Especially since the Toyota Tacoma got its update this year, the Ford Ranger has felt a bit like the old-timer in the mid-size truck world, having debuted for the 2019 model year with an exterior and interior that date back to around 2015. Others in the segment like the new Chevy Colorado and even the Jeep Gladiator (which debuted for the 2020 model year) also make FoMoCo’s outgoing midsizer feel dated. But now there’s a new Ranger for 2024 hoping to keep Ford competitive; it’s got all-new interior and exterior styling, more tech, and some revised hardware underneath. I had a chance to drive the thing last week, and found that it feels… pretty familiar — an evolution, certainly not a revolution over the outgoing Ranger.
It’s true. The 2024 Ford Ranger hasn’t really changed that much. Under the hood of the trucks I drove was the same 270 horsepower, 310 lb-ft 2.3-liter turbocharged inline-four that we’ve seen in the old Ranger since 2019. The mill is mated to the same 10-speed automatic, and it’s bolted to a similar ladder frame with an independent front suspension and a leaf-sprung solid rear axle.
[Full Disclosure: Ford flew me from LA to Salt Lake City, put me up in a nice hotel, and fed me various foods that I normally would be far, far too cheap to buy on my own. Also worth noting is that The Autopian was co-founded by the president of a large dealership franchise whose primary store is a Ford dealership. This obviously won’t affect how I review the truck, but it’s worth pointing out. -DT].
To be sure, it’s not exactly the same frame, and it’s not the same body. But as is often the case with body-on-frame vehicles that keep the same basic dimensions and suspension designs as their predecessors, they’re not exactly “ground up,” but instead based on those predecessors (the outgoing then “all-new” Tacoma, for example, featured bits from its predecessor, and Toyota freely admitted it). That’s not necessarily a bad thing, of course; why reinvent the wheel?
Ford certainly hasn’t, with a company representative referring to the new Ranger as an “advancement of the T6 architecture,” which are bones that date back to around 2011. If I understand it correctly, the new truck’s longitudinal rails are quite similar to those of the outgoing truck, but the crossmembers and suspension mounts are different, as are dimensions like the track width and wheelbase.
Ford talks about the frame “enhancements” made to the outgoing truck in this press release about the 2024 Ranger, writing:
In designing the backbone of Ranger, Ford engineers improved the truck’s fully boxed high-strength steel frame, with the wheelbase and track both stretched about two inches to provide more bed space and improved stability while remaining easy to navigate on trails. The rear shocks and shock mounts have also been moved outboard of the frame rails for improved ride and control. All versions of the Ranger also benefit off-road from improved ground clearance and better approach and departure angles. From day trips to multi-day journeys, the all-new Ranger is ready to bring gear to wherever the next adventure lies, with a maximum available towing capacity of 7,500pounds and maximum available payload capacity of 1,805 pounds.
Since we’re talking about frames, let’s get into the hardware-nitty gritty a bit more.
The Hardware
I’ll paste much of this section from my article “2024 Ford Ranger: Here’s My First Look At The New Engines, Improved Interior, Revised Frame, And New Ranger Raptor Model,” because it’s worth noting what makes this truck new from a hardware standpoint.
The frame-changes involved shoving the front axle forward a bit for improved approach angle (which is only “decent” at 33 degrees for the Raptor and 29.2 for the FX4 package), and most importantly moving the rear shock mounts outboard. On the outgoing truck (shown below), those shocks sat inboard of the leaf springs, rather far away from the tires that provide the suspension with input forces:
The new truck moves the shocks closer to those inputs — outboard of the leaf springs, right up against the tires:
One of the benefits of moving the shocks outboard is that it means the displacement of the shock better mirrors that of the wheel. This means there’s a more optimal “motion ratio,” which is incidentally an improvement that competitor Jeep made when it moved the JK Wrangler’s shocks outboard for the new JL Wrangler, and it’s also something that Ford took pride in on its Bronco. Here’s a discussion about this improvement via my Jalopnik article on how the Ford Bronco compares to the Wrangler:
[A Ford engineering manager] also mentioned that having the coilovers far outboard on the axle offered dynamic advantages. “Certainly… having the damper and the spring as far outboard as it is has been a help from a dynamics perspective, and from an off-road perspective,” he said.
When I sent a follow-up email asking Ford to elaborate a bit, the company responded with a note about motion ratio, which describes the ratio of the spring’s displacement to the wheel’s displacement (you can imagine how, if a wheel goes up on a solid axle, a spring close to the center of the axle won’t compress much. This would have a low motion ratio). It’s sort of like the “lever arm” the wheel input has when working against the spring. From Ford:
Ford says having the shock and spring close to the wheel input provides dynamic advantages; the way I read this, the setup lets Ford reduce body roll without having to make the springs too stiff.
Obviously, I’m far from a dynamics engineer, but suffice it to say that moving the shocks outboard is a good thing from a ride and handling standpoint, and it also moves the shock mounting brackets out of the way of rocks.
Other changes for the Ranger include a new hydroformed structure at the nose of the vehicle, which grew 60 millimeters between the cowl and the front of the truck, in part to accommodate the new powertrains and — per Ford (and I’m guessing this was more of a result than a main driver) — to increase airflow, since more space means less underhood pressure to resist air flowing through the radiator.
Otherwise, the chassis is, architecturally, quite similar to that of the outgoing truck. Let’s have a look at how the two compare; here’s the new truck’s K-brace crossmember that holds up the transmission and transfer case:
You’ll notice a skid plate for the transfer case hanging off the cross-car portion of the K and bolting to the driver’s side frame rail:
And here’s how that K-brace looks on the outgoing Ranger:
The front suspension, too, is quite similar in geometry, though the control arms look different and really more similar to the current Bronco than the current Ranger. Here’s the new Ranger:
And here’s the outgoing Ranger:
Here’s the outgoing truck’s underbody, which is similarly laid out:
As I say in my old article, this isn’t a criticism of the new truck. It’s a body-on-frame pickup with similar dimensions, the same front and rear suspension type, and the same tow rating. It’s fine that there weren’t dramatic chassis changes, though perhaps a move to a coil-spring setup would have been cool to see on this base truck, though that would have added cost (and value is a key element in the Ranger’s appeal).
The Ranger Raptor model gets coil springs, but I won’t get into that now, since I’ll be reviewing it later this week.
What Else Is New?
View this post on Instagram
As the Ford Ranger’s chief engineer Juan De Peña mentions in the video above, the Ranger offers a number of other small enhancements over the outgoing model. The all-new interior, for example, gets fancier screens. Here’s the old cabin:
And here’s the new one, which can be had with either an eight or 12.4-inch digital gauge cluster and either a 10.1-inch or 12-inch infotainment touchscreen.
The image above shows the 12-inch infotainment screen; the 10.1 has larger bezels:
Other changes to the Ranger include new Advanced Driver Assist features — things like Pro Trailer Backup Assist, an integrated brake controller, and a 360-degree camera. Plus there are power seats with a memory function, there’s 4G connectivity, there’s wireless charging and more.
Not to mention, there’s this available side step for the rear box:
There’s a new flat-folding rear bench:
Plus, the tailgate is damped, and the bed has become wider inside, making sliding in four-by-eight sheets of plywood possible:
You can also cut that wood with a corded electric saw, which you can plug into the in-bed outlets:
Like I said: fairly minor updates, but enough to keep things reasonably fresh, with a new interior that offers more modern tech, and some smart and usable features elsewhere — plus a new exterior and a new available powertrain, the 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6 that makes 315 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque. Sadly, I didn’t get to drive that one.
What’s It Like To Drive?
The first thing Ford had us do after we flew to Salt Lake City and listened to a quick walk-around presentation was partake in a trailer backup demonstration. The point, here, was to demonstrate how the Pro Trailer Backup Assist function works. I won’t spend too much time on this since it’s not that exciting, but the short of it is that you spin the drive mode dial (the one on the center tunnel just aft and to the right of the shifter) in the direction you want the trailer to go.
It takes a moment to get used to the whole “turn dial counter clockwise = trailer moves left; turn dial clockwise = trailer moves right), but once you get it, and you leverage the truck’s cameras and graphics shown on the screen (along with the mirrors), things become quite easy.
I’ll admit that, at the event, I tried backing up a trailer with a Toyota Tacoma that did not have such backup assist-software, and I made a bit of an ass of myself. I thought I was good at backing trailers, given that I’ve purchased numerous non-running junkers and towed them home on U-Haul trailers, but at the press event, when I was surrounded by other car journalists and Ford reps, I blew it. I did not, however, blow it once I got behind the wheel of the Ranger:
The system works. I’ll leave it at that.
Now to more interesting stuff like vinyl floors.
View this post on Instagram
I got to pilot two very different Ford Rangers, a base-model XL and a top-dog Lariat, both equipped with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder. The XL wasn’t quite a stripper model, but it was close, and its easy-clean vinyl floors are awesome:
Though I think it’s time we stop hating on luxury pickups, I personally strongly prefer simplicity when it comes to certain vehicles, especially utilitarian ones meant to haul things and go off-road. That’s why I asked for this XL model, which came equipped thusly:
It got four-wheel drive ($3,645), a 3.73 rear differential with a locker ($425), running boards ($695), keyless entry ($95), and a bedliner ($355). The fog lamps, aluminum wheels, and all-terrain tires come with the truck, so really this is a very fairly base-model vehicle, with overall pricing at $39,465 including destination charge. That’s about in line with the competitions’ similarly-equipped base-models.
Aside from the running boards, this is exactly how I’d spec my own Ranger if I were to buy one. Do I really need more than a 10.1-inch infotainment screen? Do I really need more than an eight-inch digital gauge cluster? Am I really going to find a seat material significantly more comfortable than cloth? The answer to all of these is “no.”
To drive home how basic this truck is, behold the mirrorless visor:
Check out the useless storage slot that takes the place of what would normally be the keyless ignition switch (yes, this base Ranger still uses a key; you can see it on the bottom left of the image below):
Check out the old-school PRNDL shifter that may as well be out of 2005:
And behold the blanking plate in the bed where the in-bed charging ports would be:
Still, even if it was missing a few creature comforts, the cabin was a nice place to spend time. The seats were cushy and there was acceptable room in the back seat:
I took this bare-bones truck on highways near Salt Lake City, and my takeaways are, I hate to admit, not particularly insightful ones: The truck drives fine. It’s not magic-carpet smooth, and it’s not a back-breaker; it’s fine.
There were times when it seemed the truck drove more smoothly than the last Ranger I drove (that was an FX4, and it was five years ago), but I’d be lying if I told you that the hour behind the wheel was enough for me to make that assessment; the trucks just aren’t different enough in my eyes. Both of their leaf-sprung solid axles will get jittery by battered-up roads, though they’ll both ride quite smoothly down reasonably-maintained highway stretches.
I didn’t throw the truck through turns too fast to check its handling or to see how that two inch wider track width affects agility, because this isn’t a sports car. In the corners, the truck was perfectly adequate when driven at normal speeds — an assessment much more practical to the layperson than a skidpad lateral acceleration calculation.
The one thing I did take away from my short drive in the Ranger was how quiet the cabin is. Between that and the comfortable cloth seats, I could road trip the new Ranger to the ends of the earth.
View this post on Instagram
What about the power? It’s fine. It’s a 2.3-liter turbo making 270 horsepower and propelling a 4,400 pound truck around. There’s some lag in the power delivery (it’s an air-to-air intercooler at the front of the car, not a liquid-cooled charge-air cooler integrated into the intake like we’ve seen on many other modern vehicles — this probably doesn’t help) when you stomp on the throttle pedal, and until boost joins the party, you’re trying to move over 2.2 tons with a 2.3-liter little four-cylinder. Still, in boost, the truck moves reasonably quickly. It’s not fast, it’s not slow, it’s an acceptable amount of power for this truck.
But certainly, what was once the top-of-the-segment powertrain now feels merely adequate. I can’t wait to drive the 2.7.
I jumped from that base truck into a well-equipped red Lariat, with a blacked-out upper fascia and silver lower fascia:
Here’s a look at the inside the cabin, which features big screens, black leather, and a fancy “short throw” electronic shifter to replace the “long throw” PRNDL on the base truck:
It also gets a secondary, upper glovebox that the base truck does not:
That small upper box doesn’t open very wide, but I’d say definitely worth having, as front storage is always valuable:
For reference, you’ll see that there’s no button to open the upper part of the dash on the base truck:
You’ll also notice that our Lariat had a wireless charging pad ahead of the shifter, which — as previously mentioned — is a smaller electronic-style short-throw unit:
It was nice; sure, many interior plastics were “durable” (i.e. hard) but it’s a truck and I can deal with that.
I drove that truck around town, again noted its comfortable seat and quiet cabin, and generally enjoyed the experience, though in the back of my mind I kept thinking: “Man, I really like the Tonka Truck look of the new Tacoma’s cabin more.” Tell me if you agree:
Verdict
When I reviewed the 2016 Toyota Tacoma approaching a decade ago, it was clear to me — a then-new blogger — that it wasn’t really that big of a step forward. “The 2016 Toyota Tacoma: A Spicy Taco That Doesn’t Taste All That New” was my headline. I feel similarly about the “all-new”2024 Ford Ranger, which was developed in Australia and “tailored to the needs of the North American customer.” Sure, it’s got new styling inside and out, it’s got new screens and ADAS options, and it’s got some clever improvements that make using the truck more practical, but in many ways, it feels like a mid-cycle refresh.
Who knows, maybe if I drove the new and old trucks back to back, I’d be able to see the effects of the longer wheelbase, outboard shocks, and increased track width. And maybe if there had been a 2.7-liter V6 at the event, I’d be singing a different tune. But as it stands, my short drive led me to see the new Ford Ranger as fine. Just fine.
Ford described at the press event what its customers were looking for in the new truck, saying: “Give me tough, give me more rugged, and give me modern.” I think the truck is still tough (the T6 has proven that), I think the new Raptor will add more ruggedness, and certainly the new tech brings the truck towards modernity. So in these ways, Ford accomplished its goal. But I wouldn’t call the end product inspiring. Competent? Yes; I quite liked the outgoing Ranger. But not inspiring.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but I used to think having vinyl floors in a truck or van would be easier to keep clean. Turns out it’s kind of the opposite.
The floor of my van (that had a very hard life) with the standard issue GM grey carpeting was still in shockingly good shape after countless muddy boots, dust, mag-chloride/salt, etc.. and it had close to 300,000 miles when I sold it (still worked fine).
Vinyl floors just get a layer of dust/dirt in them that are very hard to clean and sometimes never come out. And somehow trucks/vans with vinyl floors just always have a subtle odor to them, not a bad one, but it just has a slight odor.
While not as water proof, I’d say the carpet is arguably tougher. All it takes is some consistent driving with a tough square-healed boot to put a hole in the vinyl, and then it’s game over. Once the dirt and moisture starts to collect under the vinyl, the whole thing becomes a wet, lumpy unfixable mess. Source: 2010 Chevy work truck with under 100,000km. Obviously it would have helped if the company had kept mats in it, but they probably figured it wasn’t necessary until too late. I totally know what you mean about the vinyl getting bits of grit embedded, and never looking clean again.
Work truck carpet can get pretty dirty, but barring extreme cases, is usually only a vigorous and thorough shampoo away from looking presentable again.
^EXACTLY!
I haven’t sat in one, but I really dislike the look of the Toyota interior. I don’t care for it on the Tundra or Sequoia either .I think GM has done the best job of dash design on newer trucks/SUV’s. They’ve managed to nicely integrate the screens and not make them look like afterthoughts.
This Ranger interior looks nice, even the base truck. Or maybe especially the base truck. I love that you can get a locker and (I presume) a 2-speed t-case for under 40K. You definitely can’t do that at the Chevy, GMC, or Toyota stores.
I’m not a Ford guy, but I’d definitely consider the DT-spec Ranger if I were in the market for a midsized truck.
On the last gen Tacoma the TRD off road was like 35k, and had a rear locker.
Not in the last few years though. Same with the 4Runner, a TRD OR was about 38k, now it’s closer to 48K. Even a 2wd SR5 starts at slightly over 40.
Pretty sure I priced one out in 2022/early 2023 and it was maybe 36k (base TRD off road with a stick)
Oh, surprising. I thought the price had jumped up on those like it did the 4Runner. The older and more outdated the 4R gets, the more Toyota charges for it.
Yeah, they’re just factoring the Toyota Tax in up front now.
The bar running across the grille into the headlights is absolutely hideous!!
That pickup grille style has been ugly since it started trending in the late 90s, and Ranger version may be the worst execution of it yet. Just end it at the lights or get rid of it altogether, and the truck would look so much better. Just the addition of running lights into the bar on the Maverick are a huge improvement. They had a chance to clean the awkward face up with the update, but they left the nose ugly and dated.
Car people often seem fixated on getting the latest and greatest, for example a 2015 interior is somehow considered dated. What I want is a plain, basic, reliable vehicle that is not overloaded with gadgetry, has NO display screens, minimal electronic circuit boards, NO internet or cellular connectivity, a regular single DIN radio with 2 or 4 standard sized 6.5″ speakers, and an uncluttered engine bay that is easy to work in.
Agreed. My 2015 Promaster has all of that except for an engine bay that is hard to work in without removing the intake and top radiator support…. and, in my definition, has not been all that reliable.
We understand what you are saying, Sir. Should we send some space monkeys to fix the problem?
I do like the Toyota’s interior more, but that screen looks soooo tacked on like the designers forgot about infotainment until 5 minutes before they had to present to executives.
I weep in remembrance of the days of 6-foot beds and half doors.
The outgoing ranger powertrain was miles ahead of the competition (at the time).
Keeping the 2.3 means the others have caught up. And with the 2.7 and 3.0 (Raptor) Ecoboosts as options, I think the Ranger wins on powertrain.
Similarly with the fully boxed frame. The outgoing model was ahead of the Tacoma, and now the Tacoma has caught up.
If you really care about suspension, the Raptor wins the class.
As far as styling, I like trucks to be basic. And IMO, Ranger and Frontier are the only ones (full size or midsize) that are simple enough to look like a truck should. Unfortunately, this one looks too much like the Maverick to me.
Agree with comments about PHEV. Ford needs to do this. Unfortunately, I think in NA Ford is mainly focused of F-series. Maybe they should name this thing an F-100 to get more development resources thrown its way.
I dunno, I think that “useless” storage area where the key was would be perfect for a delicious slice of cheese.
what kind?
RoqueFord.
Parmigiano Rangianno!
I just wish we were getting the Ranger PHEV in the US. That would likely convince me to make my first new vehicle purchase (if it comes with a tax incentive) or look for a low miles pre-owned. I really like the Ranger from driving my dads and would take it over the Tacoma any day. I would look at the F-150 PHEV but it is just too pricey for me to justify. To date the newest vehicle I have ever bought is a 2004 and I am happy with that, but as I get a bit older and the wife and I start discussing a child I expect I will likely end up purchasing a newer truck at some point and an 18+ F-150 or a Ranger are the top two I plan to look at. The goal being something safer, more comfortable, and that can pull a car trailer.
driver’s seat on the lariat is looking a little rough. I expect nothing less from ford.
The XL interior should have vinyl seats, too. I still think of the base Ranger as a $9999 truck, which is me being an old.
You didn’t ask them why the Ranger still has a steel body while the F Series uses aluminum ones?
:'(
And here’s the new one, which can be had with either an eight or 12.4-inch digital gauge cluster and either a 10.1-inch or 12-inch infotainment touchscreen.
Props to Ford for integrating that screen into the dash.
“Man, I really like the Tonka Truck look of the new Tacoma’s cabin more.” Tell me if you agree.
No. Mostly because the tacked on touchscreen looks like a half-assed afterthought. This screams not “rugged” but “fragile”.
Totally agree. I hate when the infotainment screen looks like it was just slapped on the dash with some JB Weld.
I question how many truck customers really want rugged. Sure, some do. But what really seems to sell is looks, fancy interior and “tech”. I’m willing to bet that a smooth ride is more important than rugged. Good old car-like features.
While the readers here are more buying outliers, prove me wrong.
Without the PHEV model what’s the point? Baffling decision to only sell that one in Europe.
From what I understand a lot of plug in hybrids no longer qualify for the full $7500 rebate under the new rules. Without the rebate the ROI on the initial investment is a lot lower.
I’ve got a buddy with an ~19 Ranger with the same powertrain as the new ones, and it is an absolute lemon. He’s had it in the shop at least 3 times for transmission issues that the dealer can’t seem to remedy properly, as well as a handful of bizarre little things constantly popping up. It’s got nowhere near 100k miles on it, and as a contractor he just needs it to work. Couple that with how bland of a redesign as this is, and I think it’s clear the Tacoma will sell multiples more than these, and that the new Ranger will be a textbook fleet sales vehicle at best. Even the new Colorado looks far more compelling than this, and given Fords quality nightmares of the last few years, I’d even take a Frontier over a new Ranger, as at least that powertrain is known to be solid, albeit very bland.
That’s interesting to hear, my dad has a 20 or 21 Ranger he bought pre-owned with ~5k miles. He is about to hit 60k and it hasn’t had a single hiccup just oil changes and a new set of tires. The only issue he has reported was the bluetooth had a weird issue where when he answered calls while he had the gps active he could hear people but they couldn’t hear him but removing and readding his phone resolved that and it could have just as easily been his phone causing that issue. I think it was getting confused switching between wired and handsfree mode somehow. He loves the truck though. I will say he tends to be a long term vehicle owner and takes really good care of them so that may help as well. He still has the 01 F-150 he bought brand new and it just rolled over 200k miles and his 2000 S10 he bought with ~70k miles from his brother hit 221k before I bought it from him and I have the records from new.
I bought my 2019 new and i haven’t had any issues at all, its at 75,000 miles. The transmission has been great as has the mileage.
I bought my 2019 Ranger new and have put 60,000 miles on it without any issues. It was made the last week of the 2019 production. I remember from the research I was doing at the time that there were several service bulletins during the early months of production that appear to have been resolved by the time mine rolled off the line.
If you want a body-on-frame midsize pickup truck and it absolutely must be a Ford, then this is your best choice.
Noticed a few comparison references to the 2016 Tacoma. My question would be how does this 2024 Ranger compare to the 2024 Tacoma, it’s contemporary competitor in the market? I’m betting not all that well.
Based on how glowing all the new Taco reviews are, it seems like the Ranger does everything the new Tacoma does, but about 20% worse, and at the same price.
I thought this was already out, which seems like it’s probably not a great sign for Ford.
I’m not in the market for a truck, but this would be way behind the Tacoma if I was.
Ford’s take on “portrait” orientation here looks more awkward (to me) than on the RAM trucks, even though it’s conceptually preferable to the “iPad-glued-to-dash” aesthetic of the Taco.
Also: thanks to everyone at The Autopian for the site’s disclosures about junkets, and especially David’s acknowledgement of the site’s ties to Galpin. I very much appreciate that level of transparency; it demonstrates a respect for the audience that seems very “baked in” here.
Also, I hope our guy Rocket gets a shout-out in TFTS.
Neither interior is amazing. The Toyota cosplaying as an earth mover is kinda cringe, like the guy in the base 3 series putting a red stripe on his steering wheel even though it’s never, ever seen a track. But, it does look more ergonomic. I think I’d rather be in the Toyota. I think it’s the massive vertical screen in the Ford throwing me off. It just looks out of place. I do dig Toyota’s use of color though. The blue looks great and is different, because interior colors today are essentially black, grey, brown/tan, or red. Actually, the only other car I can think of off the top of my head with blue inside is another Toyota product, the LC.
Why on earth would he put a Red Stripe on the steering wheel? Don’t BMWs have cupholders nowadays?
The headline seems like a spicy take for the sake of being a spicy take. Don’t be so Hollywood.
We need to celebrate the “mid-size” truck segment and quality updates like this, otherwise the class will stagnate and nearly disappear. Again.
Yeah, it’s not a complete overhaul, but I think the Ranger is a much better-executed and comprehensive update than the gm twins (which seem mostly that they removed their “chins” and tweaked the interior and called it a day), more noticeable than the new Tacoma (which I mistook for a Tundra from behind in a photo recently, which is good from a cohesive styling language sense, I suppose, but otherwise doesn’t do it any favors), and a more appealing package than the Frontier.
Oh I’m not hating on it! I think it’s decent. Just like the old truck was, except now it’s been freshened up a bit.
Yeah, that came through in the pleasantly in-depth article.
To me it’s more that the truck got the update it was overdue for (Ranger and the gm twins were notoriously long in the tooth when we got them, as you well know) as the old truck was made even more dated when Nissan finally got around to giving the Frontier an overhaul.
So “makeup” doesn’t adequately describe the new model. It’s more that it started going to the gym, got a new wardrobe with current fashion instead of what it wore in high school, maybe a lifestyle coach, and is a better version of its old self, but still the good buddy you like to hang out with even after doing a day’s work together.
Went with the wardrobe. Any complaints now: email them to my secretary!
(I don’t have a secretary).
That works! Much appreciated, fine sir.
“That’s odd. I don’t have a secretary. Or an intercom”
https://comb.io/Gf6STS
You can delegate handling complaints to the cats.
Meant to edit but ran out of time: The headline is writing a check not cashed by the article. Yeah, the changes aren’t massive, but “old truck wearing makeup” is pretty strong given the evidence you go to great lengths to show. It’s changed, but still familiar. I don’t see that as a bad thing.
The gm duo are a better match for the “makeup” view, but even that isn’t entirely fair.
I buy that. I’ll tweak it.
That’s generous of you. I didn’t mean any offense, and hope you didn’t take any. The wording just came off a bit strong.
Thanks again for the excellent write-up article and candor. Keep being the industry benchmark that the Autopian is.
The updated GM twins received extensive changes both to the exterior and interior. The also received new drivetrains and revised suspensions. I’m not sure if the chassis itself was changed much, but overall, it was at least as extensive as the new Ranger here. And for me, the big selling point for the GM twins over the Ranger and Taco is the addition of rear HVAC vents. I regularly have my 3 y.o. in the backseat and no vents back there make it very slow to get to comfortable temps in both the summer and winter.
Do they actually work? I have vents in the back of my F150 and they are as effective as fake exhaust tips.
All of my vehicles that have had rear vents worked decently well. I suppose that’s something I’ll be looking at closely when I go to replace my ’15 Canyon.
What’s more annoying is the overseas Ranger can be had with rear a/c vents.
I thought there would be a lesson learned considering the lack of rear vents and lack of split folding rear seat but the new truck did not address on those. The vents can be a quick and easy running change (like Honda did with the 8th gen Accord, my 2010 did have those but my friends’ 2008 did not and Honda did not even refresh the 8th gens until 2011 MY) so Ford could also do that if they wanted to in a year or 2 and w/o waiting for a mid cycle refresh, but let’s see…
That might have been trim specific on the Accord depending what you and your friend had, usually the bottom couple trims lack them, below EX or EX-L. But to your point that is annoying on overseas versions having them, Honda is the same way there too with the Civic having rear vents in other markets where even the Integra doesn’t even have them here (which in the upper 30s it should IMO). I can see Ford still not adding it on the Ranger as long as other trucks like the Tacoma don’t either.
no it was a 2008 EX-L with leather seats but the rear of the center console was all blanks, not even a cubby where the vents would go. Mine was a 2010 EX with cloth seats and a manual transmission but it had the factory rear vents. The LX never got the vents during the 8th generation run. Since then I’ve seen a couple other 2010 Accords either EX or EX-L and they also had the rear vents so it was definitely a running change just before the mid cycle refresh
Yeah LX definitely never got vents, EX did into later gens but now in the current gen it does not, since it’s not really “above” the Sport like it used to be. In that case maybe in ’08 it was V6 models and then it trickled down later in production.
My quad cab Ram has no air vents in the back seats either and it’s utterly impossible to maintain a comfortable temperature front and rear on a hot day. I drove across South Dakota in the summer a few years ago and the people in the front seats were freezing while the person in back was roasting. I don’t usually have people in the back seat (hence the quad cab), but after that I will make a point of not having people sit there.
Idk man. I think David’s mild praise and criticism are fair for what amounts to basically another styling update, a new engine option and some suspension refinements to the 2011 T6 platform.
Don’t blame the media for midsize trucks stagnating- If anything, breathless reviews from those naturally inclined to buy them are the problem, and contribute to the stagnation. Why would Ford or Toyota invest effort into these vehicles when the diehards will buy them regardless?
The issue with the modern Ranger is that it probably wasn’t intended to dovetail with the F150. It was designed as a “full-size” flagship for the Australian/ world market, where roads can be tighter, but still provide a complete pickup truck experience.
The unfortunate result is a truck that offers relatively minor cost, weight and fuel savings vs. a comparable aluminium F150. While the addition of the 2.7 sounds fun, (and is probably the right move in a vacuum) it will serve to make comparisons between the trucks even less distinct.
The Maverick on the other hand, offers a clearly differentiated value proposition vs the F150. It has received almost universal praise, and to nobodies surprise, is selling like crazy. IMO, the Maverick is the true successor to the original Ranger.
I’m quite aware, and I also understand that the way the truck and its [international] competition had evolved was why Ford didn’t have it here for so long. I even campaigned for them to call it the F-100 Ranger just so they could lump it in with the other F-Series if it would have helped bring it here sooner (it didn’t, obviously).
The Maverick is great, but I’ve heard more than a few owners and potential owners say they wish it were available as an extended cab with a commensurately-longer bed, which was the most popular body style for the old Ranger and its own competition, though the market has also changed a bit since then. But better to have it available than not, and a few have found that with a ladder rack or small trailer it’s still a good solution for their needs.
Not really. I never liked that blocky style in Toyota trucks, although I will admit it’s more interesting. To me it just looks jagged and uncomfortable. Overstyled, just like the exteriors. I also appreciate the Ranger having the screen integrated into the dash rather than Toyota’s glued-on tablet look.
I like the Toyota more, but I think it’s appealing to the part of my brain that loves Brutalist architecture.
I agree. The new Toyota truck style screams “try hard” and trying to look tough/macho, not that it’s tough for having been through various trials and tribulations.
So the ‘roided-out gym rat who doesn’t know how to use the muscles they paid for, versus the blue collar worker who chucks bags of concrete around all day, or military vet, or fill in any other strenuous repetitive activity worker.
I do appreciate that they didn’t give the Tacoma the Hulk Hogan mustache treatment they did for the Tundra. But the giant chin spoiler still looks awkward as heck.
While I understand the marketing appeal behind designing for off-road trails ($$$!), the reality is that most of these trucks rarely make it more than 100′ off the pavement. I’m also a big fan of base models – KISS and I could care less about black-out plates. As long as Ford offers an extended cab (along with the now-obligatory crew cab) with 2WD it’ll stay on my shopping list.
Sorry to tell you the Ranger is SuperCrew-only for 2024.
The traditional shifter being in the base truck and the expensive one having the crappy electronic one puts the lie to the idea that this has been done for cost savings. Or at least cost savings that have been passed on.
While I strongly prefer traditional shifters, if the electronic one is shared with other Ford models then that’s a savings. No need for different cables or brackets, it’s all plug-and-play. That doesn’t make me like it any more or less, though at least Ford offers a decent setup. How companies like gm, BMW, and Honda (the worst ones off the top of my head) get these newfangled gear selectors so bad is beyond me.
If it’s that much cheaper, why isn’t it in the base model truck then?
That’s my point.
Oh, I understand your point better now.
I suspect it has something to do with fleets demanding a mechanical selector, and that it doesn’t necessarily work in other configurations or there’s not some sort of other justification for it that isn’t offset by the electronic version seeming to be more “premium”. And/or to make the electronic version seem more premium by not being the mechanical one in the base model.
Similar to how the folding gear selector and work surface isn’t available on a base F-150 XL without the High (103A) package, since the XL has a column shifter., I guess.
As much as we decry the bean counters running automakers, the real power is the marketeers. If a feature will make you step up a trim, they will spend more money to make the lower trim less attractive.
This is nothing new. As an example, Chevrolet offered a 3 speed and 4 speed manual in the Corvair. Almost no one chose the 3 speed so it would have been cheaper to just offer the 4 speed. But, making it an option virtually ensured a $110 option would be added to every manual transmission sale.
I guess the disconnect to me is that a 4 speed is clearly superior to a 3 speed and is easily understood as such.
We here love to hate on the electronic shifters, but my sense is that most people consider them “meh” at best and not “premium” or a reason to upgrade. Perhaps I’m wrong on that and these actually are desirable?
I think most of the buying public thinks newer is better, especially if Ford’s marketing and dealers are telling them that. Personally, I vote for a column or dash rotary selector because I want that space dedicated to something useful.
My personal opinion is that every vehicle without a manual transmission should have an old school physical PRNDL shifter on the column but no one ever listens to me.
column shifter is best shifter
Chances are good that “traditional” shifter is electronic, too, right? I’m guessing, not trying to be contrary.
I guess it could be, but I’d be surprised if they went to the trouble of designing two separate types of electronic shifters.
You know, you and Dad could have told me you’d called it quits before making it public like this.
Seriously! I came here to hear from David about his new relationship, and not a mention! Poor kiddo, sorry you had to find out this way