• Report: 2019 Ford Ranger is Expected to Debut at the 2018 Detroit Auto Show Next Month


    2019 ford ranger midsize pickup truck prototype 4x4
    2019 Ford Ranger prototype

    Ford has already announced that the next generation Ford Ranger pickup truck is coming in 2019. However, many of the details are still unknown. We have seen many new Ranger prototypes testing on public roads (including the official Ford Ranger Raptor video from Australia), but final design and specifications are still shrouded in mystery.

    A recents report from Trucks.com suggests that the 2019 Ranger will make its debut at the 2018 NAIAS (Detroit) auto show next month. Considering the timing, this makes a lot of sense. Additionally, Ram has confirmed that the company is unveiling the 2019 Ram 1500 truck lineup at the same show. Rumors are flying around that GM may also unveil the 2019 Chevy Silverado at the show (although this has not been confirmed).  If this is the case, the 2018 Detroit show will be a great event for pickup truck enthusiasts everywhere.

    The TFLtruck team will be in Detroit in January so you can count on all of the latest truck news here at TFLtruck.com and our TFLtruck Youtube channel.

    Check out this 2019 Ford Ranger prototype driving on the highway.


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

    Similar Articles

    112 thoughts on “Report: 2019 Ford Ranger is Expected to Debut at the 2018 Detroit Auto Show Next Month

      1. @Ed: Yeah, as Rambro will soon post that the 2.7 EB is a better option and I have to say, I agree; more HP and TRQ on hand at a much lower cost.

        However, it’s likely as some have noted that production will be “limited” as to not impact current full size sales–lucky for Toyota…

        1. Good, we have had disposable trucks in the full size, now we will have them for the mid-sized. Crazy thing is, so many people will outfit them so as to run up their prices beyond disposable prices.

          1. Ecoboosts have been shown to be reliable and capable of hitting over 400K miles. What part of that is disposable to you?

            Or are you just upset that not every truck has a 8L V8 in it?

            1. No skin off my back that you have just hoisted yourself by your own petard and lost credibility.

              Because if Lexus and Toyota don’t make garbage engines, you have nowhere to go after that.

            2. Your answer logically admits that the Toyota and Lexus engines are the best, you change your story.

              You fail to recognize that the engine is the most important and most expensive part of the vehicle. The rest of the vehicle is easy in comparison to maintain if it has problems.
              But when you are in the backwoods, an engine is very difficult to take apart and replace.

            3. LOL 400k miles? Guys were championing an Ecoboost with 200k miles and that was just one truck that managed to make it that far. We also didn’t even hear about any issues the truck did have, including the quite common misfire problems and turbo issues. The F-150 Ecoboost forum is flooded with guys that have valve-timing problems related to stretched timing chains and VVT issues, blown engines, turbo failures, misfires that dealers struggle to fix only to have the issue come back, etc. And the new 2.7EB has serious signs of cost cutting, especially the heads which use steel valve guides that are ovaling out and causing the engine to consume multiple quarts per 1000 miles.

            4. @lightning dave

              Ford sells over 800k F series in the US alone per year. If the ecoboosts were really that problematic, ford would be looking at a recall/lawsuit that makes dieselgate look minuscule.

              Yes, some ecoboosts, particularly the 3.5L, had issues. I can also find tons of forum posts about issues with the 3.5L NA, the 5.0, the chevy vortec, the chevy 5.2, the 5.7 HEMI, ece. Every engine has issues of some kind, but it isnt like ecoboosts are awful in reliability like old aluminum chevy nova engines or anything like that.

            5. Ford sells 800k F-SERIES, not 800k ecobusts. Lightning Dave has a point. Looking through the F-150 Ecoboost forum, it it PACKED with guys that have had ecoboost engine that have blown apart, turbo failures, misfires, timing chains stretching, limp modes, throttle body failures, blowout valve failures, oil consumption, rod knock, etc. Ford will never deliver the kind of reliability that will beat the Tacoma. You’re living in a dreamworld if you think they can.

    1. So we have waited all this time for something that basically looks just like the global Ranger? OK, I guess. What Ford has that the others do not is engine choices in spades. Other than that, I hope they make a version that has some serious off-road chops. Time will tell but this is no time to lay down a bunt…

      1. What Ford DOESN’T have is reliability in spades. They can offer a dozen engines but if 2/3’rds of them have reliability problems (normal for a FORD) then they will NEVER be able to beat Toyota. Ford quality is job NONE.

        1. I only drive Tacos so I have no idea how well their recent engines hold up but they have plenty to choose from. My Taco could use some more power.

        2. Everybody has different experiences. My 2004 F150 5.4 has 350,000 and hasn’t been touched except plugs. Original starter, water pump, fuel pump, exhaust, driveline. Have replaced alternator and front wheel bearings. Is that being perfect no, but it works for me
          My brother replaced his Lexus RX with a Ford Edge because the routine Maintence trips were so expensive and his car insurance was too high. Loves his Edge. Each to their own.

    2. Looks like it will be just another “me too!” mid-size truck.

      The only way i will be impressed is if they actuly bring out a true compact truck, and admit that they have been psyching us out with the global Ranger testing on U.S. soil (I have heard that the Ranger Raptor will NOT be coming to the U.S.).

      A compact Ranger won’t be stealing any half-ton sales, so that is a point in favor of it as far as Ford is concerned. However, don’t think they could keep a compact truck a secret, so color me ‘not impressed’ for now…

      I am more interested in the Jeep pickup debut. At least it looks different.

      Whoever debuts a compact pickup first should own that market. Hoping to see more from Hyundai at the NAIAS.

      1. They wont bring back a compact truck. Making a compact BoF pickup isnt economically feasible, unless you feel like paying $30k for a 2011 ranger with a dinky engine.

        The majority of sales by 2010 were cheap fleet models, not real money makers. Consumers stopped buying them.

        And seeing the resentment at the idea of a old ranger sized unibody pickup, there is 0 chance of getting something small, otherwise the chevy tornado or fiat strada would have come here by now.

        I want a true compact too, but with unibody not being accepted and the cost of developing a BoF design with no shared parts driving prices through the roof, the chance of us getting a compact are basically 0.

        1. I think a compact unibody would sell if it was priced competitively. The folks that really resent the unibody concept in a small truck are either uninformed, Luddites or just haters of technology that is not touted by their favorite brand.

          If anybody can sway the masses, it would be Ford. After all, fifteen years ago most folks would have said you’d be crazy to have an aluminum trick with a turbo V6, and now it’s a best-seller. However, it outs Ford in a tough position because they would have to admit and then convey/educate the benefits of unibody on a smaller platform. It takes an aggressive company with cajones to do something like that.

          Unibody makes the most sense for smaller platforms. BOF makes the most sense for large platforms. Simple as that.

          The recession also played a part in killing off compacts, along with CAFE standards and crash test standards noth rewarding larger platforms, and mfrs building more profit into larger platforms (it is very easy for them to sell the masses on “bigger is better”).

            1. Thank you, John. The well formed argument and abundant proof of Fords poor quality you have provided and has truly swayed my opinion. I shall drive my truck down to a Ram or GM dealer right now and trade it in because of all the quality issue I had no idea it had.

            2. Just wait, the time will come that you will have to take a bus to drive to the Toyota dealership. Its just a matter of time.

            3. “I shall drive my truck down to a Ram or GM dealer right now and trade it in because of all the quality issue I had no idea it had.”

              That’s exactly what I did after the 5.4 Triton turned out to be junk that cost me thousands to keep running and my 2012 F-150 Lariat with the 3.5EB went through 2 timing chains by 80k miles and had vibrations at highway speeds that the dealer told me was “within spec”.

          1. My thoughts exactly. The Honda Ridgeline is a great test bed for unibody pickups, but it is too large and expensive for practical and/or commercial use.

            1. Agreed. A ridgeline the size of a HRV/CRV would be ideal, although it being crew cab only is still a deal breaker for me.

              If they had a single cab long bed model, or had a mid gate ala chevy avalanche, the ridgeline would be my first choice.

          2. I hope someone tries it properly someday. An old ranger/S10 sized unibody would be pretty sweet. AWD, turbo four, 6 ft bed, decent gas mileage/electric drive.

            One can hope

        1. @Robert Ryan….Yes, I suspected as much. It would be the surprise of the decade if Ford intro’d a compact truck. As such, we will see the same old boring mid-size platform (which is practically what some of us remember as full-size 30 years ago).

    3. I agree with the comments above that this needs to be something different looking than the “Global Ranger”. Ford does have some nice engine choices, but is that enough? Will they offer the engine/ trans combination that the majority is suggesting? Are they going to hold back?
      Will they step outside the box with their powertrain offerings? Only time will tell I suppose. A soft “Me Too” attempt will be DOA and a major disappointment.

    4. I am fine with the global ranger look. Nothing new coming out will look like the old ranger, and I prefer the more subdued global platform to the *LOOK AT ME GRRR* look of modern pickups.

      I just hope ford gives us the global ranger with an aluminum body and the 2.3 ecoboost combo. Give me that 30 MPG highway pikcup truck ford!

        1. I’d rather have the 2.7 over the 3.0.

          And the 2.3 is trouble in the RS, but not the mustang or explorer. The RS uses a different, problematic turbo, and produces more power then the mustang, as well as having different exaust, intake, and cooling components.

          The mustang one is more likely to be used, as it is set up for RWD, and that one has proven to be reliable.

          1. LoL the 2.3 reliable? Seen an awful lot of 2.3 Mustang with blown head gaskets or blown turbo seals to call them “reliable”. Reliable for a Ford maybe, but definitely no competition for the Tacoma. Ford resale value is garbage compared to any Toyota too.

            1. Toyota guys are funny. I’ve owned Toyotas. They are the singular most boring vehicles to drive, with the most uninspired interiors in production. I got rid of my Toyota for the precise reason you keep yours—the whole experience was going to last too long if I waited for the engine to die before trading it in. Even if repairs were more costly in the competitors—far more expensive are the years spent in an unbearably boring vehicle.

            2. Do any of you guys work in a shop or have ASE qualifications? Ahhh….didn’t think so. So essentially youre all internet trolls who hate Ford and the Americans that work at the factories and engineering departments. Ford makes fine trucks-i know, I work on all brands.

        1. Those both feature diesel engines, carry a hefty price premium, use more expensive fuel, have more expensive and involved maintenance, and in thecase of the colorado, will not sell you an access cab 6 foot bed with the diesel unless you buy the gaudy Z72 package.

          The 2.3 can provide that 30MPG without those drawbacks.

          1. Not necessarily. The 2.8 Durmax is still young, and haven’t seen any problems with the American version yet.

            The ecodiesel has been updated and upgraded and will soon be unveiled.

            1. Actually, the Ram ED is rated at 27MPG for both 2wd and 4wd.

              The 2.8 duramax does seem to be decent, although I have seen a few engine or turbo failures on the colorado forum. i think the saving grace there is that its a GM vehicle and has the delphi fuel systems. It wasnt tarnished by the hands of Chrysler/FCA like the Ecodiesel or previous VM Motori in the Liberty CRD(which I own and can attest to the horrid corner cutting and half-assery)

          2. Ford’s turbo gas engines have plenty of downsides of their own. They certainly have more reliability issues than their naturally aspirated counterparts. Not to mention the 2.3EB doesn’t even make the power numbers Ford advertises unless you run 93 octane. And even Ford says you should run premium when towing with an Ecoboost. The smaller diesels in the Ram 1500 and Colorado are much cheaper to maintain than the much larger diesels in the heavy duty fullsize trucks.

            1. Everybody who has a turbo car will say premium or bust. VW owners, focus ST owners, ecoboost owners, ece all say premium. Yes, you need premium to get full power from a turbo’d engine, and the sky is blue.

              Diesel engines, in general, need more expensive maintenance. Fuel is more expensive, the engines need more oil in an oil change, and if you make lots of short trips, a diesel regen can cost you a LOT of fuel in a short timeframe. Then there is the cost of DEF fluid, the initial cost of purchasing said engine, the fact that chevy wont sell you the engine in a non-off road package in access cab form, ece.

              If you are not hauling or driving long distance, then a diesel engine is a waste of money.

            1. I’d want something with a little more umph. If I wanna tow my 5500 lb travel trailer with a mid-sized truck, I want over 300 ft-lbs.

            2. I’d like a full electric truck, as I do a lot of city driving, but such a product does not exist yet.

              The chrysler system is interesting, and I will keep an eye on it. But the scrambler is quad cab only according to FCA, so unless the platform is used to make an access or single cab dakota, it isnt in the running for me.

              I’d love something like a nissan frontier size with 200KW of battery and electric motors, but weight would be a significant issue, as would price.

    5. A lot of great comments and we all seem to be on the same page. I’m always looking for someone to push the midsize market forward but this is not looking like it. I hope I am wrong but this has the “me too” look to it. Now, if they give us an unneutered 2.7TT and a serious off road model then they get a pass on the conservative styling. Otherwise, we waited how long for THIS? Peace…

      1. This is why I always say that I would not wait for a new release of an old favorite. All manufacturers keep you on the hook for years by showing you all kinds of great looking design renderings. Then they put camouflage on prototypes to keep your interest. And when they do release them, they are just more of the same! And then you realize it is best to not buy the first year of any new vehicle anyway!

        1. Agreed, I have been looking at Tesla charge stations and they are literally everywhere. They have built quite the network, even I can get around up North here. Hope they build a truck.

          1. Not until they get the weight/KWh down. Trucks are already heavy, putting in 200KW of batteries to give it model S like range would put them over 6000lbs. Even then, such a truck wouldbe hella expensive.

            We are probably a good 10+ years away from such a vehicle, unless they were willing to make it old ranger sized.

      2. I agree on the waiting. I’m a 71 year old guy and I want to be able to use the truck before they take away my drivers licence. I hope the Raptor is an option in the USA and I don’t mean a $50,000.00 Raptor.

    6. I love the looks of the global ranger.I am tired of all the new trucks with huge look at me grill’s. I was glad to see the f 150’s somewhat smaller look of there trucks.The Tacoma’s pig snout nose looks hideous. I would have never thought Toyota could make a uglier front end then on a 2nd generation tundra but never say never. Ford will sell as many rangers as they can make in the first couple of yrs and with the 2.7 under its hood nothing is going to come close in hp or torque.

      1. Well spoken Paul,

        Toyota’s new styling on everything they have is the worst looking, most video game kinda styling out there right now!

        I just came from the LA Auto show and almost every new style they had including the Pig Snout Tacoma, was horrendous. Some were so bad we would actually stand back and laugh out loud at them.

        The only styles that were ok were the base model Corolla’s. The Tundra display looked like a ghost town!

        Anyway, back to the Ranger. I think this new global style is just right and I agree with the comments about over doing it trying to go for the over macho look, or Transformers design like Toyota.

        Just put a 2.7tt with 10spd drivetrain and it will be the #1 midsize in no time at all!

        Actually offer 4 engine choices:
        – base 4cyl gasoline
        – 2.3 Eco tt gasoline
        – 2.7 Eco tt gasoline
        – 3.0 Diesel tt only as a premium and to be competitive for those guys that will pay more for it!

        Change the front grill a bit from the global model to somewhat resemble the 2018 F150 and on the Raptor model make the grill look like a downsized baby Raptor!!!

        1. I wouldnt even bother with a base ecoboost. Just offer the 2.3, 2.7, and 3.0.

          Or offer just the 2.0, 2.7, and 3.0 is the 2.3 and 2.7 are too close.

          1. Depends on the tuning. If they offer the 325hp/400ft-lb version of the 2.7 in the ranger than thats still a 50 ft-lb jump from the 2.3 in the RS and nearly 100 ft-lbs from the run of the mill explorer version.

        2. Keep in mind that Ford also has their new 3.3L Ti-VCT V6 on hand too, which is right around power levels of existing competition. That could be used as a base engine. Is that the engine I would want? Well that answer depends on the other engine options that Ford is going to offer. I have learned to expect the least amount of effort from all manufacturers, then be surprised when they toss in something non-expecting.

          Will Ford utilize any Aluminum? Will Ford go for a quick truck? Will Ford achieve superior power to weight ratio when compared to the competition? Will Ford offer an interior that is modern and well thought out, including materials and ergonomics. I personally think the interior on their F150 King Ranch is probably on top for me when comparing any truck, mid-size or full-size.

        3. The Ranger is pretty unlikely to get the 10-speed transmission, nor is it likely to get the 2.7L EcoBoost engine. Smart manufacturers only build “just enough” to get ahead of their competitors. Why would you go so far out when you don’t need to?

          I can see options that mimick GM, primarily: the new 3.3L V6 / 6-speed combination that forms the base drivetrain in the 2018 F-150 as the primary engine, and perhaps a diesel. I cannot see it being the 3.0L. That is a V6 diesel to be used in larger vehicles, with substantially more power when compared with the 2.8L Duramax. What I see is possibly the old 3.2L inline 5 diesel currently used in the full-size Transit…and global Ranger. There will need to be a base 4-cylinder just like Toyota and GM offer. This would likely be the 2.5L from the Fusion. I only see an EcoBoost option on some high performance version like the “Ranger Raptor” but that would be down the road.

          That’s reality, folks.

          The Ranger will be pleasant looking, have a reasonably nice interior, drive well, have good fuel economy and competitive towing, payload, and performance figures. It’s not meant to introduce major innovations…just compete with GM and grab maybe a few more sales from weird folks who don’t want an F-150 but love the idea of a 3/4-scale model which costs nearly as much but is slower and less capable.

          1. I mean jeep just released a 2.0 GTDI/hybrid in the wrangler so why not? Doesnt need to be a 2.7, a 2.0 or 2.3 would still offer better low end torque that the competitive V6’s and equal HP.

            The duramax is underpowered. No ands ifs of butts. you hook up 7600 lbs or whatever its rated to tow and that is going to be a long, miserable experience if you have any sort of hill to climb. I have yet to find a reference to J2807 testing on the Colorado so i really think GM pulled that number out of the air and slapped it on because its a diesel and therefore can pull the titanic.

            1. The Jeep truck is a bit of an outlier. It *might* cause Ford, GM, and Toyota to consider some alternate thinking, but at the same time it might become a niche truck that doesn’t sell well.

            2. My neighbor pulls his 32 foot travel camper with his 2016 Colorado no problem. I think he said it weighs about 7000 lbs. He said it had no problems holding the speed limit at 55 mph.

              Widespread use of J2807 is only a few years old. How did we make it nearly 100 years towing without it?

            3. I agree on the J2807 part. What a joke. I remember Ford being the most famous for optimistic to ratings and after seeing the pathetic performance of the latest diesel F250, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were still cheating their towing ratings.

      2. Agreed Paul. The 2.7 in this truck would be a perfect pairing. Truck grills are becoming cartoonish and yes, they will sell the *&^% out of these.

    7. I always thought the Ranger was a calendar year 2019, not a model year 2019. In other words, I’m surprised it’s being shown so early when, I thought, it wasn’t going to be sold for another year.

        1. https://m.ford.com/trucks/ranger/2019/#

          That says coming in 2019, and they also call it a 2019. I have a hard time believing they would have a short first model year. Also, all the articles I read when the program was announced by Ford had Ford people saying 2019. Here is a quick search. https://blog.caranddriver.com/the-ford-ranger-and-ford-bronco-are-truly-actually-officially-making-a-comeback/

          I just feel debut and the start of sale should be close together. That give the competition less time to answer.

          1. There are some legal guidelines about what you can call a model year vs when you can start selling it. I’m too lazy to look it up, but I want to say something like, a 2019 model year can go on sale as early as January or February 2018, but not earlier.

            Many automakers intro their new year models in the fall, while some do it at other times of the year. They can also get extra months out of the new intro. As an example, Honda intro’ d the 2017 Ridgeline in June 2016, then brought in the 2018 Ridgeline in August 2017 (with essentially no changes). So there are 14 months of 2017 Ridgeline, but succeeding model years should hover around 12 months.

    8. I was talking to the FOrd guys at the L.A. Autoshow and he told me that ford is debuting at least 4 cars/trucks at Detroit. From what he explained to me, the Ranger is definitely coming back. He didn’t tell me straight up but he did say that there is a truck from overseas coming to the U.S. market, which I suspect will be the Ranger.

    9. I’m a GM guy that leased a ‘16 Canyon crew cab for two years. Since they used the overseas cab and simply changed the grill and fenders to come up with the US model, it made for a really cramped interior by US “midsize” vehicle standards. I’d consider a Ranger that didn’t suffer from this issue.

    10. If this “me too” truck is all Ford has to offer my Taco will be safe atop its perch for the sales lead for the foreseeable future. I do wish Ford well but they are going to need to drop some great engines and hope they get people based off more hp alone. I suspect Rambro’s past comments will turn out to be true. I doubt (but hope) we will see the 2.7TT and we will likely only get the smaller EB. It seems this segment is only about “just enough” and no more so they don’t cut too deeply into the fullsize sales. Bummer.

      1. Moondog, your last sentence sums up pretty much my thouggts on the mid-size market. I really hope Ford re-enters the segment with an offering that pushes the segment forward. The idea of holding back to protect full-size truck sales is what I have thought for years and is apparent with current offerings.

        1. This is a sad but true reality, Joseph. I have owned my share of fullsize trucks over the years but I just don’t need something that size and don’t like them. I prefer a midsize. It would be nice if someone would just put some effort into it and maybe, just maybe, go above and beyond. Why can’t Ford offer up that 2.7? Why not bust the rest of the segment in the mouth as opposed to offering the same or similar performance? Ford has the engines to do it but we are about to find out if Jim Hackett is going to push Ford forward or just run his mouth like the past CEOs and keep this market stagnant like several other of the markets they compete in (apart from the fullsize trucks).

          1. Ford doesn’t have the reliability or fuel efficiency to do it. Their engines have been garbage for nearly 25 years and counting. Hackett is a joke of a CEO that hacked Ford’s powertrain R7D budget to pieces because he’s all on board driverless, electric vehicles. More brand new engines than ever and Ford is spending less m9ney than ever to develop and improve them. It’s the POS 5.4 Triton all over again.

      2. The Tacoma is a nice truck, but I really can’t think of anything about it that is nicer than the current Colorado / Canyon. Maybe GM really is limiting production to protect the Silverado, or maybe people just remember the S-10 never being that great. If Ford does not restrict Ranger production, even with a bland product it could topple the Tacoma. I think the 3.3L is exactly what you will see competing with the Colorado / Canyon. It makes 290HP and 265lb-ft. That’s down 18HP and 10lb-ft compared to the Colorado, but this engine has port and direct fuel injection, plus auto stop-start. It could easily get better mpg than the GM truck.

        1. The Tacoma interior is far nicer, Troverman. The ride is also much better to me. I am pulling for Ford to do something great but fear they won’t. If the 3.3 is their answer then they are making a huge mistake. At a minimum they should put the small EB 4 but if they give us the 2.7TT then they are going to be a force to be reckoned with. It better be good because a year after they release it the more mature GM twins will be releasing a remodel.

          1. No, Moondog, its not. You can buy a Canyon Denali from GM but you cannot even get a power seat on the highest trim level Tacoma. The seats are still uncomfortably low to the floor for taller people, as they always have been in the Tacoma. Compared to the GM trucks, the Tacoma has less front legroom, much less rear legroom, and less headroom all around. Car & Driver’s detailed review of the 2017 Tacoma interior is not positive – in summary, a lot of cheap materials and missing features. You can read it here: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-toyota-tacoma-in-depth-model-review-2017-toyota-tacoma-interior-review-car-and-driver-page-5

            1. You are talking about bells and whistles. A power seat option has nothing to do with the quality of the remaining interior components. Yes, I too take issue with the lack of power seats but the interior of the Tacoma has better materials (to my eye) and looks better to me. I like the “trucky” look to it. I have driven them (Colorado and Taco) both extensively and don’t need “experts” from a dedicated car magazine to tell me what they prefer. The Tacoma is a true truck and C&D has never and will never like that. I own a loaded Tacoma and have driven and tried to like the Colorado but just can’t. You have your opinion and I have mine but because you disagree does not mean I am wrong, The Colorado interior is a throwback to the 90s if I have ever seen one. Every time my wife gets in my Tacoma she says she loves the interior and she owns a $65K Yukon XL. We don’t need a soft leather dash on a truck – it’s a truck and anyone who knows anything about trucks knows that if used the way it’s intended that soft leather won’t last. You know that too because I’ve seen enough informed commentary from you to make that conclusion. I joke and kid on here a lot just to stir up the GM fanboys over things like lifting their ZR2 trucks (it needs it) and talk loosely (don’t have time to dig deep) but I bet I’ve owned more new cars for my age than anyone on here. I know what a good interior looks like based on the past Audis I have owned. Could the Taco be nicer? Uh, yes. But, I prefer it to the dated GM interior. BTW, I am a fan of the ZR2 and hope it drives the others to do something similar but I will drive a Taco until something clearly better in all aspects comes out. GM doesn’t have it and I bet that Ford won’t either. ✌🏻

            2. Whoever came up with the soft leather reason to complain about a trucks interior needs to be flogged and beater. The last time I caressed my F150’s dash in such a manner that I would even notice was never.

            3. Still bitter because you made a fool of yourself by claiming a body lift would ruin the function, or even geometry, of the ZR2’s suspension I see. Let it go man.

              Tacoma fanboys are the worst.

            4. Hey there Rammins! Not bitter at all. I never said anything about a body lift. Even a Chimpanzee like you can put those on a truck. You can lift a minivan with spacers. I was talking about a true high quality lift like running Kings or Fox but that is too complicated for you. It’s OK though. Go back to your trailer and turn your tube tv on. I hear the Andy Griffith show is on.

            5. Wow this moondog guy is an real idiot. I’ve been reading the comment sections on TFL for a while but have held off from commenting for a while now, and Moondog has insisted on SEVERAL occasions that body lifting a ZR2 would take away any advantage that spool valves offer which simply is NOT the case. Body spacers are completely different from strut spacers but Moondog seems to think they are one and the same. Talk about ignorant! HAHAHA!

            6. Hey there, Taco. Nice to hear from you. Actually, I never said a thing previously about any form of a body lift. Those were words brought forth by you slow GM fellas. I’m sure you GM fanboys get upset because your ZR2 has such terrible ground clearance and that is ok. In fact, my Taco is not lifted and will stay unlifted. But, my prior lifts have been via Kings, which we know is a suspension lift. Keep talking your crap fanboy, your low IQ is shining through Opie. Best of luck to your next addiction of “A Complete Guid to Lifting Your ZR2 “. As we all know, with enough work anything can be lifted. Heck, I bet even you could lift your mom’s Pinto or dad’s Citation. Your book will sell well I’m sure. Bye, Felicia….
              https://jalopnik.com/please-dont-put-a-lift-kit-on-your-chevy-colorado-zr2-1795181142

    11. Moondog the times are a changing and they are changing fast along with my so called predictions. After realizing and seeing the network of superchargers that Tesla has and the reveal of the Semi and Roadster and watching the Model X tow a 5000-Lb load up a mountain like it wasn’t there is a real eye opener for me that electric propulsion via battery via whatever type of battery wins out will be the future. Ford might have no choice but to make a leap with this Ranger instead of just enough all the time. I think Tesla is a big game changer. If Ford and others play stupid games like trying to maintain half ton sales leads, then electric propulsion is going pass right over their heads. Ford and others only a few years ago were laughing at electric cars along with everyone else and they really have no choice but to go for broke. If they play protect 1/2 ton elites then all you will see is maybe a 2.0 or 2.3 turbo. Even if Ford decides to build electric trucks they are late to the game, they do not have a network of charge stations like Tesla, nobody does and nobody has a 5.5 million square foot giga-factory. Tesla although they cant meet demand will be what other companies will be compared to. I think Tesla has this cat and mouse game all f-ed up. I think the current strategy of the trucking industry to sell the next best model with minor tweeners have come to an end. I think leaps and bounds are in the very near future and every manufacturers lives are going to be turned upside down.

      I think Tesla is a comodo dragon and they have bit the buffalo in the leg and all they got to do is wait for it to die now while the poison takes affect. When people like me see what I see, electric drive is going to multiply like a wildfire and no one in the industry has the skills to fight it because they laughed at it and they have no cure. Multimillion dollar supercars cannot touch a Tesla performance wise. Their Model X beats the 445HP Diesel Q7 in every aspect even price and range is no longer an issue. Everyone cries about range anxiety but they don’t yet realize Tesla has that beat for the most part and will continue to improve on it. They are quiet with no smell which is also very appealing to the masses. Sorry for the Rambrolling, just thinking out load as I see things. More than likely the midsize market along with the rest of the truck market will stay stagnated for a long time before anyone makes the switch to electric and getting a Tesla is near impossible due to demand but look to 2020 to end this game of charades that the truck industry plays. We know they can put 475HP into a Durango that is smaller than a midsize and pull 8700Lbs up the gauntlet without a hiccup and we have 707Hp versions of that as well and we have seen V8’s crammed into smaller trucks such as the 2012 Colorado. So this charade of keeping a small truck under the power to weight ratio of a 1/2 ton will come to an end in the very near future IMO.

      1. Rambro, I think you’re drunk buddy.

        Tesla is hardly a game changer. You keep forgetting one thing: each quarter, each year…all they make is losses. Auto makers are interested in something called “profits.” Tesla needs government help in order to stay afloat. When Trump pulled out of Paris, supported coal and oil producers, and is likely to reduce CAFE targets…its no wonder Musk immediately quit Trump’s technology advisory panel. Basically, Trump just cost him a ton of money and possibly the future of the company. And he’s a poor sport. Without legislation that forces the hands of automakers, electric vehicles will do nothing more than fill niche markets such as city delivery trucks.

        Relax, old Elon really doesn’t have as much of his money tied up in those supercharger stations as you may thing. Most of it came from grants, incentives, and investor money. Some of it may have even come from VW. Consider a supercharger station as a future gas station…where the price of convenient electricity will be controlled by a new oligarchy of billionaires.

        I’ll forgive you of your blindness, I understand you’re from the land of liberal maple leafs…

        1. Troverman you need to get in the know on this. Elon started Amazon and never showed a profit either because all his profits went to upgrades, I do the same thing for my apartments. I spend to upgrade them every year to show a loss or as little profit as possible, this comes back to me in spades when I need to re-mortgage as my houses are worth more money when I need to borrow from them. Again look at what he did with Amazon and you will see the same business ethics with Tesla, other manufacturers are late to the game, all the money in the world cannot catch up to Tesla and the network they created. It will be a long time before Ford even Toyota to build a cheap electric car and you still need more resources like a gigafactory and Toyota is going for the complicated mess that hydrogen will bring. And yes we can disagree on that or not but my prediction is Tesla is ahead of the game. Obviously if everyone is re-tooling for electric drive as we have heard announced by several companies, then electric drive is the future and everyone laughed at Tesla in the beginning, but no one is laughing at him now, it is the current rage to buy electric, problem is that production is limited to only a few cars. Tesla cannot mass produce yet and other companies can’t produce a cheap electric car like the model S because they are too far behind the 8 ball, like 5 to 6 balls short and Tesla just sunk the 8 ball with the reveal of the roadster and semi. Now its time for the rest to re-rack the table.

          I like the drunk part though, that was funny, still wrong but funny. And yes we will be controlled by a hierarchy of billionares the same we are with fuel but the benefits of electric drive will be an upgrade to our current transportation system.

          1. Rambro, I’m sticking with my theory of you drinking. Check out who really founded Amazon. It’s Jeff Bezos, not Elon. You’re thinking of PayPal, which Musk was a part founder of, and is how he made his fortune.

            The “Gigafactory” is nothing more than hype. Check your facts – at 58 million square feet, it is hardly the largest auto factory in the world. VW’s Wolfsburg Germany plant is 70 million square feet. Hyundai has a 54 million square foot plant. And there are others. The laughable thing is that Panasonic is paying for 75% of this factory, and the rest is being paid for by incentives from Nevada and local municipalities. Like everything from Tesla, there has been a lot of overpromising and underdelivering. As of now, only 3 of the 21 total factory blocks have been built. And construction has been going on for 3 years. Musk is already outlining plans for “more” Gigafactories. Best to keep the public and potential investors distracted then face reality.

            What *was* going to be solely battery production for his cars is now going to be battery and vehicle production, mainly because he can’t produce nearly enough cars to demand the volume of batteries his oversize factory could produce.

          2. Who started Amazon?
            Amazon never made a profit?
            How about PayPal? Did it make a profit?
            Musk obviously made a profit somewhere along the way-just not at Tesla.

            1. Sparky/Troverman, I mistakenly referenced Amazon with Tesla. What I mean is that if you look at Amazon profits through the years it was the same as Tesla. Their income continued to climb but they were spending so much money in other areas they never showed a profit and Tesla is doing the same thing. They have superchargers worldwide and yes they are branching into other areas. It all costs a lot of upfront money to build this network but he continues to bring in more and more revenue but he continues to build so it is being used to build a larger network. If he stopped building for one year his profits would be through the roof but he would slow his progress towards mass production.

        2. I would have to agree that Tesla is indeed a game changer-they have shown that electric cars can be very fast and very intriguing. I do not think they have yet shown that electrics are going to take over anytime soon. Profit has thus far eluded them as far as I am aware. They definitely changed the public’s perception of the electric car. We will see many more electrics as a direct result of Tesla’s effort.

        3. Add 1 more thing are electric grid is very poor and Tesla hasn’t not made no effort to to make it better but only make it worst.

    12. Rambro,

      Stay on track – your off in Electric la la land again!

      Yes, electrics are cool and definitely the future of mass transit, but it’s a long way out until everything needed in the infrastructure is in place to make it viable.

      I also agree that electric propulsion eliminates many components and maintenance items that come with traditional ICE power trains.

      However, as we all can clearly see electric’s create their own set of problems and nuances that make them just not practical yet in many situations!

      I watched the Tesla X pulling up that grade and heard the cooling fans roaring away. I also watched the guys on Autobahn trying to go top speed for sustained times and they OVERHEAT!

      Same thing will happen trying to tow up the Ike with a model X, especially in the summer. The more the fans roar the quicker the battery dies!

      The Semi might work in town but totally unproven at this time!

      Back to the Ranger Danger now. Ford needs to offer the 4 engine choices I mentioned earlier and offer them in all models including base to keep prices under control.

      This is what they do in F150 and it’s one of the reasons they sell so well over GM!

      Base 4-cyl gasoline
      2.3 Eco Gasoline
      2.7 Eco Gasoline
      Diesel only for those diehards that will pay for it!

      Why would Ford offer a base 3.3V6 when both the 2.0 Eco and 2.3 Eco will better it and the competition in every way?

      1. They may be worried about the 2.3 being too good. The 2.3 already outperforms, in expedition trim, every single mid size gas engine. If the ranger is aluminum, the 2.3 would make it a rocket..and eliminate any reason for people to shell out for the 2.7. Ford has pulled this kind of silliness before. Same reason toyota and nissan refuse to put better 4 bangers in the tacoma and frontier. By making the V6 the only good engine and tying it to higher trim levels, they make more $$$.

        If ford restricts the XL trim to a slower engine, like they do the edge, then they make higher margins. If the XL gets the 2.3, the 2.7 looses much of its luster.

    13. The proportions in the video Roman and Tommy made of a 2019 Ranger look very unimpressive. Looks like a rush job by Ford for the US. Nothing innovative, bad ground clearance, potentially terrible reliability if they follow through with junk ecoboost engines, etc. Toyota has nothing to worry about at this point HAHAHA!

      1. Take your ford bashing else where, there is enough of it infesting this website already. The Taco was by far the crappiest of the mid-sized trucks I test drove a few months back. I would have taking the 12 year old Nissan Frontier design over that horrific motor.

        1. The Lexus/Toyota 3.5 is universally recognized as one of the best quality engines in the auto industry by every independent engineer group.

          You have lost a lot of credibility by saying that.

          And it is not bashing if it is true. Very often, being complimentary and “nice” about something that is not TRUE is very evil to do.

          We are here to get to the truth in the auto industry, and not just say nice things about everything, although that IS part of it.

          1. Sean,

            I agree with the Real Jay S completely about his statement. The 3.5 in the new generation Tacoma is by far the least desirable engine in the midsize group!

            A 12yr old Nissan 4.0v6 or Toyota’s own 4.0v6, or even Toyota’s old 3.4v6 all have substantially more low end power which is where it belongs in a truck!!!

            I also agree with you about the 3.5v6 being a great engine as a Lexus or Camry engine!

            Go drive all of the midsize’s back to back like I have and the Real Jay S is quoting and you will come to a similar conclusion if being honest!

            Then go drive a 2.7tt in a much bigger F150 and be HONEST!

            Tell us how amazing that Lexus 3.5v6 is in the Tacoma?

            1. Drifter, I’ve owned only Tacos for several years and the 3.5 has had its share of issues for the 3rd gen Tacoma. There is no denying that. There have been some growing pains and the engine has not been as bulletproof as some on here have indicated. I have had no issues with mine but plenty of others on Tacomaworld have. What we have on our 3rd gen Tacos is a bunch of howling rear diffs and that has been irritating to all ends. Also, Toyota could have done better with the 3rd gen as it relates to more power down low. Once you get the truck going it is ok for me but down low it could use more low end torque. I love my Taco but it is NOT perfect. Just my $.02 from someone who actually owns and drives one daily and has had other generations of Tacos.

          2. Sean, even if the Toyota 3.5L was the best quality engine ever created, I still wouldnt buy it because of how crappy the power curve is and how poor the driving experience was. I test drove all three mid-sized truck within two hours of each other and the Toyota motor was so bad that any advantage the truck may have had, went out the window right then and there.

            And I love how all Toyota and Lexus fan always resort to how amazing reliable it is. Learn to turn a wrench. Its really not that bad if you have to do some minor maintenance every couple of years. You act like all motors besides Toyota blow up the second you drive em off the lot. Ill take the risk of a “junk” Ecoboost every day of the year before I ever even considered driving a Toyota 3.5L. I really couldnt care less how reliable it may be.

            And your comments “junk” ecoboosts is not truth, which is why I asked you to take them elsewhere. If they were truth then I would be inclined to agree but at this point all you have done is made some unsubstantiated comment, likely based on some 3rd party GM/Ram/Toyota fanboy with no real experience him/herself.

    Leave a Reply

    Top