Next generation T-6 Ranger test mules...

Messages
9,918
Location
Birmingham, AL
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/05/spied-again-future-ford-ranger.html It's too early to make any final judgments on these trucks, but these pics have me a little nervous. For one, that front end looks very car-like with the integrated plastic bumper. I know the test mules are just mock ups, but I'd rather see a separate front bumper. You should be able to run a truck into something at low speeds without causing $1000+ in damage. Also, I don't like what appears to be a spring under axle setup in the rear. Spring under setups hang down really low. A lot of other small trucks use that setup, but full sizes don't. I'd rather see them use the setup that South and Central American Rangers use...spring over with outboard shocks, like the 2004+ F-150. The Ranger has always been a scaled down F-150 in terms of its frame and suspension design, and I'd like to see Ford continue with that personally. Hopefully Ford of Australia knows what they are doing and will build a class leading truck, but these test mules make me wonder.
 

01rangerxl

Thread starter
Messages
9,918
Location
Birmingham, AL
That's what I'm thinking too. They need to make the Ranger a smaller version of the current F-150, but with a nice looking front clip.
 
Messages
10,859
Location
Phoenix
I find it difficult to figure out what the final product will look like from spy pictures, they really do a good job of disguising them. It does look kind of El Camino/Rancheroish.
 
Messages
35,994
Location
ME
A 1.6/1.8 liter turbo? For real? I wouldn't get that in a gasser from any maker, especially in a lil' hauler. They say the torque curve will be wide. oookay. Don't mind the car look front end. Would make a decent parts runner for the local napa. Form follows function; whether it's for better aero and MPG or cheaper manufacture I bet they know what they're doing. It's not a tribeca after all.
 

01rangerxl

Thread starter
Messages
9,918
Location
Birmingham, AL
In the case of a pickup, at least one that gets used, having a separate bumper is important for function. They are cheap and easy to replace and modify. If it gets damaged, it's easy to bend it out of the way, and I can get a new front bumper from Certifit for about $90. Replacing the front bumper would take 30 minutes to an hour. When I got 31" tires on my Explorer, the damaged metal front bumper rubbed on one of the tires. A come-a-long fixed that in a couple of minutes...that's not something I would try with an integrated bumper/grille made of plastic.
 
Messages
5,573
Location
earth
australian utes are pretty ugly in my opinion... good for the job, but fugly. I have always liked the look of US trucks. so for your sakes I hope ford aus gets it right and sells a good looking ute for once.
 
Messages
5,466
Location
Buckley, Wa.
New model looks to be another ugly Toyota clone. Ford needs to keep it inexpensive, simple, reliable, and really good MPG. Most makers now make it very tough to find a simple 4 cylinder pickup at a low price. Back in the late eighties and early nineties you could find a nice Toyota or Nissan pickup that would fit the bill. These days ONLY Ford has the best bargain with the Ranger. Now it looks like they may be doing what everybody else has done....bigger, heavier, too many options, and in my opinion expensive.
 
Messages
853
Location
east TN
Ford has been kicking arse with new products the last few years but if the new ranger looks anything like that this will be a total failure. The ranger is very durable long lasting truck as is. Ford needs to make the ranger a smaller version of the F150. The USA needs long box options on small pick ups. Right now the ranger is the only long box option. I would be very interested in a xtra cab long box ranger with the 4cyl but in the usa it is all about huge double cabs and tiny truck beds (with bigger motors) right now.
 
Messages
3,735
Location
Miami-Dade County
 Originally Posted By: andrewg
New model looks to be another ugly Toyota clone. Ford needs to keep it inexpensive, simple, reliable, and really good MPG. Most makers now make it very tough to find a simple 4 cylinder pickup at a low price. Back in the late eighties and early nineties you could find a nice Toyota or Nissan pickup that would fit the bill. These days ONLY Ford has the best bargain with the Ranger. Now it looks like they may be doing what everybody else has done....bigger, heavier, too many options, and in my opinion expensive.
X2
 
Messages
9,567
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: eljefino
A 1.6/1.8 liter turbo? For real? I wouldn't get that in a gasser from any maker, especially in a lil' hauler. They say the torque curve will be wide. oookay. Don't mind the car look front end. Would make a decent parts runner for the local napa. Form follows function; whether it's for better aero and MPG or cheaper manufacture I bet they know what they're doing. It's not a tribeca after all.
In the comments they said the little engines had 160ftlbs of torque from 1600 to 6000rpm with a peak of 200 in there. That sounds good to me if its true. With a 6spd manual it should do almost anything you'd expect from a v6 ranger. I like that its low too, I "offroad" for practical purposes quite a bit and ground clearance isn't that important, I'd rather be able to load the bed from the side without a step, also it helps a bit with aero drag. 30mpg and 5000lbs towing with a 7ft bed and smaller but useable back seats would be a winner for me. I don't really care what it looks like and a black plastic bumper is pretty resilent to minor hits.
 

01rangerxl

Thread starter
Messages
9,918
Location
Birmingham, AL
 Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I like that its low too, I "offroad" for practical purposes quite a bit and ground clearance isn't that important, I'd rather be able to load the bed from the side without a step, also it helps a bit with aero drag.
It depends on where you are doing your off road driving. You can drive anything through mud, but ruts and ditches are another matter and you do need ground clearance for those. At the very least, good approach and departure angles are important. Considering the lower plastic valences on both of my Rangers got chewed up and the one on my Explorer dissappeared completely, I don't want anything lower than what I have.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,056
Location
Canada
That truck is starting to look a lot like the GMC Canyon/Colorado, which I don't think is a good thing. I've always thought the Canyon/Colorado looks too 'car-like' and weak, whereas the Ranger still looks 'tough' even for a small truck. JMO, hopefully the production version is better.....
 
Messages
6,902
Location
Louisiana
Drive a Colorado for any length of time and you'll never make the mistake of calling it "car-like" again. Well, except for virtue of ground clearance (or lack there of).
 
Messages
1,007
Location
Dallas, TX
Someone just needs to build a modern version of the 1982-ish Toyota pickup. By all means, weigh it down with 20 air bags, ABS, TCS, etc., put a 170hp 2.0 in it and call it good. They couldn't make enough of those things in the 80's and they were good looking and tough as nails.
 
Top