Sponsored

Antimatter22

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Threads
1
Messages
353
Reaction score
523
Location
Ohio
Vehicles
'22 F150 Limited in Star White.
They are sort of close but I still see the appeal of the Ranger, and if anything the Ranger has more “brand appeal” as the nameplate has been around a lot longer.
Give me a Ranger with a few more inches of rear legroom, similar tech of a F150, and a hybrid AWD in the 30s and you'll have me standing in line throwing money at you. Is it possible? Maybe. Would that dig into F150 numbers? For some people yes. Will Ford do it? We'll see.

My truck will rarely have to perform up to the potential it can handle under my care, but I knew that going in.
Sponsored

 

thebigdu

Well-known member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2022
Threads
18
Messages
675
Reaction score
709
Location
New Jersey
Vehicles
2022 Lariat Sport PowerBoost
Super Crew only and a $34K starting price makes it a poor option for many that need extra bed space and a working truck.

Might as well get the Maverick at that point!

Really disappointed that they didn’t use the 7 speed from the Bronco.

All the corporate executives are likely worried that a fun/affordable stripped base model would cannibalize the sales of all the overpriced options.

This is why 20+ year old regular cab trucks are selling for $10K or more in decent condition.

It’s bizarre because twenty years ago, I know a lot of people that purchased manual transmission RWD regular cab trucks because it was the cheapest vehicle that they could afford. In 2001, a base Ranger was only a few bucks more than a base Honda Civic and you could get it off the lot for less and put it to work.

Ford is full of shit when they’re making excuses about affordable trucks in 2023, since a regular cab 2023 Ranger goes for $34K AUD; which converted to USD is $23K, which funny enough is around what a base Honda Civic is going for these days.
Dead on. One of our employees recently totalled our cheap, reliable 2005 reg cab, 2WD Tacoma, and we had to find a quick replacement. I scoured inventory within 100 miles or so and found ONE new midsize 2WD, reg cab truck in basic work truck trim...a leftover 2022 Colorado WT. Couldn't go 2023 Colorado due to crew cab only, Rangers and Tacomas were essentially non-existent, and Frontier was too steep.

From a fleet perspective, it really is unfortunate that Ford is joining GM in eliminating the regular cab midsize truck. Very few options left for fleets and people who want/need a cheap truck.

I should also note that GM killed the 6ft bed on their midsize trucks, which is another miss for work purposes. Not sure what Ford is doing with the Ranger refresh from a bed perspective...
 

JExpedition07

Well-known member
First Name
James
Joined
Feb 14, 2023
Threads
41
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
2,226
Location
Buffalo NY
Vehicles
2023 F-150 STX 5.0L V8
The draw to the F-150 for me was the powerplants (specifically the 3.5 EcoBoost and 5.0L V8). I didn’t really need an F-150 but I’ve watched the 5.0 and 3.5 kick the competitions butt on YouTube since 2011 and it was more the excitement around these two powertrains that drove me up to the half ton. I like the extra size, the 10 speed, the 6.5’ bed. At the end of the day I am happier looking at a 150 than a Ranger in the driveway too. It’s just got more sex appeal.

Maybe I’m just jaded and insecure from growing up driving big trucks :ROFLMAO:. Either way I’m happy with my purchase and would not consider a Ranger over a F-150 but I certainly see the appeal. If you do mild towing and daily drive it’s a very effective and efficient vehicle. Good 4WD, easier parking, etc etc.
 

thebigdu

Well-known member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2022
Threads
18
Messages
675
Reaction score
709
Location
New Jersey
Vehicles
2022 Lariat Sport PowerBoost
The draw to the F-150 for me was the powerplants (specifically the 3.5 EcoBoost and 5.0L V8). I didn’t really need an F-150 but I’ve watched the 5.0 and 3.5 kick the competitions butt on YouTube since 2011 and it was more the excitement around these two powertrains that drove me up to the half ton. I like the extra size, the 10 speed, the 6.5’ bed. At the end of the day I am happier looking at a 150 than a Ranger in the driveway too. It’s just got more sex appeal.

Maybe I’m just jaded and insecure from growing up driving big trucks :ROFLMAO:. Either way I’m happy with my purchase and would not consider a Ranger over a F-150 but I certainly see the appeal. If you do mild towing and daily drive it’s a very effective and efficient vehicle. Good 4WD, easier parking, etc etc.
I loved the parking ease and maneuverability of my 2015 Canyon, but it would be hard to go back to mid-size after tasting the forbidden fruit of full-size. Not to mention my truck averages better fuel economy than my Canyon by about 2-3 mpg, and the 360 cams certainly help overcome that parking difficulty. That damn turning radius though...
 

King Luis

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Threads
3
Messages
84
Reaction score
43
Location
Toronto Canada
Vehicles
2018 Volvo XC60 and 23' Tremor 5.0 ordered.
so would you go for the Ranger Raptor or a super crew 4x4 5.0L F150 with the FX4 package? That I think is going to be the big question.
 

Sponsored

JExpedition07

Well-known member
First Name
James
Joined
Feb 14, 2023
Threads
41
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
2,226
Location
Buffalo NY
Vehicles
2023 F-150 STX 5.0L V8
so would you go for the Ranger Raptor or a super crew 4x4 5.0L F150 with the FX4 package? That I think is going to be the big question.
Unless you are looking at a Lariat or higher F-150 the Ranger Raptor will be more expensive than any regular F-150 FX4. I’d take the 5.0L V8 over the 3.0 EcoBoost myself. The 3.5 is the EcoBoost to get if you want to go that route imo. The 3.5 has that diesel torque curve in a gas job.

My buddy has the ST Explorer, the 3.0 EcoBoost is rated at 400 HP/ 415 TQ and the 5.0L in my F-150 is rated at 400 HP/ 410 TQ. That are pretty evenly matched but I like the induction noise on the V8 and with the V4 mode on this V8 I’m actually getting the same MPG he sees with the 3.0L. Matter of preference imo.
 
Last edited:

780

Well-known member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Threads
17
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,077
Location
edmonton
Vehicles
302a crew - 6'5" Sport, Max Tow, FX4
If I didn't tow, and they offered the Ranger with the same 4 Auto feature the GM twins have, I'd likely be driving a Ranger. 95% of my driving is me alone work commuting...
 

HammaMan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2022
Threads
72
Messages
4,226
Reaction score
4,379
Location
SE US
Vehicles
2022 302a PB, Mach E GTPE
Their 4 cylinder has cylinder deactivation?
That's hilarious. I'd like to see ford tweak eco mode on TC engines by keeping out of boost and using lean burn instead. They can intro a little boost while lean burning keeping temps and fuel consumption down. The current strat is poo.
 

Lightninz04

Active member
First Name
Stephen Maschefzky
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Threads
7
Messages
41
Reaction score
17
Location
New Jersey
Vehicles
2021 Ford F-150 3.5 eco boost / 2004 ford lightnin
Occupation
Ibew electrician
I loved the parking ease and maneuverability of my 2015 Canyon, but it would be hard to go back to mid-size after tasting the forbidden fruit of full-size. Not to mention my truck averages better fuel economy than my Canyon by about 2-3 mpg, and the 360 cams certainly help overcome that parking difficulty. That damn turning radius though...
What turning radius, I can’t believe my 2011 ram 2500 powerwagon had better turning radius then my new f-150, as I agree the 360 cameras help a lot, but I’m doing k turns just to park it. Lol man I thought I was the only one…
 

Calson

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2022
Threads
9
Messages
657
Reaction score
310
Location
Monterey CA
Vehicles
2022 F-150
It has bothered me over that over the past 50 years there have been trivial increases in miles per gallon for cars and trucks. The focus is on more horsepower at the expense of fuel economy.

When I first had the Toyota 4WD mini truck with the new V6 engine it took me quite a while to develop a soft enough touch on the clutch to not spin the rear wheels when starting up from a stop sign or leaving a parking lot and entering the roadway. More horsepower would mean more wheel spin and no gain in real world performance.

It is even worse today as one cannot buy an aftermarket fuel tank to increase the fuel capacity and driving range of a truck unless it is for a diesel engine.
 

Sponsored


HammaMan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2022
Threads
72
Messages
4,226
Reaction score
4,379
Location
SE US
Vehicles
2022 302a PB, Mach E GTPE
It has bothered me over that over the past 50 years there have been trivial increases in miles per gallon for cars and trucks. The focus is on more horsepower at the expense of fuel economy.

When I first had the Toyota 4WD mini truck with the new V6 engine it took me quite a while to develop a soft enough touch on the clutch to not spin the rear wheels when starting up from a stop sign or leaving a parking lot and entering the roadway. More horsepower would mean more wheel spin and no gain in real world performance.

It is even worse today as one cannot buy an aftermarket fuel tank to increase the fuel capacity and driving range of a truck unless it is for a diesel engine.
PB's with the only tank it comes w/, 30 gal, can squeak out 700 miles range. There's really not much that can be done to ICE engines today to get them better mileage. Between the 90s and 2ks, speed limits were raised considerably, some even by 50%. It's those faster speeds that eat into mileage. I'm quite impressed w/ the PB's mileage even though at highway speeds it's just a heavier 3.5 w/ the ability to scrape little bits of energy when 'coasting' that's then used to go wide open on the e-motor. In-fact the e-motor rapidly gets to full power before the ICE contributes. On the highway however that's fairly trivial as speed is usually set by cruise.

What I fail to fully grasp is the senseless push to full electrification. Ford should have built the PB w/ a 20kWh battery allowing everyone to enjoy a good 30-40 miles of range after being plugged in for ~2hrs. They should have made as many of those variants as they could, even sacrificing the lightnings if need be for the cells. As much as I'm against regulating the free market, I'd even go so far as to require hybrids going forward at a minimum, while keeping incentives for PHEV vehicles that can achieve at least 35 miles on E-only (via instant tax credits on purchase, essentially paying for the battery). Such a move would allow for decreased domestic gasoline use w/ excess export, start increasing strain on the grid prompting upgrades (and smart tech behind it), and provide realistic means for building out the mining/production facilities required to support such an industry (US only sourcing / manufacturing). It'd also increase the adoption of L2 chargers (up to 50a 240v) making them rather ubiquitous. They're easy to install only requiring a 6ga copper run to the unit.

The new maverick hybrid is a great example of what a hybrid powertrain can do. That little 'truck' can post some pretty insane mileage -- up to mid 50's in MPG from a rather economical platform that doesn't even have the means to charge via external means. Even the PB's current design left a little too much on the table. Just a few minor tweaks to it could have yielded much better results. It could have used the bigger version of the e-motor and bump the batt up to 3kWh usable vs the 800Wh usable capacity now. That would have yielded full-on regen and e-only acceleration that's usable with the ability to turn off the ICE at speeds up to 65mph while cruising.
 

Snakebitten

Well-known member
First Name
Bruce
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
8,895
Reaction score
15,982
Location
Coastal Texas
Vehicles
2022 F150 KingRanch Powerboost
HammaMan, I would love to know the REAL story for the decision NOT to leverage the more powerful traction motor and battery that Ford already had at their disposal?

I know that they wouldn't tell us the truth on the record, but man it is irritating at how much the Powerboost would benefit from those forbidden parts.
 

HammaMan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2022
Threads
72
Messages
4,226
Reaction score
4,379
Location
SE US
Vehicles
2022 302a PB, Mach E GTPE
HammaMan, I would love to know the REAL story for the decision NOT to leverage the more powerful traction motor and battery that Ford already had at their disposal?

I know that they wouldn't tell us the truth on the record, but man it is irritating at how much the Powerboost would benefit from those forbidden parts.
Yeah, it's pretty sad that for not even $300 worth of factory cost on components, we could have had a much different vehicle. If I had to wager it's just the product of checking boxes to achieve 'titles' vs actually testing these things out and looking at the data of what could have been from just a little constructive criticism. Ford is just like that though. They went with a lot of COTS components just barely squeaking by without asking if parts from an escape hybrid were really up to the task of what could be done w/ the F150, despite having the lincoln's components that were better suited. They did silly things like having 2 discrete HV runs, of same-sized conductors when they could have just did a single larger run to the 3 phase inverter that then fed the other 2 under-hood HV components, and could shut off their power for heavier acceleration.

It could have likely been done right if they had someone looking at the direction of the many engineers working the systems and the route they were taking. Some of it was simple logic problems that'd be easily rectified. Take for instance the offline acceleration, in ECO mode, the truck should behave like it does now bringing in ICE when needed. Normal mode however should start the ice on accelerator touch thus making the 1-3 much smoother acting like auto start stop. There's little things like this that could be done now to better the experience. They could even modify the raptor's button config and make the R an E and allow the owner to config what the button does. Personally I'd like it to be an ICE action button. If it's on and conditions are right, pushing the button would turn it off. If it was off, pushing it would turn it on. There's several PB operators right now that could use that to better their driving experience. That'd eliminate the whole 'brake to shut off' or throttle to turn on. The truck doesn't always shut down when conditions warrant like if you're going to coast due to a light or traffic.
 

Henfield

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
292
Reaction score
209
Location
Usa
Vehicles
2021 XLT Screw 5.0,4x4,302Asport,
As its 21 inches shorter and 6 inches narrower than the F150, the Ranger has much to admire especially if you live in a city.
That said, what interests me about the new Ranger is the 3.0 Turbo. Does it have what it takes in a detuned version to replace the 2.7 in the F150 with more HP, plus more torque, with the latter coming in stronger at lower revs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 780

dolsen

Well-known member
First Name
David
Joined
Aug 19, 2022
Threads
18
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
1,891
Location
KY
Vehicles
2022 Rapid Red 701A
HammaMan, I would love to know the REAL story for the decision NOT to leverage the more powerful traction motor and battery that Ford already had at their disposal?

I know that they wouldn't tell us the truth on the record, but man it is irritating at how much the Powerboost would benefit from those forbidden parts.
I’d venture to guess it has something to do with government incentives for the manufacturers
Sponsored

 
 




Top