With much talk of the new, more fuel efficient drivetrain choices in the F-150, some discussions have turned towards the topic of the Ranger's demise following the 2011 model year. It would seem that Ford believes the F-150 can now wear the hat currently worn by the Ranger. Can this be so?

Due to some warranty work that needed to be done on my 2010 SCrew XLT, I am now driving a 2010 2WD Ranger XLT 4.0 V6 auto as a loaner. It is an interesting ride compared to my F-150. I have gotten used to how smooth my truck rides and how much composure it has going over bumps. The Ranger, by contrast, is bouncier and more jittery. The weight difference is very much apparent. My biggest surprise is how much better the F-150 corners and turns in. The Ranger has a ton of understeer.

Obviously, this is a much smaller truck in every respect. The cargo box is very shallow at just 16", but this makes is effortless to load stuff over the side of the box. Parking is also a breeze as you might expect. This is where a truck this size really shines. My wife also likes the fact that she can see around it backing out of the driveway which is something she complains about with my F-150.

The small packaging on the outside unfortunately translates into a small interior. I am 6'1" and 250 lbs, so I am at the upper end of fitting comfortably in the truck. The seats (60/40 split bench) are flat and firm, but not the most uncomfortable. Aggressive side bolsters would probably not agree with my frame anyway. Regardless extra girth, anybody of my height is going to find their left knee right up against the door panel. Leg room is adequate, but I have the seat all the way aft. When I first sat in the F-150, I felt like a little person having to run the seat fore a few inches from full aft position. Hip room and knee room is plentiful in the F-150.

The overall ergonomics of the interior are telling of the truck's age. Other than minor styling changes, this is the same overall layout as what debuted in 1996! The stereo and HVAC controls require you to lean forward to reach them and they are relatively low. Given the vent registers are at the top of the narrow dash, they had to mount everything down low. The rear seating area is also a joke. Those side-facing fold-out jump seats are only suitable for children who should be in a child seat or booster seat. With only a lap belt, safety is also not where it needs to be. I wouldn't put my 30 lb dog back there. The F-150 SCrew back seat is a freakin' condo compared to the Ranger, but you knew that. Still, it is only usable for throwing small duffel bags or groceries and that would be a pain given this truck does not have the quarter doors. A small increase in cab length (3-4 inches) and removal of the jump seats would create a slightly larger and flatter, more usable interior cargo space.

The drivetrain is what impresses me most about the Ranger in terms of drive-ability, but fuel mileage is actually worse than the 4.6 3V V8 F-150 at 15/20 vs 15/21. The 4.0's midrange is very punchy where it counts the most. The engine feels breathless when you wind it out, but it works fantastic for what you'd use a light-duty hauler such as this. The 5 speed auto is also very nice. Whether you are light on the skinny pedal or mashing the heck out of it, the tranny fires off fast, but smooth shifts. This was one area where Ford was once the innovator, bringing a 5 speed auto to the compact truck market in 1998, 7 years ahead of their closest competitor, the Tacoma. I test drove the Ranger's Mazda B4000 brethren back in 2001 and hated the idea of a 5 speed auto. I just didn't know any better back then.

So, can the F-150 replace the Ranger? Yes and no. Yes because it is going to and there is nothing to do to stop that. The F-150 also offers greater comfort, interior space, and cargo/payload/towing capacity. With the new powertrain options, you can also get a truck with fuel efficiency bettering most any V-6 compact/midsize and even rivaling some 4 cylinder midsize models like the Nissan Frontier. The downside to the F-150 is the larger size can get in your way for parking or loading cargo in the bed. That "Man-Step" won't do you any good when you are running a motorcycle up a ramp into the bed. Of course, if you decide you'd rather tow bike on a trailer which you can ride the bike into, the F-150 is much better adept at handling that chore (but the Ranger can do that too).

The compact truck market has been shrinking for years, so it is no surprise that Ford has opted not to offer any sort of major updates on the Ranger (other than bold new graphics or new grill/headlights) since 1998. The Ranger is the last true compact truck due to the market shifting to mid-size models. With the new fuel efficient V-6 in the F-150, it makes a compelling argument as a replacement for what would have been the F-100 mid-size truck (which seems that it would have been closer to the first-gen Tundra in size than the current Tacoma, Colorado, or Frontier.

Ultimately, the Ranger is a great compact truck in its purest form despite being woefully outdated. If you consider one of the more basic 4 cylinder models, there is no replacement because the current incarnation of the F-150 will never be able to provide certain users with the same level of big capability in a small, fuel efficient package (combine mpg in the mid-20s). I tend to think that Ford might do well marketing a modern compact truck as somewhat of a niche offering because once it is gone, there won't be any more compact trucks sold here other than the forthcoming Mahindra truck. I keep wondering what all the auto parts stores or couriers are going to use for fleet vehicles. Even a regular cab short-bed F-150 will be a problem in some congested urban settings.

It will be interesting to see with the upcoming CAFE standards a resurgence of the compact truck. For now, I think the F-150 is going to have to wear the hat once worn by its tiny brother. For the most part, it will do a pretty good job for many people who don't need a full size truck but now can justify it due to reasonable fuel economy. I am curious how many people made it all the way to the end of reading all this?

 

Very good points about the Ranger i had a 2009 Ranger Extended cab FX4 4X4 with the 4.0 SOHC and 5 speed auto with 4.10 gears.I now have a 2010 F-150 Supercab 4X4,4.6 3V,6 speed auto and 3.73 LS axle.I thought the Ranger actually handled a little better than the F-150 but it was alot smaller.I did like the shifts of the Rangers transmission a little better mainly the 1st to 2nd shift.I thought the Ranger felt faster but much to my suprise the F-150 ran a 16.257 at 84.89 mph in the 1/4 mile with only 750 miles on it the best the 2009 Ranger ran was a 16.55 at 81.66 mph.I think if Ford would update the Ranger and use the 3.7L 305 horsepower engine that's in the Mustang that's going in the F-150 next year they would be onto something.

Later Mark.

 

I would go with a reg. cab short box F150 before a Ranger. Its got elements of being compact, but the sturdiness of being a full size truck.

 

Re: Ranger handling - I feel like it has quite a bit more understeer typical of a truck. The F-150 feels a lot more planted with less body roll and composure. The front tires on the Ranger start to howl and screech much quicker than I expected and it was not receptive to overcoming understeer with throttle input as my F-150. My old 2002 Toyota Tacoma Prerunner TRD handled a lot better despite being a taller truck, but it also had uprated suspension components. I think the Ranger's chassis shortcomings are a product of its outdated design.

Re: Drivetrain - The 3.7 V6 with 6 speed auto would make an amazing drivetrain for a compact truck. It would seem like a shame to put such a great powerplant into such an outdated truck and that alone would not be enough to save the Ranger. I think it would be great to see Ford revamp the Ranger and make it slightly larger, along the lines of the Colorado, so as not to loose its compact characteristics as the Tacoma or Frontier have done. It would have room to grow a little without being too close to the F-150, particularly since the later has gotten so big.

 

I really think I would buy this 2011 Ranger if it came to our shores. All I tow are sleds and ATV's so I'm sure this would work just fine.

link http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/14/a...-of-the-globe/

 

I'm not sure if the global ranger is going to be able to be competative in NA. Just look at the sport trac? It is basically a 4 door ranger with a short box, and look at the price? F150's have come a long way in fuel economy and in price. A new decently loaded F150 is cheaper than a base Tacoma or Frontier in my neck of the woods, and the fuel economy is comparable. I wish the Ranger would stay the same size, do a major refresh (offer the 2.3 in a crew cab, 4X4, 5 spd, with a 6 ft box pls). The reason I didn't give them a second look was the fact that they are an outdated design with poor fuel economy (except the 2.3)

 

Well, the Sport Trac is also at the end of it's life...

 

The Sport Trac should be at the end of its life. I owned one. What a POS! I also owned two Rangers and both were bullet proof and darn good little trucks.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head! While I felt like the Ranger has certain shortcomings, it is still a solid vehicle. I don't want people to take my review as bashing the Ranger. As much as I prefer my F-150, there is something rather endearing about the Ranger. I probably would have bought a 4 cylinder 5 speed model had I been able to keep driving my hatchback I trade in for my F-150.

 

I bought a new 1998 Ranger back then. It had the 3.0 V6, auto in an extended cab. I was looking for a fuel miser at the time- I was driving about 50,000 miles a year. It was a slug and sometimes you were on the floor trying to stay with traffic. My cousin called one day and asked if I wanted to change the rear gears to 4.10. He had a friend with a 4x4 Ranger that the fuel mileage was killing him and decided that going with faster gears was the ticket. I had them change the gears and the 3.0 came to life. After that I put a set of 235x60x15 tires on it and it was almost a joke. There wasn't an F150 with a 5.4 that could get near me. About the only "truck" I couldn't out run was a friends Dodge RT that was heavily modded. That little Ranger with that puny 6 banger would smoke both back tires thru 1st gear and half way thru second. An astounding truck. It gave me 25-26 MPGs hiway. There was very little town driving and I never figured it. Then it got caught in a hailstorm and suffered over $6000. in damages with over 50,000 on the speedo. I traded it for a dodge Dakota SLT+ which should be named Dakota POS+. Anyway, I ended up buying the Ranger back from a guy that bought it 2 years later. I put another 100,000 on it and sold it. There's a fun factor in driving a Ranger. You can really scoot around in one of those. Yeah the gas mileage probably isn't much better than a bloated F150 but I'm starting to hate the F150 and all full size pigs. They're just to damn big and all but worthless as a truck. If they brought the new global Ranger to the states, I'd be a player for one. But it isn't gonna happen so I'll just rebuild what I have when it's due. My old 04 Screw still looks and drives like a new one so why not. But the Ranger has to be experienced, not just admired.

 

Nice writeup. The 2011 model isn't too shabby for those 180 other markets.

 

Rangers must be hail magnets! Now that I think of it, I actually owned three. The first was totalled in a hail storm with about 2000 miles on it! I replaced it and drove the next one for 5 years and then did the old RCO deal and got a '98 for $99/mo for two years. Those were the days!

 

My first Ford truck was a 1997 Ranger Supercab that I absolutely loved. 5 Speed manual and crank windows but it was my first vehicle with A/C. I could drive that truck through town in 5th gear, and got awesome mileage compared to the Jeep I traded in on it. I upgraded to an F-150 after my son was born (my wife REALLY disliked the rear jump-seats), and love my current truck, but sometimes I still miss that little Ranger