Everything I've found this far it simply offers 2wd/4high/4low. The 4A option on the f150 is only available on lariat and up trucks, Chevy offers it on base model work trucks optional. I love the auto4x4 setting on my F150 true "set it and forget it" option.

 

That is disappointing on the Ranger then - just like it is disappointing on the Colorado/Canyon... It has also kept me out of Toyota trucks up here for the same reason. It's now an option on a high end Jeep Wrangler this year...

 

Ford had and lost the opportunity to set the bar real high with this one.

When my daughter was deployed to the middle east, she spent a couple months in Oman. She had a Ranger over there. Up until that moment in time, she was hell bent on getting a new Ranger when she returned from deployment. Even knowing that the US version would be slightly different, she refused to wait for it and bought an F-150 instead. She was that underwhelmed.

I've made up my mind that if I go the smaller truck route then I'm getting a Frontier and a 5x8 trailer.

 

Tim, I might point out that the Frontier is an ancient design from 2005 (both the chassis and engine) and has lower MPG ratings that the F-150 (15/21 with the V6 and 4WD--or 11/15 if you run it on E85)....not a bad truck, though. The Ford E-van's lifespan was also measured in decades

 

Yeah I know and that's a detractor but, they are low the ground and they will pull a 5x8 trailer. That checks two boxes for me.

 

So, I looked up the stats on the European Ford Ranger Wildcat - the "performance" highest end trim one with a diesel. I actually had issues finding one with a gas motor... I want to say a 3.2L with 200 HP and 390 TQ. It was rated for up to 45.3 mpg, but it was also 0-62 in 10.6 seconds. I don't see those flying off the dealer lot here... And over there, they do not have AWD or 4A.

Obviously, manufacturers change a lot for the different markets, so it doesn't mean it would equate to the same over here, but thought it was interesting.

My source was www.ford.ie

Ohh and the Ranger is a "Commercial Vehicle" too...

 

It's also fair to note that the European gallon is 1.2 US gallons or nearly 5 quarts. So that same truck on a US gallon would likely come in at "up to" 35 MPG's. The Colorado is rated at 20/30 but it's likely a bit heavier than the Euro Ranger. If Ford could eek 30 out of a US Ranger in all trim levels............................................ ....

 

tseekins - I was using the online converter of litres per 100 km. But yes, the imperial gallon is larger than the US Gallon... I wonder if that online converter is off? I use it when I go to Canada in my car and switch the truck into KMH. I will have to see if they match. Ireland (which is .ie) doesn't use MPG for mileage ratings and posting X.X Litres per 100 KM is meaningless for most of us in this forum. (Heck, I've dealt with it a lot and I still don't understand it well enough)

Now I am wondering if in the Opel I was driving over there when the vehicles trip computer was switching to MPG was displaying Euro MPG or US MPG....

 

X2 here!! I owned a Frontier before and it was a no frills, go anywhere trouble free truck. A low mileage 4x4 Crew Cab about 3-5 years old can be readily found for $16k- $20k. They have been pretty much bullet proof since the 2011 model. I would have absolutely paid $38k-$40k for a 2.7 Ranger. The 2.3 with the giant MSRP breaks that deal for me. Had it made some crazy mpg splash, I would have considered it. As I see it, mid size trucks are following the same path that killed the compacts. No advantage in fuel economy, less capable and nearly as expensive. I don't want a diesel even if it was offered so I'll buy used to get the "just right size" (their only advantage) and pay 1/2 price.

 

This is the Ranger forum, most of us here had/have/loved our Rangers, the newest of which debuted in 1998 as the Gen 3 2005 is damn near new in those terms, this is the wrong crowd for people dying to have the latest and fanciest I think the 4.0 SOHC in my 2002 had direct roots back to 1990.

I'm fine with the new Ranger. It is what it is; a replacement Exploder for the "lifestyle" crowd - which is exactly what Ford is marketing it as. But that won't put one in my driveway.

 

I get it all. This is the 2019 Ranger forum, which will be a new product (for the US) and I understand and remember fondly how simple compact pickup trucks were in the old days. They were tougher and sometimes cheaper to operate than compact cars. Now all trucks and SUV's are a "profit center" for their manufacturers so we will never see the simple oldies again.

The 4.0 Cologne engine had direct roots back to the Euro Ford Taunus V4 which was introduced in 1962(!!!) and grew a couple cylinders in 1965 to eventually become the Capri 2.6/2.8, grew to 2.9 and then 4.0, and had overhead cams grafted on... SAAB used the V4 starting in the mid-60's. I had a 1.7 V4 in a 1973 SAAB Sonett, actually.

So an engine design run that went from 1962 to 2010 (as the Explorer base 4.0) is a pretty good lifespan

George

 

I know there are a lot of naysayers about this new Ranger but I for one am excited to see it on the road. I think it's a good combination of wants/needs of the American consumer. I know a few people who will pay stupid money for a vehicle that is "just the right" size (not just talking pickups here) so I don't believe it to be such a big flop as some think it will be, but time will tell.

I know personally I'm interested in it just because I find it very attractive. My grandfather is interested in it due to it's size and all of the new tech/safety gear that can help a guy in his 80's (who has no issue driving or otherwise) be just a little safer on the road and parking.

 

In Europe, people have traditionally bought "right sized" high quality vehicles for good money, whereas in the US, we have somehow been taught that cars and trucks are priced "by the pound" or "by the cubic foot"... I think the current F150 is almost silly for a recreational user with the 5' load height for the bed My last pickup was a '78 F100 and you could load and unload the bed without needing a ladder...

And as a city dweller who has had to park in downtown parking structures for many years, it would be a nightmare having to deal with a Crew Cab F150 in a tight structure. (I used to park full size vans in downtown structures, but they are shorter in length than even the Ranger.) I think the Ranger will be a big hit with city dwellers and recreational truck users and Ford is marketing it aimed at the recreational users.

George

 

Sadly the 4.0 had some serious timing chain issues. These chains IIRC are on the back of the engine and practically require an engine pull to replace or repair them. One of many Ford engines to prematurely plague the unsuspecting owner.

 

I think they put one chain on the front of the engine and the other on the rear, and the cylinder heads were identical to each other. Just looked it up on wiki and they drove the cams off a jackshaft that ran in the old camshaft spot, which strikes me as complexity for the sake of complexity...and yes, one chain on the front of the engine and the other on the rear...with cam tensioners that were prone to failure.

Ford's program to put overhead cams in all their engines was, IMO, not worthwhile for the results it produced. The mod motors ended up huge in size and although they were good performers, probably cost a LOT more money to build than Chrysler's Hemi--the hemi is cheaper to build than the old Chrysler OHC 4.7 liter V8 which was comparable to the Ford 4.6.

The older, simpler versions of the Cologne engine (2.6, 2.8, 2.9 in particular) were really nice, smooth, and powerful engines in their day. And the Duratec and its descendents are great motors that were properly designed with dual overhead cams from the start.