No matter how much Ford tries convincing you that it changed the frame and that the American Ford Ranger is so much different than the international one, the reality is that the current T6-platform truck has been around since 2010 — 13 years! And as competent of a truck as it is, with its torquey turbocharged 2.3-liter engine, 10-speed auto, and beefy construction, the looks are old both inside and out. While the rest of the world got exciting Ranger variants like the Ranger Raptor, America made do with just one powertrain and no hard-core off-road trim; why? Because even when it launched for the 2019 model-year, the Ranger was a dead man walking. There was no point in investing more effort into a truck that, let’s be honest, was a bit of a stopgap meant to get Ford quickly subbed into the then-rapidly-heating-up mid-size truck game. But now that Ford has bided a bit of time, it’s launching an all-new Ford Ranger — one that was initially designed with the U.S. market in mind. Ford calls the Ranger the “F-150 of [the rest of] the world” — a high volume truck meant for hard work. But for the U.S. market, Ford’s focusing on marketing the mid-sizer as a truck that is “ready for epic adventures.” Behold America’s new 2024 Ford Ranger.
As I mentioned in my article “I Just Saw The 2024 Ford Ranger And Ford Ranger Raptor But I Can’t Tell You Shit Until May 10 (But I Can Show You This Teaser),” Ford flew me from LA to rural Michigan to attend “Ranger School” — a crash course on everything I need to know about Ford’s new mid-size truck, which aims to take on all the new mid-sizers that have launched since the Ranger’s debut for the 2019 model year. Those trucks include the 2020+ Jeep Gladiator, the 2022+ Nissan Frontier, the new 2023 Chevy Colorado (and its GMC Canyon sibling), and most importantly the GOAT of the class: The upcoming new Toyota Tacoma, set to debut in just nine days.
The midsize truck segment is shifting from one made up of old-timers on old ancient bones adopted from faraway lands (The outgoing Chevy Colorado was designed for debuted in Thailand in 2011 before GM modified it lightly for the U.S. market) to one that includes properly modern, stylish trucks specifically developed with the U.S. in mind. Remember, just ten years ago the world was saying the midsize truck segment is dead, and then when automakers realized that there was potential in selling trucks that can actually fit into garages, they had to get offerings to market quickly. And now that a hot midsize truck segment has been around a while, we’re starting to see real effort — more modern interiors, powertrains, and suspensions — going into it. And that definitely applies to the new Ford Ranger.
Two ‘New’ Powertrains
Okay, let’s get to the good stuff. It’s probably safe to say that the vast majority of people who have driven the current Ford Ranger are reasonably happy with the 270 horsepower, 310 lb-ft 2.3-liter EcoBoost inline-four and the 10-speed automatic that it’s bolted to. When I reviewed the car for Jalopnik, I really had only good things to say about the truck’s engine (shown above), writing:
The 2.3-liter EcoBoost hooked up to the 10-speed transmission is a downright quick combination, accelerating the truck surprisingly purposefully and producing a sound that’s actually somewhat sporty—at least, more so than the naturally aspirated V6s that populate this segment.
That engine and transmission combination acts as an excellent propellant for back-road buffoonery, which is made possible by the vehicle’s sharp steering. Crank the wheel, and the Ranger’s nose—which sits nice and low relative to my seating position, allowing for excellent forward visibility—darts almost immediately into a turn.
But one key way to compete with increasingly stiff competition in the midsize truck segment is to offer choice; Ford, purveyors of the best-selling truck of all time (the F-series), knows this better than anyone, telling journalists that, per the company’s customer research, “performance” was a major reason why certain buyers declined to buy certain midsize trucks. This stuff matters. So for 2024, The Blue Oval is offering the Ranger with a 2.7-liter V6 making 315 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque — that’s up 45 horsepower and 90 lb-ft over the base 2.3-liter, which is largely unchanged from the ’22 model year.
In addition to the engines whose displacements in liters start with a “2,” Ford also offers for the off-road-focused Ranger Raptor a new 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6 (see below) just like the one in the Ford Bronco Raptor, though detuned a bit from 418 horsepower and 440 lb-ft of torque to 405 horsepower and 430 lb-ft. All engines are bolted to a 10-speed “SelectShift” automatic.
The Chassis Has Been ‘Enhanced’
The new Ford Ranger is “all-new” and “redesigned from the ground up,” but that doesn’t mean it’s literally a clean-sheet design. After all, the new truck shares the old truck’s leaf sprung solid rear axle suspension and double-wishbone front suspension — all hanging off a fully boxed ladder frame. This general chassis setup has been around for at least 50 years, and will continue to be for a while (electrification will likely kill the solid axle), so it’s no surprise that automakers are using the “carryover” previous-generation vehicle to act as the basis for the new one.
Why reinvent something that’s going to be similar, anyway? This is what happened when the new Toyota Tacoma launched back in 2015 — engineers admitted that, though it’s marketed as “all new,” some of the basic frame and suspension design is drawn from the old truck. The same is true about the 2024 Ford Ranger, which a Ford rep told me had an “enhanced frame,” going on to say “we significantly redesigned it.”
Ford describes its major Frame enhancements in its press release, 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.
You’ll notice how Ford uses the term “Adventure,” and doesn’t focus as much on truckish towing and payload performance. In fact, the term “adventure” shows up nine times in Ford’s press release, while “tow” shows up just five and “payload” just once. As I mentioned before, the mid-size Ranger may be a rough-and-tumble workhorse overseas, but in the U.S. it’s clear Ford thinks many of its customers will likely be beard-having, plaid-wearing, granola-eating yuppies.
Anyway, the big 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, so I’ve reached out to our in-house dynamics genius, Huibert Mees, to give a bit more context, and will update this when he replies. 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:
For fun, here’s a Bronco’s front suspension (the Bronco was based on the outgoing Ranger’s T6 platform):
Anyway, similarities between the new and old Ranger are not surprising. Just like the outgoing truck, the new Ranger has the fuel tank on the left side just ahead of the rear axle, and the exhaust on the right side
Here’s the outgoing truck’s underbody, which is similarly laid out:
None of this is a criticism of the new truck. It has the same body-on-frame basic setup, the same front suspension type, the same rear suspension type, is about the same length as the old truck, and tows the same amount (up to 7,500) — naturally it’s not going to be an enormous change from the outgoing vehicle chassis-wise. At least, that’s the case for the standard truck; the Ford Ranger Raptor changes things up with a coil-sprung Watts Link rear axle instead of one clamped to leaf springs. This is a giant departure over non-Raptor Rangers, necessitating a unique frame.
The Ranger Raptor
I’ll be publishing an article this afternoon with my full thoughts on the new Ford Ranger Raptor, but for now, I’ll just talk basic hardware. First, the rear axle, shown above, ditches the leaf springs for coils, upper and lower control arms to control fore-aft loads and to prevent axle twist, and a Watts link to help the axle take lateral loads. Typically it is a track bar that bolts to the frame above and the axle below that keeps the axle centered when subject to lateral loads, but the problem with a track bar is that it has to rotate in an arc as the axle move up and down relative to the frame, and on an off-road rally truck like the Ranger Raptor, there will be quite a bit of travel. This arc motion causes the axle to move laterally, and contributes to a “rear-steer” phenomenon that can make handling feel a bit unpredictable.
Here’s a look at how a Watt’s linkage keeps the axle perfectly centered in the vehicle when the axle moves up and down over bumps, as it will in a vehicle designed for high-speed desert driving:
I briefly spoke with our suspension engineer Huibert Mees about the Ranger Raptor’s rear suspension, and how it necessitates a unique new frame. Here were his thoughts:
The Ranger Raptor also gets “2.5-inch FOX Live Valve shocks,” unique front knuckles and control arms, a unique fascia and apparently some chassis bolstering, with Ford saying in its press release:
Ranger Raptor is built on a beefy foundation, taking Ranger’s fully boxed frame up a notch by reinforcing the front frame rails, front shock towers, rear shock brackets, suspension mounting points, and other key areas so Ranger Raptor can handle more punishing off-road conditions.*
I’ll dig deeper into the Ford Ranger Raptor, which has a 3.5 inch wider track width than the standard new Ranger (which is already two inches wider than the outgoing truck) in an article later today.
The Outside Looks Decent
The new Ranger isn’t a massive leap forward in terms of exterior design when compared to the outgoing T6 Ranger. It’s still a bit conservative, especially from the rear, but it’s handsome nonetheless.
Here’s a look at the front grille treatments available on different trims:
I find the outgoing truck to be a bit handsomer, especially from the front, as the C-clamp style headlamps wrapped around the grille on the new truck are a bit busy to me.
The Interior Looks Like A Significant Improvement
The photo above shows the 2024 Ford Ranger’s interior, and the one below shows the outgoing truck’s. The new vehicle comes standard with a 10.1-inch touchscreen infotainment display, vertically oriented and integrated into the center stack. A 12-incher is optional, and joins an available 12.4-inch cluster in front of the steering wheel (an eight-inch display is standard).
Cabin materials varied. Base trucks had hard plastics, while pricier trims softened things. Cabin design ran across a huge spectrum, from understated in black, to warm in tan, to flashy with red accents on the Ranger Raptor:
There were even multiple shifter options. You can see the “short-throw E-shifter” here.
And here’s the shifter on lower-trim trucks:
I personally don’t love floor-shifters; I think they’re a waste of space compared to a column-shifter, but Ford insists that its customers want a place to rest their hand while they drive. Also, historically a floor shifter tends to be considered “tougher” (look at ads for old sports cars; floor shifters are marketed as much cooler than dainty column shifts), though I don’t quite agree that that’s still the case given the history of column shift automatics on heavy-duty trucks. I think they’re tough, and they’re a great use a space, but alas, no column shifter on the new Ranger.
Speaking of columns, the new Ranger offers also offers two engine-start methods. You can push a button on the column:
Or, somewhat surprisingly and delightfully, you can still twist a key:
Other things worth noting are the rear seats, which instead of folding up to reveal a big flat floor, actually fold down as a single, non-split-folded unit (so if you want to fit something big in your cab, you better not have more than just that single passenger up front):
It’s not exactly a giant space to store things height-wise, but it is a large flat surface, and looks easy enough to fold.
I still have a lot more to say about the Ranger, particularly the Raptor, in my follow-up article. But this new truck — which starts at $34,160 (Ranger Raptor starts at $56,960) — looks like a nice update. There are more powertrain options, the exterior looks different, the interior looks fresher, and it’s clear now that the mid-size truck category is done resting on its laurels.
Now to see what the Tacoma’s got on May 19th.
Those shots of the engine bays taught me something. Looking at modern trucks I just assumed there was a foot or so of distance between the top of the engine and the hood for agressive cosplay styling reasons. I haven’t looked under the hood of a pick up truck in ages, but I sure don’t recall the engine filling up space that high. Probably a boring thing to most of you, but kind of shocking to me…
I see why you waited so long to get to the interior shots. Lost all interest after that.
I do think the front end is nicer on the new one, the old one looks like the space ship Taurus of my youth.
Man, that raptor pricing is just sad. I don’t understand the reasoning behind sticking all of the sweet mechanical goodies on it to handle abuse and then making it nice inside. Just give me the raptor frame/suspension on a base model. Heck, gimme a 4cyl with the 7 speed and only the suspension and axles from the raptor.
What is it about Ford engine bays looking like tangled spaghetti? Did they have a prize for the most convoluted routing? I’m seeing a servicing nightmare in the making. Unplugging everything just to access the one maintenance part and hoping all the plastic clips don’t snap isn’t fun.
I know, right? Shower spaghetti?
Exactly what I thought. Like WTF? Seriously.
I’m a bit surprised there is no hybrid powertrain offered. The mid-size segment, in many ways, is a much more friendly footprint, but the fuel economy has been far less impressive then what the half ton lineup can achieve given the additional interior and cargo space.
I fully expected a hybrid option, especially with the demand Ford has seen for the Maverick hybrid powertrain.
The “Powerboost” branding is too good to be stuck in just the F-150 and Explorer. Why wouldn’t Escape, Bronco, Bronco Sport, and Ranger owners want towing capacity with good MPGs? Toyota seems to get it, between the PHEV hybrid RAV4 Prime (which has improved towing capacity over just the hybrid) and the I-Force Tundra/Tacoma.
Knowing that the new Taco is offering a stick, and a hybrid option makes it so much more interesting to me.
Though if any OEM eventually makes a PHEV version…they can take my money.
No split in the folding rear seat? That’s a functionality miss. Is there at least under-seat storage, or did that space get wasted?
There is under-seat storage.
Oh, so they could have stuck a hybrid battery in there? hmmm…
Looks fine until you get to the underhood photos. How you can look at that mess and think anything but “run far away” is a mystery, especially with Ford’s quality issues. Not even mentoning that 80% of everything in there is plastic.
This is one time when one of those huge plastic shields would be an improvement!
By the outgoing model being “handsomer,” I assume you mean “more handsome?”
/s
Couldn’t help myself 🙂
I still think that they should have swapped the Ranger for a Bronco Pickup. Just give us the Ranger but with Bronco styling. Everyone would win
Dealers getting their black Sharpies out for the market adjustments:
*Anthony Adams rubbing hands behind a tree.gif*
I am not in a good mood today. With that said this represents everything I hate about today’s truck landscape. I cannot think of a single mainstream automaker offering anything that remotely ticks even half of my buttons. Either its too big, too boring looking, too in-your-face brodozer looking, too expensive, too gas guzzling, or too nice to be a truck. This thing…. I can’t even tell the difference between it and the old one. And it STARTS at $33,000 meaning by the time you’re out the door its easily going to be over $40,000 or more. And given Ford’s current track record of releasing new models that self-destruct their engines I would not feel that great spending that on a product I wouldn’t trust to drive on a long trip.
The “new” Ranger is boring and that’s fine. Trucks should be boring. The real purpose of pickups is to haul stuff, whether in commercial applications such as agriculture and construction or just trucking the family’s garbage to the dump and picking up stuff for home improvement projects. Off-road capability is to facilitate hauling into unimproved areas, not “adventure.”
The overwhelming number of pickups on the road are used as nothing more than cars. The closest they’ll ever come to adventure is maneuvering in a parking garage and off-roading is limited to those oops moments when drivers run a couple of wheels into the grass at the edge of the driveway. If everyone who buys a Raptor anything (or Jeep, etc.) actually went bushwhacking in the backcountry, there would be no wilderness, just coast-to-coast gravel pits filled with high-centered trucks.
The amount of money wasted on excess capability, be it in trucks, SUVs, or sports cars, is egregious and has driven the cost of car ownership sky high.
I like cars and I like trucks, but driving one is not, normally, a transformational experience or adventure. And when it was, I was almost inevitably operating beyond the bounds of law and my own competence. So, being stupid. My complaint with modern vehicles so over-equipped for other than the mundane task of transportation, and the immature marketing of said vehicles, is that they encourage and abet such stupidity.
I want whatever vehicle I drive to be attractive and comfortable; I need it to be reliable, economical and reasonably low-risk to operate. That’s it.
Is the new Ranger a demonstrably better truck than it’s predecessors at accomplishing the underlying purpose for a truck (hauling stuff)? I’d say no. Is it a better car in terms of ease of use, reliability, comfort and economy. Sure, although the margins of claimed improvement are somewhat subjective. Is it better looking? Well, that’s completely subjective. Personally, based on appearance, I’d much rather have David Tracy’s J10 than a new Ranger, but that’s me.
Getting back to my point, I have a hard time getting excited about any and all new vehicles being sold as a lifestyle choice or toy. There’s nothing wrong with toys if their uses are limited to appropriate play areas, but it bothers me when these are marketed as desirable qualities in a daily driver, which, judging by the four doors and automatic transmission the Ranger is clearly intended to be. Ford’s de-emphasis of the basic truck nature of the Ranger in favor of its toy factor is a case in point. And, of course, Ford is hardly alone in this practice.
Regardless of what I drive, I’m never going to take it to Moab or Baja. I’m not going to barrel to the peak of Denali the next time a pandemic strikes, either, and I’m getting tired of having fewer and fewer choices in vehicles that aren’t all tarted up with these capabilities (or the appearances of such) that just drive up the cost of all cars. And on that basis, I don’t find the Ranger improved at all.
You make a good point about people buying vehicles based off what they may want to do rather than what they actually need. IMHO, trucks are the worst for being more capable than they will be used for. However, no one will buy a new full size truck that only has a 5,000lb tow capacity. It needs to be the best in class when released to get attention in the market. I’m sure the mid-sized truck spec wars are coming soon. The new ranger sounds like it has better “truck” specs than the 2003 F150 I had a few years ago. The base 2.3l is already more powerful than the 4.6L V8. I bet it tows more and maybe even has a higher GVWR.
I take your point, but I would be the guy that bought the “lesser” truck, as long as it met my needs. I can be as irrational as the next person when it comes to vehicles, sometimes you just want what you want. I’ve had three Jeeps and only really needed the first because of where I lived and driving conditions, but even the other two were as basic as I could get them. Still, they were luxury vs. necessity and not my daily driver. It’s all academic because automakers obviously are swinging hard in the the other direction. I just miss the option of building a vehicle from the bottom up. Even with today’s package deals you have to pay for stuff you don’t want. You want a sliding back window? Oh, that’s only available with a sunroof, the bigger touch screen, the bigger engine and the optional driver assist package. I’m sure once robots have completely taken over the manufacturing process I’ll be able to order a car any way I want.
it’s ‘improved’ for rich men, which is a downgrade for everyone else who’d just like to have an affordable fuel-efficient compact truck..
I spend as much time as possible in the backcountry, canoe, hunt, fish, etc. So far the only place I’ve seen the overlanding rigs is on the side of simple dirt roads, not more than ten miles from the tar.
Ain’t that the truth.
“Affordable fuel efficient compact truck” equals the Maverick to a T. Standard 40+mpg hybrid at a little over $20k.
Wasn’t
DodgeRam supposed to release a new Dakota? There was tons of murmuring about it when the Ranger made a comeback.Looks like there’s a large axle hump on the floor. Ford probably decided on a full console. At that point, you’re all but guaranteed to get a shifter there these days.
No column shift because people want a place to rest their hand? Is the center console armrest not good enough?
Or maybe even the steering wheel?
I always have my hands on the wheel. I truly don’t understand much use of an armrest or any use of the shift lever for this purpose.
One, no steelies?! Two, extended cab? Or, just crew cab (like the Colorado)?
I just spent 5 minutes looking at the Ford site to see if there’s a model with a 6′ bed (e.g. extended cab) and couldn’t find anything. I need a 6+ foot bed more than I need 4 doors.
Is there less drop in the nose now? Maybe it’s just the angle. I think that was the nicest thing about the Ranger; it felt like visibility was at least considered a little more than some of the competition. Looks like they changed tack to aggressive looks, which certainly seems to sell. Hope they didn’t lose visibility doing so.
Like half the commenters here, I’d prefer to see a single and/or extended cab offering, too, but I get that people buy the quad cabs. I am with you on column shifting. It’s an automatic, get it out of the way. Not worried about not having a manual. A 10-speed auto is probably going to be better for most uses, anyway.
Very much agree that with the way truck styling has been trending, outward visibility NEEDS to be reviewed by …. reviewers. I love that the F-150 has the window drop-down cutouts to help a little in that direction. The pedestrians, kids, and others that will inevitably have to share space with these trucks in urban areas would really appreciate some emphasis on aspects that could help them be avoid being anti-social brodozers.
I wondered if a manual option might be added since the Bronco offers it but not surprised it’s not. Having a V6 option seems like it will be the big advantage in the segment here for those that don’t want a 4 (GM).
Does the interior seem deep or bathtub-like to anyone else or is it a trick of the tall vertical center screen?
Count me as one that also liked the look of the current/outgoing Ranger because it wasn’t all faux-tough. I like the update more than I thought I might based on whatever initial patent or spy shots there were a bit ago; still prefer the outgoing one some, but pleased it’s not super overtly aggro. However, I’m surprised at the lack of variety in the grille/moreso the wheel options, seems like there’s more currently, unless that’s to leave room for more packages again down the line. Maybe I was expecting to see something like the Wildtrak one elsewhere.
Also surprised at the lack of other cab options, but I guess that’s the case in other markets too. We said we wanted the global trucks…
Nice to see they’re throwing in the larger engine-the old ranger only had a 1-2 mpg advantage over the 2.7L f150 despite the lower frontal area, so I have to think the bigger engine won’t cause too big of a hit. I’d feel much better pulling heavy loads with that v6 though as it reportedly does great in the big brother. If the can still keep 1500 lbs payload with 4×4 and that 2.7, it’ll be more capable than most half tons. Most trucks are better than needed, but since Rams and Tacos can get less than 1000 lbs payload rating, it is a concern.
At two inches wider though I think they are missing the point. The main reason to buy a mid size is because full size trucks are a pain to drive. Why make it even closer to the similarly priced big brother, which has vastly more (and better packaged) interior and bed space? I’m with you on column shifts-they could have doubled the storage on that tiny console. The seats are an issue-can’t really get a kid and a dog back there comfortably. One of these days they’ll figure out the middle seat needs to fold up on the midsize trucks if they want to market as family or adventure vehicles.
Wider + longer wheelbase = lower CAFE mileage target.
I’m going to resist typing up a “the trucks are too large” diatribe and keep a positive attitude today.
It looks relatively nice on the outside, and the interior seems competitive. Not surprisingly they’re giving up on offering a cheapo work truck version, as the Maverick now takes it’s place. The pricing makes me throw-up into my mouth a little bit, as we damn well know that noone is getting one of these near 34k in the current market.
I’m glad that at least this midsize (grits teeth in restraint) segment is getting competitive.
Any word on how much of the body is aluminum now?
The body is steel. There may be an aluminum closure here or there.
Bummer. The aluminum body on my 8 year old F150 has held up really well so far in the salt belt of upstate NY, despite being routinely pelted by gravel and soaked in dust, dirt, mud, living on a dirt road.
The frame has it’s share of surface rust, but the body has held up quite well with the only corrosion being galvanic where dissimilar metals meet such as the grounding strap on the floor pan and where the tailgate straps connect to the tailgate.
How about the damn steering wheel?
I thought this same thing too. The arm rest is for resting. It seems like such a lame excuse.
I’m just confused on what this magical hand-resting place is that would be blocked by a column shifter. Do people just reach up and grab the dashboard and then just rest their hand their? Am I misunderstanding the implication here?
I’m not saying that it needs to exist for this reason, but I can understand what they mean. I grew up mostly driving a stick, and basically never drove with my right hand anywhere but the stick unless it was emergency-level needed on the wheel. I haven’t owned a stick in close to a decade now, and I still rest my hand on the top of the ‘floor’ shifter for my auto when I drive. The armrest is good for my elbow, but is too far back to rest my hand.
I do the same, although on my anemic Matrix AWD, hitting the overdrive off button on the shifter does help a bit with the initial onramp merge getting up to speed, or the annoying steep hill. That engine is T I N Y. I’d drive my dad’s old Toyota pickup with my hand on the shifter.
I find myself driving mostly with my left hand, even with cruise control on. And often my hand is on the shifter that does absolutely zero at highway speed.
Talk about risk averse.
This Ranger update is NOT exciting.
(Raptor may be an exception.)
Counting the ’24 Mustang yawn Ford is 0 for 2.
Ford must be pumping all product development capital funding into the EV side of the house with ICE side suffering for it.
I think the new Tacoma may eat its lunch.
But the Tacoma is ugly as fuck. This Ranger isn’t terrific looking, but the real winner here seems to be the Colorado. The engine options over there–and the staggering improvement in interior–looks like the Colorado will be a solid contender.
But buyers won’t care and they’ll buy the Tacoma because Toyota Tacoma.
The difference is that the Tacoma will probably be around at 300k and still run just fine versus this, which given Ford’s track record of late will probably eat its engine either immediately off the lot or in short order.
Sure, the engine may be around, but will it make any power? Will it be paired with a transmission that’s any good? And most importantly, will the frame be a pile of iron oxide?
Seriously though, my brother had a ’15 or ’16 Tacoma for ~5 years. I can’t imagine suffering through 300k miles of that engine/tranny combo.
Sometimes “ugly as fuck” is the correct choice.
Precisely.
And astonishing Tacoma residual values.
“Super Crew” cab is the only option for this model year apparently.
IMHO this is just a Maverick that costs more while getting much worse MPG. What’s the point of BOF construction if you only offer one cab and bed configuration?
Also no manual transmission option…
I also could not find any evidence of a 2-door (extended cab or otherwise) OR a bed that approaches 6′ in length. I realize most people don’t care about those options, but please, Ford, give us a bed for grown-ups.
Ford doesn’t give you a bed for grown ups even on most F-150 models, so it’s not going to happen here either.
Just because people don’t buy it on the F150 doesn’t mean it’s not available.
6.5 foot beds are available with every cab size, and 8 foot beds are available with regular and extended cabs.
Ford is arguably the best at providing longer beds vs competitors.
Hell, Ram doesn’t even offer a regular cab any more… well, I mean, I guess they still offer it on the 1500 Classic or whatever they call it, but that’s a 14 year old design at this point.
Except for the Lightning and the new Ranger apparently.
We get a Super Cab in Australia, so you may well get that option soon enough.