• Report: 2019 Ford Ranger To Be a Frame-Based Pickup, Truck Fans Rejoice!


    Ford Ranger Concept

    Ford recently held a shareholder conference that provided another glimpse at the upcoming 2019 Ford Ranger. At the meeting, Ford CEO – Mark Fields, said that the Ford Ranger will be based on a “global platform”. Ford Ranger is a frame-based midsize pickup in the rest of the world. Truck enthusiasts will like the sound of that.

    Generally, a body-on-frame design allows a truck to haul and tow more weight. The Honda Ridgeline is a unibody design with a rear subframe. It has a respectable payload capacity for the midsize segment, but it has the lowest towing rating (5,000 lbs). There are many aspects that affect payload and tow ratings, but an old fashioned frame-based design allow for the weight to be distributed a little better, and allows for much higher tow ratings (up to 7,700 lbs). This design may also spawn an off-road version (this was not confirmed or denied).

    The Ranger will be built at the Michigan Assembly Plant and will go on sale in 2019. According to a previous report, the 2020 Ford Bronco will be built at the same plant. Does this mean the next Bronco will also be body-on-frame? I surely hope so!

    Here is a previous generation Ford Ranger from the Mexican market at the 2016 Overland Expo.


    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    59 thoughts on “Report: 2019 Ford Ranger To Be a Frame-Based Pickup, Truck Fans Rejoice!

    1. I saw a brand new ford ranger on I29 in Fargo two weeks ago. I had to triple check to make sure what I was seeing.

    2. Ford certainly has had the time to lay back & evaluate what sells & the competition’s offerings. If they have the business sense to offer the 2.7 TT they will own the midsize performance title & that portion of the consumer market. It would be great to see a competitive midsize off road racing category.

      1. Remember, GM has many versions of the Colorado’s 3.6 v6 that go all the way up to 455 HP. And a really nice new 3.0 that is around 400 HP. That ZR2 with the 3.0 would be a killer. Doubtful the Ranger’s frame would be near as strong as the Colorado’s, which is based on the boxed frame of the Silverado (just narrowed).

        1. I disagree. From owning a Sierra and F150, the GM frame definitely sways and sags more on lighter loads. And, it’s waxed dipped so it rusts much faster. And, rust weakens frames.

        2. I wouldn’t been so sure about that. Current generation of the global Ford Ranger can haul as much as 3100 pounds and tows up to 7400 pounds when optioned with the 3.2 Powerstroke Diesel. The next generation can only get better than that.

          1. Here in Australia the top 2 selling cars are the ford ranger and Toyota hilux. Most people buy the dual cab variant for moving the family about during the week and towing the boat,caravan and horse float on the weekend. The ranger second from the top (XLT) seems to be the most popular, with the 3•2 litre turbo diesel 147kw and 470nm of torque it tows 3 tonnes without batting an eye lid. The wife keeps saying are you sure the caravans still on the back. The 5 cylinder seems so lazy just loping along. But in Oz the use of diesel is second nature. I love the ease of the ranger with parking sensors front and rear and reversing camera,even the missus finds it easy to drive. In Oz the competition for sales in the dual cab segment is furious the vehicles are getting more and more gear in them. Adaptive cruise control lane keeping assist trailer sway assist roll over mitigation are just some of the few examples. We have the ford ranger Toyota hilux Holden Colorado vw amarok Nissan navara izusu d max and coming is the new mercedes dual cab. With lots of competing variants comes more gear to get the buyer’s in. So just recently the amarok has bought in the v6 turbo diesel 165kw and 550nm of torque with an overbooked of 180kw and 580nm of torque this just might start a arms race for more power in this segment (let’s hope). Love reading tfl truck and all your comments.

    3. Count me in for the 2.7 TT for the Ranger. More HP and TQ than the 2.8 Duramax (I’ve heard that the 2.7 TT will be more powerful than it is now). Now, hopefully it’ll be priced competitively.

    4. I agree – this thing will absolutely dominate with the 2.7tt!

      It will be the first midsize with real power and knowing Ford it will most likely have 2 or 3 other engine choices making it a truck for just about everyone!

      I predict a 4cyl gasoline, a 4cyl turbo diesel, and a premium 2.7tt gasoline.

      There also quite possibly could be a bonus engine with the 3.0 turbo diesel!

      Can’t wait!!!

        1. It doesn’t matter if it is a a new design or not it doesn’t stop government for looking. Right now DSL are being scruntized by government. Like I said do not get your hopes on a DSL.

        2. I think the Ecoblue Diesel albeit modern and efficient won’t see the light in American Rangers. Americans are still more into high displacement engines. Considering the current global Ranger can be optioned with the same 3.2 liter Diesel from the American Transit I see no reason to not carry over it in the next generation Ranger. Additionally that engine is already certified by the EPA. A 10% increase in HP and TQ wouldn’t hurt though.

    5. You DSL guys out there don’t get carried away. Just red a report out of the 3 DSL engines sold in America in Mercedes ONLY account for less than 1% of sales in the us. This does not bowed well for DSLs. Also Mercedes DSL engines​ are now being looked by the government.

      Now that being said Ford might think twice to putting a DSL in this ranger. With VW having problems now FCA with ram they might not put a DSL in a ranger for awhile.
      I believe Ford will offer a 2.0 eco-boost in the ranger and if gets real good fuel mileage is just as close to a DSL. Ford might not offer a DSL. This my speculation.
      This news is definitely going to give a pause for Ford.

    6. I think it’s only fair to keep in mind that VW’s diesel woes were self inflicted. I recall a delay in the release of GM’s 2.8 duramax, at right about the time the VW scandal was “exploding”.

      1. The delay in the 2.8L was due to the testing regulators re-testing it to make sure it didn’t have any cheat programming now that it was known it could be done and it passed just fine. But it did take some time to re-test over a certain number of vehicles.

          1. @noqdrtundra
            Currently VW’ new 3litre Amarok has been rated the best towing vehicle for Caravans as far as stability and ease of towing. 2 litre engine was stressing too much towing

    7. Yeah if they end up making an FX4 or a “Ranger/Raptor” then MAYBE theyd give it that 2.7 but I’m skeptical. That engine really moves an F150, they might consider it too much for the new Danger Ranger

    8. This will certainly be an exciting debut. I doubt we will see the 2.7 ecoboost as an option. My guess: Base 3.3 NA V6, with the 2.3 ecoboost as the premium engine.

    9. I hope ford does something different then gm and Toyota.There trucks are just to big and to close to full size with basically no price difference.Gm had the best chance to do something and again dropped the ball.Instead of offering something new they went with a truck that looked basically like there big trucks that already look yrs older then everything else on the rd.The Tacoma’s nose looks like a Gillette commercial.I hope Ford does something different to stand out from the crowd.We don’t need the gm ford Toyota how big can we make this grill look.It doesn’t need 4 big hoggin doors and it doesn’t need to run to 60 in 6 seconds.It needs good gas mileage and a good functional bed maybe with a trunk like the ridgeline has.

    10. Unibody trucks can’t tow much?

      Let’s see, how much is that unibody Grand Cherokee rated to tow again?

      I think the Ridgeline’s towing limitation is due to factors other than its unibody construction. Most likely factor is staying below commercial weight ratings for CAFE credits (which it sells to mfrs like Ford/GM) as well as avoiding Class IV hitch rating hassles, WDH hassles, and everything else that everybody tends to ignore in these pizzing contests.

      As far as payload, compare payloads of trucks with the same options. With Honda, you get the payload you see advertised, because all of the options are built into the truck as advertised. Other mfrs advertise their payload ratings for base model trucks that no one buys. As you add the options you want, your payload drops, sometimes significantly. Again, everybody ignores these facts when they get into pizzing contests.

        1. Thanks for posting that link. There is a lot of good information in that article. The author clearly took the time to do some research and fact-finding.

      1. Completely Fuking agree, unibody or frame means nothing. Finite elements can design unibodies stronger than frames, same as a race boat. Unibodies can and are just as strong as frames and as a structural engineer I can tell you with the new technology today, you can make uni-bodies transfer more load and disperse it more evenly than a barbaric frame. With a frame you are limited to the height of the channel or boxed beam and like a sheet of plywood, flexible in one direction because its thin and rigid in the other because of height and a unibody gives you height. Very simple bh cubed over 12 for rectangular shape and since h is cubed you get the stiffness and strength because now you have the whole body of the vehicle to carry the load on a much stiffer platform than thin little noodle like channel. The unibody materials we have today have higher tensile strengths than steel. Pretty soon you will be able to 3D print your car frame from a pop machine and insert the electric motors. The frames are just old technology that still works well for those who continue to sit on the old vs the new technology that is arriving that will overshadow the old frame.

        But even in this old era we are stuck in the uni body in the Cherokee pulls more 7200Lbs, more than a midsize truck with a frame.

      2. The Ridgeline is Front wheel drive based, the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango can tow like 7K dispite being unibody because they are rear wheel drive. A front transaxle can’t handle that much weight.

        1. @Andy,
          Any facts to back up your statement about FWD-based not being able to handle towing, or is that pure supposition?

          Remember that the AWD Ridgeline can send 70% of its power to either or both rear wheels instantly, whenever needed. In fact, it is always powering the rear wheels when accelerating under power.

          1. That should be “towing much weight”, not just “towing”. It would be nice if we could edit our comments…

            1. why would anyone buy a ridgeline and plan on towing anything with it if you want to tow stuff you should probably be looking at a bigger truck diesel to tow gas to go and besides those new ridgelines might be the ugliest little truck out there.

          2. Yes true but cruising it is sending must of the power to the front wheels. I’ve just always heard fwd limits towing. I’m not saying you can’t tow but it’s usually limited to about 5k. i know people that tow thier 3-4K boats with thier minivan, some have had transmission issues.

        2. The grand Cherokee is AWD same as the Ridgeline. The Ridgeline with front wheel drive only has the same tow rating so it had no affect.

    11. If Ford has the kahunas to put that 2.7TT in the Ranger this is going to be one special truck. I’m not sure they would do it because it would overshadow the F-150’s performance. But, if they do, wow. I know Toyota has no answer and GM doesn’t at this time as the TTs they have out there would need some serious tuning for a truck based application but I’m sure GM could come up with something. As another poster mentioned they have some nice TTs of their own. What this means for us folks is simple – more competition equals better prices and performance. In end we win! Bring it on Ford!

    12. I can see the 2.7 tt in it but detuned quite a bit.Maybe its me and this is coming from a performance point but ford already has all those bases covered.This is fords chance at making something no one else sells or has in the new ranger. If ford just brings a big mid sized truck to market like the others whats the point in bringing it at all.

    13. @Andre Smirnov
      The Bronco see my websites I have pasted will be the short wheelbase version of the Ranger. Yes it will be exactly the same generally as the Global Ranger, but a lot lighter

      1. @Richard
        Colorado ( Global version) is not setting tbe world on cire although tbey have recently updated it.

    14. From the looks of this video it really looks like the Ranger is going to be an underpowered midsize piece of sht again.

      Maybe the Dakota will come back with a V8 and do something exciting again. So boring to power truck enthusiasts looking for better power for towing, hauling and off road fun.

    15. I had a Ranger back in the 90’s.Its was a pretty good little truck. Did me well. Remember the kids sitting in those little side seats. Went through a couple clutches but I was pulling a small landscaping trailer. It did me well. I think there will be a market for it.

    16. What l’m hearing in Australia, where the Ranger and Bronco are being designed and engineered is that the current 3.2 diesel (200hp) will be replaced by the 3 litre V6 diesel with about 270hp backed by either 6 speed manual or auto or in some versions the 10 sd auto and there is talk of the 3.5 litre V6 ecoboost as in your current f series. Apparently a Raptor style is also being looked at along with a top end ‘lifestyle’ version with a coil sprung rear. (Supposedly the version that will offer the 3.5 ecoboost to replace our falcon V8 utes). The Bronco is reported to be the 3.5 ecoboost only with the 10 speed auto and a coil spring rear end. Whatever you end up with l’m sure you’ll be as impressed as the rest of the world with how well the Ranger drive both on and off road.

    17. Like most other speculators on here, I agree that Ford should and likely will offer the 2.7 TT but only as the top-optioned engine for the Ranger and/or Bronco. I disagree with some that the upcoming 3.3 V6 NA destined for the F150 base power plant will be the base engine for the Ranger; 2nd tier (maybe); but not the base engine designed mostly for fleets with respect to Ranger. One has to look at the competition and realize that Ford has to be cost competitive on the low end. Colorado/Canyon starts at a mere $20K with a 2.5 I4 NA and 6 speed manual. If Ford starts with the 3.3 V6 or the 2.3 Ecoboost, then either of those would be an awkward offering with a manual shift, so adding auto tranny plus extra engine tech or larger displacement with more cylinders to the base model would leave Ford with lower margin than GM, because price competitiveness is mandatory in the pickup world, especially on the low end. No. The base engine will be a 2.2ish to 3.0ish NA 4 cylinder, but it is possible that an auto six speed could be standard and Ranger price could start at or about Colorado’s lowest auto tranny-optioned price. I also disagree that if there is to be a diesel that it will be the same one headed for F150, but I also don’t see a 2.0 I4 in the Ranger. A six cylinder diesel is too expensive of an option for Ranger. It’ll take a lot of $$$ to own the cheapest available F150 with the PowerStroke (likely north of $40K as a bare minimum); and that just won’t work in the Ranger, because no power train choice in Ranger can start near $40K. If we look at GM, who has made a mistake by starting the baby Duramax 2.8 four cylinder at or about $36K (a $16K premium over the cheapest Colorado/Canyon), Ford should do better and offer their diesel, if they have one, slightly lower appointed and available in only super cab for a few thousand less, but it’s going to have to have more guts than the 2.0; maybe an augmented version of that 2.0; but for the North American customer, it’s going to have at least .4 more liter, but it will have to be a four banger and maybe cast iron block and solenoid injectors so as not to be at a cost disadvantage and end up with average mpg as a V6 diesel may produce. I don’t see that 2.0 in our transit either, but we’ll see. Our Transit is currently a 3.2 I5 that excels at nothing except reliability against more modern diesel power trains, mostly because it’s in need of modern tech. Replace it with something along the lines of the baby Duramax (displacement and cylinder arrangement wise) with modern technology, and then they’ve got a new Transit and Ranger and Bronco diesel, and the 2.0 stays over seas. But I’m not suggesting they’ll even offer a diesel. Only that if they do, it will not be a six cylinder that cost too much or a tiny four cylinder that won’t have enough torque to compete with the Duramax. In other parts of the world, drivers like diesels, there is a history, they are price competitive, and they are cheaper to certify, and they can get more peak performance with less displacement and better mpg. But over here, fuel neutral emissions standards limit how lean ours can burn and limit compression ratio as these factors raise NOx levels, and when one combines all those disadvantages with the high premium price, the slightly higher price per gallon of fuel, then a diesel has to hit the niche just right.

      1. Man Faulkner even if they build a diesel it has been proven year over year that diesels don’t work here. They make up 3% of all vehicle sales in NA. People in the car industry don’t want them and the new Nissan Titan isn’t selling. The dealer told me none of his diesel trucks have sold. Stated it was a dumb idea and it is. The reason they are making this stupid decision is to try to beat the CAFE requirements to keep their lobbyists happy so they can secure meeting in the Bahamas. A 5.0 Coyote in the Ranger with the 10 speed would sell like hot cakes 🎂 but it hurts their avg allowable mpg’s

        At our current statistics if they sell 10,000 Rangers a month times 3% they will sell 300 diesels every month.

    18. Back to the original topic, the fact that the 2019 Ranger will be body-on-frame was already confirmed back in January at the Detroit NAIAS auto show when Raj Nair stated that it would be based on the existing global T6 Ranger which is BOF.

      Like everyone else I am really hoping Ford does offer the 2.7L EB but if they do it may not be in the 2019 model. Same for a diesel option.

      I would also be curious to see if anything other than in-line engines are offered since the existing T6 was never designed for anything but in-lines including the current top of the line 3.2L five cylinder turbo diesel.

      Whether we are talking about a V6 gas or diesel turbo you have to consider the overall width of those engines including the turbochargers which are typically attached directly to the exhaust manifolds. The other thing to consider is the width between the frame rails. Unless Ford totally re-designs the existing T6 frame those engines may not fit without some other changes to the engines themselves. I doubt Ford would go to that much expense only to design something that would be guaranteed to steal sales from their own F-150 and may not be price competitive in the mid-size segment.

      As for which diesel they might use, common sense says it will be the 3.2L five cylinder since that engine is already certified for the US full-size Transit van and is already used in the global T6 Ranger in Euro spec tune. The other option, assuming a V6 diesel will fit, could be a smaller version of the 3.0L Lion diesel that will be used in the 2018 F-150. Ford already has 2.7L version of that engine. BTW, those engines were co-designed with Peugeot several years ago and are currently built by Ford and used in various Jaguar and Land Rover models.

      1. @Bill from PA
        The 3.2 Diesel is not Euro 6 compliant so it is to be drooped totally. Only the US will be using it.
        The Lion at 3litres will be the replacement. Old LR engine at 2.7 definitely going.
        New 2019 T6 being developed at Broadmeadows by Ford Australia will take the Lion. Rumours of the 3.5litre for a Sports version

    19. As unlikely as it is i would want the 5.0 as the top engine that would put it above the competition but that probably would never happen. I could however see a 2.3 or maybe just maybe the 2.7ecoboost even though i would never buy an ecoboost anything i could see ford putting 2.7 in the ranger.

    20. A 4cyl Ecoboost makes the most sense as an option just below the 2.7tt with a base model NA 4cyl to start with as a competitive price point.

      Remember the 2.7tt is an easy fit in this and many other platforms. It’s compact size, no exhaust manifold, and longitude or transverse mounting is a huge plus towards being in the upcoming Ranger Danger!

      V6 is only 3cyl long, v8 is 4cyl long, inline 4 is 4cyl long and inline 5 cyl will never fit!

        1. Depends on how big they make the ranger. The Explorer had the 3V V8 and the Lincoln Aviator had the 4V V8. If there is a will there is a way. But a OHC head definitely has a smaller area of space consumption.

    21. I’m telling you guys it will be 2.0 eco-boost as your Base engine and 2.7 eco-boost engine as your option engine. There will be no 2.3 eco-boost out of the rs. A DSL engine has to be small and inexpensive, but DSL engines are now under a microscope by governments.

      1. I’m betting on the 5.0 in an upper trim. I enjoy betting on the superior Horse and if I win I’ll buy the truck as a reward to myself.

    22. Am I the only one who thinks this thing is ugly ? The Ridgeline looks better than this, surely they’ll change the exterior look.

    Leave a Reply

    Top