Sponsored

2020 Ford Bronco CONFIRMED!

Big Boss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Threads
0
Messages
705
Reaction score
220
Location
Outer Heaven
Vehicle(s)
Mazda6
So from what I am seeing, sounds like the Bronco will be most comparable to a Wrangler.

I hope it is as awesome as people want it to be.

Me personally am more excited for the Ranger.
Sponsored

 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
86
Messages
12,806
Reaction score
8,217
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Challenger
Me personally am more excited for the Ranger.
I wonder whether they will be able to get good fuel economy from the new Ranger? I've always liked the idea of a smaller sized pickup, but in the past the Ranger really didn't have much better fuel economy than an F-150. I guess there could still be an advantage that it fits in your garage better, but I would think fuel economy would be the Ranger's potential most significant advantage over an F-150.

And the 2.3 they put in the vehicle was so gutless that it made you feel dumb for having no power along with crappy fuel economy. Am I way off base with those critiques of the old design?
 

Strokerswild

Shallow and Pedantic
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Threads
76
Messages
7,103
Reaction score
6,469
Location
Southern MN
First Name
Dave
Vehicle(s)
Things With Wheels
I wonder whether they will be able to get good fuel economy from the new Ranger? I've always liked the idea of a smaller sized pickup, but in the past the Ranger really didn't have much better fuel economy than an F-150. I guess there could still be an advantage that it fits in your garage better, but I would think fuel economy would be the Ranger's potential most significant advantage over an F-150.

And the 2.3 they put in the vehicle was so gutless that it made you feel dumb for having no power along with crappy fuel economy. Am I way off base with those critiques of the old design?
Nope.

I had a '03 Ranger regular cab 2WD shortbox with the 3.0 V6. Great little truck really, not quite gutless but close, but barely got 22 MPG on a highway trip.

Dumped it for a '04 F150 regular cab FX4 shortbox with the 5.4, and it would break 19 on the same long trips. World of difference between the two.

(Sometimes I wish I would have kept the F150 - not one problem in the nine years I had it, unlike the two Jeeps I've had since.)

I would bet that the comparison between F150 and new Ranger will be similar....
 

dron_jones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Threads
50
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
912
Location
Fell into a pot hole in Michigan and can't get bac
Vehicle(s)
Me crazy, and I can't help myself
I wonder whether they will be able to get good fuel economy from the new Ranger? I've always liked the idea of a smaller sized pickup, but in the past the Ranger really didn't have much better fuel economy than an F-150. I guess there could still be an advantage that it fits in your garage better, but I would think fuel economy would be the Ranger's potential most significant advantage over an F-150.

And the 2.3 they put in the vehicle was so gutless that it made you feel dumb for having no power along with crappy fuel economy. Am I way off base with those critiques of the old design?
I agree 100%, and its not limited to only the ranger, in 2014 i was looking at buying a truck and looked at the Tacoma as i didn't need full size capability and figured the additional fuel mileage would be beneficial, not only was the truck far too small physically for me (6'1, 200) the difference in fuel mileage was equal to negligible. I ended up going with a 2012 F150 Fx4 with coyote, similar fuel mileage, twice the towing capacity and just a more comofortable truck all around. If the small ranger can be configured to tow 7,000lbs and get 27-30mpg hwy and still fit an adult inside it, i'd be very interested
 

1320'

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Threads
19
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
1,616
Location
Medford,Oregon
Vehicle(s)
2011 Avenger...sadly
Keep in mind folks it's not going to be a truly small truck like the last Ranger was. This is going to be based off the current "Global Ranger"..which is roughly the size of a Chevy Colorado.

If you're hoping for a truly compact truck, you will be disappointed.
 

Sponsored

Strokerswild

Shallow and Pedantic
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Threads
76
Messages
7,103
Reaction score
6,469
Location
Southern MN
First Name
Dave
Vehicle(s)
Things With Wheels
Yep...and the Chevy Colorado is about the size of a late-'90s F150.

The new Ranger won't be anywhere near the size of the old one, unfortunately. You know, because bigger is always better. :headbonk:
 

EXP Jawa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Threads
3
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
206
Location
Rochester, NY
Website
www.torsen.com
First Name
Rick
Vehicle(s)
1999 Cobra Convertible, Electric Green
I agree 100%, and its not limited to only the ranger, in 2014 i was looking at buying a truck and looked at the Tacoma as i didn't need full size capability and figured the additional fuel mileage would be beneficial, not only was the truck far too small physically for me (6'1, 200) the difference in fuel mileage was equal to negligible. I ended up going with a 2012 F150 Fx4 with coyote, similar fuel mileage, twice the towing capacity and just a more comofortable truck all around. If the small ranger can be configured to tow 7,000lbs and get 27-30mpg hwy and still fit an adult inside it, i'd be very interested
This is exactly the sort of justification that Ford used when they dumped the Ranger 5 years ago. That, and the fact that its more profitable for them to sell you an F-150. Clearly, they've come around some, but it seems like they're still taking a wait and see approach rather than putting a lot of effort into development.

I'd bet that if they package with the 2.3EB, a 2.7EB and maybe a diesel, the fuel economy will be favorable - at least on paper. YMMV. Some folks are still insisting that a V8 will available, though I can't see it being offered on this platform. But who knows?
 
OP
OP
SR56

SR56

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Threads
22
Messages
570
Reaction score
147
Location
Orlando, FL
Website
seanrooney.realtor
First Name
Sean
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT PP
I had a 2003 Ranger Edge I used for piling up miles on work duty and to pull a boat. It was a nice little truck, and very affordable.

It was very small, though. At 6'3", 225 (at the time haha), I had to kind of sit at a leaned angle to be comfortable.

The fuel mileage was terrible for such a small truck, too. I think I bested 19 MPG with that thing. I had the V-6, which was plenty peppy and pulled the 17' boat easy. But the rear end was geared too low and it wound up RPM real fast. It was good for pulling a boat off a ramp or city driving, but I think it was hitting 3000-3500 RPM at 70-80 MPH. This was an automatic.

I think they definitely need to go a little bigger to get the American market if they're wanting to sell to men. We're big 'ol people. lol
 

Khell86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Threads
2
Messages
471
Reaction score
70
Location
New York
Vehicle(s)
2011 Mustang Gt
Ford really has a chance here to give people what they would expect MPG wise from a midsize truck. With all the other offerings dropping the ball, Ford could come in easily with one of their ecoboost engines and blow away the competition.

Have the 2.0L EB motor as the base motor, besting the other offerings 4 cylinder models performance wise while getting 30+ on the HWY (guess) and then maybe offer the 2.7L as the high end offer with a MPG of like 26+ on the HWY and a motor that'll kill in the performance categories. That's if they use the 10 speed, which I assume they would.

I'd jump all over a 2.0L EB ranger myself.
 

Big Boss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Threads
0
Messages
705
Reaction score
220
Location
Outer Heaven
Vehicle(s)
Mazda6
I wonder whether they will be able to get good fuel economy from the new Ranger? I've always liked the idea of a smaller sized pickup, but in the past the Ranger really didn't have much better fuel economy than an F-150. I guess there could still be an advantage that it fits in your garage better, but I would think fuel economy would be the Ranger's potential most significant advantage over an F-150.

And the 2.3 they put in the vehicle was so gutless that it made you feel dumb for having no power along with crappy fuel economy. Am I way off base with those critiques of the old design?
That's where I would be now. I have wanted a F-150 for a very long time, even though its way more capable than what I need. I simply need the bed and to fit the family in. However our new house, I don't think an F-150 would fit in the garage hahaha. I don't want to spend 30-40K on a new truck and have it sit outside LOL
 

Sponsored

Topnotch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Threads
592
Messages
4,565
Reaction score
3,783
Location
NYC
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mazda CX-9 Touring

EXP Jawa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Threads
3
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
206
Location
Rochester, NY
Website
www.torsen.com
First Name
Rick
Vehicle(s)
1999 Cobra Convertible, Electric Green
Raj Nair states: "this Bronco is completely unique from that Everest"... hopefully, those words are true. Thanks for posting that.
 

ProblemHouston

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Threads
0
Messages
124
Reaction score
66
Location
Albuquerque
Vehicle(s)
1965 Mustang Fastback GT350 replica
So from what I am seeing, sounds like the Bronco will be most comparable to a Wrangler.

I hope it is as awesome as people want it to be.

Me personally am more excited for the Ranger.
I am as well, I need a bed. I own a F150 right now but I really like the Toyota Tacoma because of the size. If we could get a Ranger with a V8 (like a lightening) I would pay ADM for it.
Sponsored

 
 








Top