunks virtually useless. This is what is mainly driving truck, crossover, and suv sales and the added height and larger windows that make it easier to see out of close the deal.

@Angelo,
I don't have numbers of the Ranger’s back seat dimensions. My statement about best in class crew cab legroom was based on sitting in (within the hour at the show) four mid-size trucks on the convention center floor. I sat in the Ranger, GM twins and Tacoma. I didn't even bother to sit in the Nissan Frontier due to it being so antiquated. And as much as I like the Honda Ridgeline’s refinement and interior space (my wife drives a ’16 Pilot), I want a more rugged truck with better towing and payload numbers. The Tacoma was easily the worst rear legroom, with me sitting in the driver’s seat, my average sized 11 year old son was even slightly cramped. One take away was that the Ranger seemed to have the largest distance from the floor to the seat, which allows the knees to bend less. A common complaint with the Tacoma is that the seats are barely off the floor. The Tacoma front seats do offer a ton of legroom from the seat to the pedals, but the pedals feel strait out in front of you like a sports car. Want to compare, go to an auto show so you can sit in a bunch of vehicles in a relatively short period of time.

I'm curious as to how many people will actually cross-shop these two trucks. They are very different and will likely have very different prices. I imagine that a fully loaded Gladiator will sticker nearly $10,000 more than a loaded Ranger.

Gladiator will be like the Hummer, it's an inspirational vehicle.

@ Jeff S
I think we’ll see a resurgence of wagons before sedans. If you look at the euro wagons on the market today, they are a HUGE departure from the limited selection of wagons we’ve seen here in the US. There’s a reason why almost every automotive critic is a wagon fan over SUV’s. Full disclosure, I’m a truck guy but love wagons as well. Besides owning a ’02 F-150 Lariat SuperCrew, I also own a ’73 Volvo P1800ES (a small 2 door wagon with some pep) Wagons offer the same practical amount of interior space as an SUV but handles like a car, they’re typically easier on gas than an SUV and yet in a more aerodynamic package than most sedan’s rooflines (at least one with ample headroom). I wouldn’t at all be surprised if we saw more Subaru/Volvo like jacked-up wagons to replace the diminishing sedans. Just my 2 cents.

@brian nc
Sounds like u we're at NC show, since if u were at LA show I believe u would of been able to Gladiator n Ranger crew legroom compare.
I used to go to San Francisco show, but haven't been in the market for truck since no one's come out with my ideal truck. I'm patiently waiting.

Agreed Brian in NC. I have a big pickup and I intend to buy the Gladiator for mountain trails, hiking and hunting. I will never buy a car, but if I did, it would be a Eurowagon style wagon, for all the reasons you stated. Sedans are just not as practical for me, but with a wagon, you can load a lot of stuff in and on. I also happen to like minivans, but I am in the minority...

I still think Ford blew it with the Ranger by only offering the 2.3 EcoBoost. Sure, it will tow better and probably be faster than the competing V6 engines and Ford's own 3.3 V6, but it is only getting near 2.7 Eco mpg. The 2.7 would have made the segment step up and take notice. Even if they made it a $1,500-$2,000 premium option it would sell like crazy. The mid size segment is just where the compacts left off before they were killed. Near full size price, full size fuel economy and less capable. The only thing they offer is (for some) the "just right sizing". No way would I pay $40k for a new mid size truck.

@2.7 ecoboost

Adding 400 cc's to the turbo 2.3 might be smart from a marketing perspective but I doubt it does very much otherwise.

If you're gonna bump the motor, go all the way. Put a 3.5 ecoboost (or a small diesel) in it.

The 3.5's exterior dimensions aren't that different and the cost of building them wouldn't be much different. On paper it would sound very tough.

I have not read a Ranger review yet that trashed the 2.3 engine. All positive impressions regarding performance.

As far as the Wrangler basis of the Gladiator, this is a very poor start
https://www.goauto.com.au/news/jeep/wrangler/jeep-wrangler-crashes-out/2018-12-06/76790.html

@2.7 ecoboost

Adding 400 cc's to the turbo 2.3 might be smart from a marketing perspective but I doubt it does very much otherwise.

If you're gonna bump the motor, go all the way. Put a 3.5 ecoboost (or a small diesel) in it.

The 3.5's exterior dimensions aren't that different and the cost of building them wouldn't be much different. On paper it would sound very tough.

I have not read a Ranger review yet that trashed the 2.3 engine. All positive impressions regarding performance.


Posted by: papajim | Dec 5, 2018 8:18:12 PM

So far I've been 100% right on the 2.3L. I doubted it would beat the 2.7 in fuel economy by very much (Ford has touted the 2.3/10 speed as a means of achieving great fuel economy, yet it is a virtual tie with their proven rocket 2.7 F-150). Now with the 21/26 mpg for 2wd leaked vs the 20/26 mpg for the 2.7 F-150, which is likely 300-400 lbs heavier, I rest my case. If the Ranger puts out 0-60 times in the 5.7-6.0 second range, I'll be even more surprised. That 4cyll has to work much harder than the V6. It's about more than 400 c.c. As for a diesel, no thanks. You get a small bump in fuel economy for fuel that cost a good bit more in most parts of the country and comes with a lofty price increase. Plus they are anemic in performance. Diesels are meant to be big to have performance. The 3.5? Sure I'd take that, but the option has to be reasonable at $2000 or less. The 2.7 is a match made in heaven for a truck a few hundred lbs lighter than the F-150, where it already succeeds handily. I know you will never admit your wrong, but when the real Ranger is released, reviewed and put to the test I'll be here to say "I told you the 2.7 was a better option". It's only common sense that it would perform equally or better in a lighter truck.

My point has always been that while the 2.3 will surely be adequate and maybe slightly better than the class, the 2.7 would have changed the class. With new players entering for the foreseeable future, the 2.3 will "average" almost immediately. Luckily, I think the 2.7 demand will force Fords hand.

your approach to logic---such as it is---sucks out loud.

You say that the larger 2.7 will be awesome, but the 3.5 would not. You, as usual, are just being contrary for the sake of it. I bet dinner time around your house is a real riot.

I'm very disappointed that Ford went with the 2.3L EcoBoost from the Lincoln MKC rather than the one from the Focus RS or even the Mustang. When Ford first announced they were going to be putting the 2.3L EcoBoost in the Ranger I was excited for a truck that size, with that lightweight of an engine with 350 horsepower and 350 ftlb of torque, only to find out it would be 270 horsepower and 310 ftlb of torque. As far as the Gladiator, I live in rural Texas, where I'm usually driving on highways with 75 to 85 mph speed limits, and driving those speeds with Jeeps engines puts a lot of stress them for long periods of time. I used to gave a Ford Escape with the 2.0L EcoBoost, and even driving 75 mph, if I stepped on the gas to pass someone quickly, it took off like a rocket. Hopefully the Ranger will be able to do the same, but I have my doubts about the Jeep, as it feels like the engine is working really hard to stay at 75 mph in the Wrangler Unlimited with the 3.6L.

@Brian NC--I grew up with station wagons. My parents had a 64 Impala 9 passenger wagon that my father used like a truck. We hauled trees, landscape materials, and everything imaginable--it even had a luggage rack. It was about the most practical vehicle we ever had.

as it feels like the engine is working really hard to stay at 75 mph in the Wrangler Unlimited with the 3.6L.
Posted by: Jonathan Beason | Dec 6, 2018

@Jonathan B

Gearing? Or an issue with tuning?

The Wrangler you describe sounds like an outlier of some kind. I wonder how many RPM's that Wrangler is turning at 75mph.

My ex had a big heavy GMC Acadia with a GM 3.6 and hers would loaf along at 75 with loads of power to spare; under 2000rpm. Barely working.

your approach to logic---such as it is---sucks out loud.

You say that the larger 2.7 will be awesome, but the 3.5 would not. You, as usual, are just being contrary for the sake of it. I bet dinner time around your house is a real riot.


Posted by: papajim | Dec 6, 2018 6:26:02 AM

I see you like to fabricate what I said no matter what username you post under. Never said the 3.5 would not be awesome. I said it would have to be a $2,000 or less option. Wow your a real riot. And obviously not very smart. I see you referred to your ex in the last post. No wonder she's your ex you brain dead old man.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us