Ford Fn Ranger-Who is this competing with?

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

Looks like these are getting into hands finally. I was super excited because my wife is looking into these to replace her Cx30 which has been flawless.

I like the looks, but would put it just behind the canyon for the segment. What I can't understand is the fresh EPA numbers. 1 less mpg than in 2023 with the base engine and (drumroll) exactly the same mpg as the fullsize f150 but with less hp and torque when specd with the 2.7.

Who would ever opt for this ranger with the weaker 10r60 and less overall capacity/towing? The prices are very close between this and the f150. I was expecting 26-27hwy EPA ratings from the 4x4 2.7 ranger.

I want to avoid the canyon because of a few reasons including poor color options, unreliable 2.7 4cyl, bad mpg, and very high price. I think we may be considering the ranger further, but so far the best option seems to be moving to the cx50 for a little more space.

Sponsored

 

[fordtruckman2003]

I've been thinking a Ranger 2.7 hybrid would be great, but with numbers like that, perhaps not.

 

[Highway 11]

I live in God's country and absolutely love having a full sized truck out here.

I have no issues driving it in Toronto, but I absolutely detest trying to park it in the city.

A Ranger would make more sense for the city dweller who wants a truck. My coworker has a Colorado because it'll fit on his driveway and he essentially needs an SUV with a bed.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

I live in God's country and absolutely love having a full sized truck out here.

I have no issues driving it in Toronto, but I absolutely detest trying to park it in the city.

A Ranger would make more sense for the city dweller who wants a truck. My coworker has a Colorado because it'll fit on his driveway and he essentially needs an SUV with a bed.

I get wanting something slightly smaller (I actually would really like a ranger), but never at a similar price and with all of the downsides and none of the upsides of a real truck.

Tangentially related, the launch of this thing has been so bad. It feels years late with none of the excitement it should have.

 

[Highway 11]

Agreed. I was more excited for the new Colorado.

 

[astro_fusion]

The Ranger is an odd duck in the US market because it's an AU Ford global design. Much like the Transits, it's very compromised to hit US epa numbers. Not much smaller than an F150 when you put them side to side.

 

[powerboatr]

my nieghbor has a 2021 ranger..crew cab 2wd
i drove it A WHOLE bunch on some hours long events
i am tall and found it to be comfortable and rode good, plus got great mpg
crew cab gave us room for stuff in back seat, but i would not want to ride back there long time

i thought about getting one as its a perfect size for city trips
now that they have improved the offerings inside and all, its IMO a great choice of you need a pickup and still need to me somewhat smaller footprint like a garage or apartment parking

 

[bfastr]

I had a 21 crew cab. liked it a lot. I was surprised at how quick it was. it was easy to get around in, park , it even fit in my garage. but it always lacked just a little space inside. kind of like going from and 18' boat to a 19'. you think, how can that make a difference. but just like a boat, the F150 seats are a little bigger, there is more arm rest space. just more comfortable on long drives.
I bought the Ranger as an extra vehicle for small errands, but ended up driving it so much I traded it for the F150.
If I was using my truck for real off road exploring I still think the Ranger is the truck. I did like it for the most part. but the climate controls sucked, they needed an old fashioned knob, which I think the new gen now has.

 

[amschind]

Ford has all of the pieces that they need to build a lineup of great trucks. Thus far they have the Maverick mostly right and the are slowly bringing an AWESOME Ranger hybrid to the states. Otherwise it's like a child attempting to assemble wooden blocks, lincoln logs, legos and tinker toys and failing to understand how they don't fit together well. To the OP's question: I would argue that right now the Ranger is the ONLY Ford truck that makes sense while everything around it is poorly thought out or simply chaos. If you walked onto a random Ford dealer lot right now with a set of requirements, what percentage of Ford salesmen could direct you to the best option to meet that need among current Ford products? My guess is 20.

Maverick: A 1.0 or 1.5 Fox Ecoboost (with chain driven timing) with the current hybrid motor and transmission with AWD (I assume the AWD Maverick transfer case is built into its transmission, with the benefit that a "factory upsell" gives most buyers what they wanted anyway and barely drives up prices for the folks who really wanted 2WD due to simplified manufacturing.....basically everyone wins): objectively the best truck for 60% of truck buyers.

Ranger: 2.3L Ecoboost with the F150 47 hp electric motor and a 10R80: covers another 20% of truck buyers who need to move their side by side or a 10' utility trailer. Ford sells this truck in Australia, and appears set to release it here in 2026-7.

F150: 3.0L Ecoboost (bored 2.7L from the Aviator) WITH A CHAIN DRIVEN OIL PUMP and the Aviator 100 HP electric motor (basically the hybrid Aviator powertrain that lasted all of 3 model years) mated to a 10R80 AND an HDPP frame and the 3/4 float rear axle fixed. An optioned out 4x4 should be able to tow 12000 pounds without running into payload limits; more or less hits the safe upper limit of bumper pull trailers. Covers nearly everyone else and cannibalizes the bottom end of 3/4-ton Superduty sales (was Ford really making bank on XL 3/4-ton Superduty fleet sales?).

Superduty: 3.8L Ecoboost (hypothetical stroker version of the 3.5L) with the Aviator 100 HP electric motor and 10R140 with SRW and DRW configurations, but NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN 3/4 and 1 ton. Ford currently offers a nominal fee downrate to avoid CDL restrictions, and given the parts commonality between the two weight classes it's simpler to reduce it to a purely paper difference. This essentially starts at you need a gooseneck/5th wheel and covers everything up to "you either need a CDL yourself or you should be hiring a pro". One issue that people might raise is that a gas Ecoboost mileage might push away buyers, particularly in this segment. That's a valid criticism BUT I would counter that the hybrid solves that issue by allowing the 10 speeds to have slightly wider gearing. Specifically, the close gear ratios on the 10R80 and 10R140 make lots of sense with a pure ICE powertrain, but the instant torque from the electric motor GREATLY reduces the efficiency penalty during acceleration caused by wider gear ratios. Spacing the ratios out to a 5.1:1 1st with a 3.73 rear would allow a 670 lb-ft powertrain would give 12500 lb-ft vs 18500 lb ft for the current high output 6.7 with a 10R140 (4.615:1 1st and 3.31 rear). With wider ratios, you could still have a 0.5:1 10th gear OD ration (vs 0.64 today). That's 68% of the highest torque in the baddest consumer engine Ford makes which should nonetheless drive like a current Powerboost when unladen.

Ford could further reduce the number of different frames needed by limiting bed vs cab combinations, which would be less of an issue IF the available combinations were clearly delineated for consumers vs the current "guess and check" in the building app. 4 engines, 3 transmissions, 3 hybrid motors and 2 transfer cases cover every truck buyer from grocery getters up to heavy users INCLUDING most hotshot truckers. The only changes needed are using extant parts in different combinations, shuttering or repurposing unused production lines, and reinvesting a portion of the savings into the lines that remain.

This is the classic Henry Ford/Alan Mulally "make more money selling better vehicles by focusing on a smaller total number of parts". I find it darkly hilarious that Ford aggressively fights back against this model until they're at death's door and THEN remember what made them great and kept them alive in the past.

 

[Snakebitten]

I'm not on the Chevy forums, so I wouldn't know.... But I thought their 2.7 was supposed to be a well thought out motor as for workhorse. Not easily broken.
So they are having teething problems? Or more serious?

 

[crazywayne311]

too soon to tell but our new site truck is a Silverado 1500 4x4 with the 2.7L 4cyl.
I mean, seems like any other turbo 4 IMO but we havent really towed anything with it yet off site. shes peppy and gets going after a small bit of turbo lag but shes also a RCSB truck

 

[fatBatman]

Ford has all of the pieces that they need to build a lineup of great trucks. Thus far they have the Maverick mostly right and the are slowly bringing an AWESOME Ranger hybrid to the states. Otherwise it's like a child attempting to assemble wooden blocks, lincoln logs, legos and tinker toys and failing to understand how they don't fit together well. To the OP's question: I would argue that right now the Ranger is the ONLY Ford truck that makes sense while everything around it is poorly thought out or simply chaos. If you walked onto a random Ford dealer lot right now with a set of requirements, what percentage of Ford salesmen could direct you to the best option to meet that need among current Ford products? My guess is 20.

Maverick: A 1.0 or 1.5 Fox Ecoboost (with chain driven timing) with the current hybrid motor and transmission with AWD (I assume the AWD Maverick transfer case is built into its transmission, with the benefit that a "factory upsell" gives most buyers what they wanted anyway and barely drives up prices for the folks who really wanted 2WD due to simplified manufacturing.....basically everyone wins): objectively the best truck for 60% of truck buyers.

Ranger: 2.3L Ecoboost with the F150 47 hp electric motor and a 10R80: covers another 20% of truck buyers who need to move their side by side or a 10' utility trailer. Ford sells this truck in Australia, and appears set to release it here in 2026-7.

F150: 3.0L Ecoboost (bored 2.7L from the Aviator) WITH A CHAIN DRIVEN OIL PUMP and the Aviator 100 HP electric motor (basically the hybrid Aviator powertrain that lasted all of 3 model years) mated to a 10R80 AND an HDPP frame and the 3/4 float rear axle fixed. An optioned out 4x4 should be able to tow 12000 pounds without running into payload limits; more or less hits the safe upper limit of bumper pull trailers. Covers nearly everyone else and cannibalizes the bottom end of 3/4-ton Superduty sales (was Ford really making bank on XL 3/4-ton Superduty fleet sales?).

Superduty: 3.8L Ecoboost (hypothetical stroker version of the 3.5L) with the Aviator 100 HP electric motor and 10R140 with SRW and DRW configurations, but NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN 3/4 and 1 ton. Ford currently offers a nominal fee downrate to avoid CDL restrictions, and given the parts commonality between the two weight classes it's simpler to reduce it to a purely paper difference. This essentially starts at you need a gooseneck/5th wheel and covers everything up to "you either need a CDL yourself or you should be hiring a pro". One issue that people might raise is that a gas Ecoboost mileage might push away buyers, particularly in this segment. That's a valid criticism BUT I would counter that the hybrid solves that issue by allowing the 10 speeds to have slightly wider gearing. Specifically, the close gear ratios on the 10R80 and 10R140 make lots of sense with a pure ICE powertrain, but the instant torque from the electric motor GREATLY reduces the efficiency penalty during acceleration caused by wider gear ratios. Spacing the ratios out to a 5.1:1 1st with a 3.73 rear would allow a 670 lb-ft powertrain would give 12500 lb-ft vs 18500 lb ft for the current high output 6.7 with a 10R140 (4.615:1 1st and 3.31 rear). With wider ratios, you could still have a 0.5:1 10th gear OD ration (vs 0.64 today). That's 68% of the highest torque in the baddest consumer engine Ford makes which should nonetheless drive like a current Powerboost when unladen.

Ford could further reduce the number of different frames needed by limiting bed vs cab combinations, which would be less of an issue IF the available combinations were clearly delineated for consumers vs the current "guess and check" in the building app. 4 engines, 3 transmissions, 3 hybrid motors and 2 transfer cases cover every truck buyer from grocery getters up to heavy users INCLUDING most hotshot truckers. The only changes needed are using extant parts in different combinations, shuttering or repurposing unused production lines, and reinvesting a portion of the savings into the lines that remain.

This is the classic Henry Ford/Alan Mulally "make more money selling better vehicles by focusing on a smaller total number of parts". I find it darkly hilarious that Ford aggressively fights back against this model until they're at death's door and THEN remember what made them great and kept them alive in the past.

Yes to all of this. Maybe even the 5.0 with the 100 HP electric motor for use in the F250 as well. I'd also add larger battery packs for each truck, at least 7.5-12 kWh batteries. This will enable all platforms to use the generator mode and get the EV cash back from the government while getting more electric only mileage.

As to the current Ford Ranger, yeah it is cool. It competes with the Tacoma and those like-minded people but if you're cross-shopping against a STX F150, the Ranger just doesn't add up. This is why Ford killed it the first time. IF it had a hybrid 2.3 with a 7.5 kWh battery including generator mode and fixed the backseat to fold up as well as the F150 allowing more usable cargo space with the seats folded, I might look at them. For now though, hard pass. I guess that is why I am on this forum and not a Ranger forum though.

 

[HammaMan]

I wouldn't even consider a GM right now. They've lost key competent leadership that was in the process of turning things around. This was the team led by a former apple guy. GM's software is essentially stalled until the new former tesla guy can get things running smoothly. Ford stalled out for 4 months due to an OTA bricking a handful of mach-es. GM's OTA push was completely draining 12v batts and that stalled them out for a while. This management shuffle is likely going to set them back for a year. Ford is finally back up to speed and has pushed nearly a dozen OTAs in the last 4 weeks. They did have a CMR OTA that disabled bluecruise for some MMEs requiring a dealer trip if one doesn't have FDRS (FDRS could also be used to un-brick MMEs from the previously mentioned OTA). They've also already begun pushing an OTA to fix the bluecruise issue.

Ford has a 10r100 transmission showing up now @amschind but details are scarce. I believe it's what's used in the raptor R. I've only been able to identify a couple parts from it. I don't expect ford to make any competent vehicles at reasonable prices to jeopardize F250 sales until the competition takes more customers. Rams EV and REV are both HD vehicles (8 lug axles) that will likely eat into F150/F250 forcing a response from ford that won't show up for 3 years at least. Ford's management is just poor. We should have seen better options showing up this year had management been competent.

 

[JExpedition07]

I audibly laughed at the 3.8 Stroker EcoBoost for an HD comment. What a weird pipe dream, and a way to lose massive sales volume. A small aluminum block turbo engine has no place in any 3/4 ton. It doesn’t have the displacement for engine braking, it doesn’t have the bore spacing for the cooling requirements. It’s just sub-par compared to the 7.3 Godzilla on every front. Worse mileage, worse heat management, worse longevity.

 

[HammaMan]

I audibly laughed at the 3.8 Stroker EcoBoost comment. What a weird pipe dream. A small aluminum block turbo engine has no place in any 3/4 ton. It doesn’t have the displacement for engine braking, it doesn’t have the bore spacing for the cooling requirements. It’s just sub-par compared to the 7.3 Godzilla on every front. Worse mileage, worse heat management, worse longevity.

The 3.5s don't have a thermal management issue, they have an undersized rad issue for high/hot/heavy. If it were coupled with the aviator's phev system (with better trans) it'd have significantly more engine regen than the 7.3. For regular towing duty the 5.0 is a more logical choice (with the PHEV parts) due to the turbo motors being eco or boost.

Sponsored