Throughout modern history, there’s always been one anomalously powerful yet stealthy midsize truck. Think Dodge Dakota with the 5.2-liter V8, or the first-generation Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon with 5.3-liter V8 power. Today, if you really want to haul the mail in an unassuming midsize truck, that’s where the Ford Ranger should come in clutch.
If you poke around the options lists for XLT and Lariat models, you’ll find that it’s possible to get the 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged V6 from the F-150 in Ford’s midsize truck. Considering how even naturally aspirated V6s are a rapidly disappearing fixture in this middleweight class, a boosted six sounds like just the ticket on paper. So what about in the real world? I spent a week in Ford’s 2.7-liter Ecoboost Ranger to find out.
[Full disclosure: Ford Canada let me borrow this Ranger for a week so long as I kept the shiny side up, returned it reasonably clean with a full tank of fuel, and reviewed it.]
The Basics
Engine: Twin-turbocharged and intercooled quad-cam 24-valve 2.7-liter V6.
Transmission: Ten-speed torque converter automatic.
Drive: Part-time four-wheel-drive with low-range, available locking rear differential.
Output: 315 horsepower at 5,750 RPM, 400 lb.-ft. of torque at 3,000 RPM.
Required Fuel: 87-octane gasoline.
Fuel Economy: 18 MPG city, 23 MPG highway, 20 MPG combined (13 L/100km city, 10 L/100km highway, 11.6 L/100km combined).
Base Price: $45,410 including freight ($55,120 in Canada).
Price As-Tested: $55,110 including freight ($64,750 in Canada).
Why Does It Exist?
The Ford Ranger V6 is a classic case of raiding the parts bin in search of glory. Ford needed to fill an enormous 135-horsepower gulf between the base 2.3-liter turbocharged four-cylinder model and the fire-breathing Ranger Raptor, and not only was the 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged V6 from the F-150 already in the parts bin, but it’s also offered in the Bronco, which rides on the same T6 platform as the Ranger. The result is one of the more potent midsize trucks you can buy without stepping up to a full-on performance model, and the additional cost is exceptionally reasonable.
How Does It Look?
At a glance, you’d have absolutely no idea if a current Ranger is equipped with the optional V6, and there’s something pleasing about that. No engine-specific badging, no Double Gulp-sized exhaust tips, just a clean cut of truck. There’s a quiet handsomeness to Ford’s midsizer, what with its relatively restrained grille, round wheel arches, and modest surfacing. It doesn’t have to shout, this one simply lets its output do the talking.
What About The Interior?
That clean purposefulness continues on the inside, where the Ranger has reasonably nice materials, comfy front seats, and a litany of simple, easy-to-grip knobs. Two rotary controls for temperature, one for volume, another in the console for drive mode selection with pushbutton shift-on-the-fly four-wheel-drive modes inset. The real intrigue here is in the details, like the relatively ornate climate control vent slats and the ribbed brightwork breaking up the dark dashboard. Or the details Ford missed. Maybe I’m just used to living in snow for nearly half the year, but putting the heated seat and heated steering wheel controls in the infotainment on a truck seems shortsighted. They aren’t especially fast or easy to adjust, and many gloves don’t play nice with touch-sensitive screens.
The curious omissions continue in back with 2.3 fewer inches of rear legroom than its unibody Maverick little brother. Oh, and no rear seat air vents. You do still get the same ultra-plush floor mats as up front, but overall, it feels reasonable to expect a little more rear seat comfort in a well-equipped midsize truck. On the plus side, rear door storage is solid, and there’s a little extra stowage under the rear seat.
How Does It Drive?
Underneath the tangle of hoses and pipes you see in the picture above lies the treasure you seek: Ford’s familiar 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6. This second-generation engine may now be eight years old, but it still kicks out a solid 315 horsepower and a serious 400 lb.-ft. of torque in the Ranger. Hitched to the corporate ten-speed automatic transmission, it’s here to make one request and one request only: Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough. Bring your i-Force Max Tacomas and your Turbomax Colorados, a party time launch in the V6 Ranger will show them all a set of Ford taillights. We’re talking zero-to-60 MPH in the mid-fives. That’s quick, full-stop.
Of course, 400 lb.-ft. of twist and ratios to spare also makes for astoundingly effortless passing power, and it comes with only the slightest tradeoff: Fuel economy drops by just one mile per gallon over the four-cylinder model. A 4.76-percent increase in consumption for this much extra oomph? Yeah, I’ll take that.
Mind you, this powertrain isn’t perfect, and that all comes down to that ten-speed automatic. It’s definitely calibrated better than when it launched in 2017, as it no longer hunts for gears during fairly steady cruising in slightly hilly areas, but you still get the occasional harsh downshift. Not dropping-a-cast-iron-bathtub-out-of-a-fourth-floor-window harsh, but definitely firm.
So then, what about ride and handling? Surprisingly, the Ranger leans more in the latter direction. Heavy but accurate steering makes it easy to hustle up to the rather low limits of the tires, while firm spring and damping rates keep things relatively level for something built for hauling mulch and towing up to 7,500 pounds. How does this translate in the real world? It means the Ranger is easy to place on the road with confidence, and the secondary ride quality is excellent. Granted, things get a bit choppy over successive expansion joints, but that feels like a suitable compromise when viewed against the rest of the driving experience.
Does It Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
Every single V6 Ranger gets a huge portrait-style infotainment screen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, heated seats, a big suite of advanced driver assistance systems, remote start, LED lighting, dual-zone climate control, and an auto-dimming rearview mirror. From there, the toys increase contingent on how deep your pockets go. Stepping up to the Lariat trim gets you a heated steering wheel, a 12-inch digital gauge cluster, ambient lighting, and a 360-degree camera system. Perhaps the best luxury on the Ranger, however, is a set of rear camera views specifically designed for lining up the trailer hitch without a spotter. That’s much appreciated.
Less appreciated is this Lariat trim’s B&O sound system, which is as loud as it is awful. Not only does this 10-speaker Bang & Olufsen-branded affair sound muddy like it’s pushing sound through a mattress, the staging feels unfinished. You can’t help but get the sense that Harman International will put the B&O name on anything if the contract’s right. However, this system is still competent at absolutely cranking hair metal, and you know what? Depending on what you listen to, that might be good enough.
Three Things To Know About The Ford Ranger V6
- It’s as quick to 60 MPH as a stick-shift New Edge Mustang GT.
- The real-world fuel economy penalty of the V6 is virtually unnoticeable.
- That V6 engine doesn’t come with a huge added cost over a similar four-cylinder model.
Does The Ford Ranger V6 Fulfil Its Purpose?
Absolutely. There’s actually almost zero reason not to tick the option box for the V6 if you’re already looking at a 4×4 Ranger XLT or Lariat. It offers effortless acceleration with a fuel economy penalty of one measly MPG over the four-cylinder, and it’s a relatively cheap option. We’re talking $2,295 ($2,895 in Canada) for the engine itself, although if you’re looking at an XLT, the V6 does require the $1,250 ($2,550 in Canada) High Series package that adds heated power seats, the big screen, dual-zone climate control, and a power-sliding rear window.
However, the Ranger does sit on the pricey side of the midsize truck spectrum. A largely similarly-equipped Chevrolet Colorado Z71 is nearly six grand cheaper than my $55,110 Ranger test unit, while a similarly-optioned Toyota Tacoma TRD Sport i-Force Max costs about $2,100 more than this Ranger. Then again, neither of those trucks has this much punch, and if you’re buying for the engine, there really is no substitute.
What’s The Punctum Of The Ford Ranger V6?
This twin-turbo V6 midsize truck hauls in every sense of the word.
Top graphic image: Thomas Hundal
They need a lowered street truck version of this.
That 5′ bed is tiny but not useless and 7500# of towing is a pretty good use of that horsepower. Wonder if it’ll take a gooseneck hitch?
Miss Mercedes would love for you to buy this mini 5th wheel Scamp trailer and tow it with a Ranger, which it should do handily.
https://www.scamptrailers.com/showroom/19-trailers
That’s a cutie! Could tow that with a 1/4T minitruck. Though my family would be towing a smaller gooseneck horse trailer with living quarters up front.
Personally, I’d just get the 4-cylinder ecoboost. I’ve driven the previous one and that’s also plenty quick for a midsize pickup.
These things are floaty, tall body on narrow frame, steer and ride like a truck, plus rear solid axle on leafs.
Do you really want to do 5s 0-60 pulls on something like that regularly?
Also, the MPG on these is either “eco” or “boost” but not both.
I bet the V6 dips below 10 MPG when towing something significant.
Floaty? Mine feels pretty solid but then all I drive are pickup trucks.
Do I want to? Hell yeah!
I haven’t minded the mileage yet even with today’s prices
All things get lower fuel mileage when towing. You should check out TFL truck Ike Gauntlet and see how low they will drop!
4 cylinder is def plenty quick but in pickup application the 6 will be less stressed/heat soaked doing truck things so it still does make some sense
1) As others have said, just get the Raptor if you’ve optioned it up this high.
2) I’m glad to see Ford got rid of the horrible shifter they had in these originally. I cross shopped the Ranger against the Bronco (for due diligence really) and that shifter was a non-starter.
“I cross shopped the Ranger against the Bronco (for due diligence really) and that shifter was a non-starter.”
Plus, the Bronco is available with a 7M shifter. Well, 6M plus a granny-low crawl gear.
If you are already spending $55k for this you might as well plunk down the extra 3 grand and spring for the Raptor.
this
20 mpg average is pathetic.
Ram TRX enters the chat and drinks your milkshake
Honestly Daniel Plainview is probably the perfect representation of the RAM TRX and its antisocial buyers
Thank you.
That was my take. IIR, 80’s rangers with a I4 or V6 got better economy.
My 99 Ranger Supercab with the 3.slow 5 spd got 20 combined. And as said, it was much slower than the new one despite being over 1000 lbs leaner.
But overall I agree, 20 combined for a mid size is not impressive when the full size trucks can also do that.
Dad just bought a Nissan Frontier because he said every other truck in this class rode like bouncy garbage.
It probably matters to a precious few but isn’t the Ranger one of the few “midsize” trucks that has 48″ between the wheel wells? Then again, midsize isn’t what it used to be. If a truck nerd like me owned one, I would be laughing at all those Tacomas, Colorados, Canyons, Gladiators, and Frontiers out there that couldn’t properly haul a 4×8 sheet of anything.
From what I remember, all of the old models of those trucks had 7′ bed on the longbeds, so they still couldn’t fit the 4’x8′ sheet with the tailgate up, but as the owner of a full size truck with a 5’8″ bed, I haven’t found that to be a problem. I like having more dry storage in the cab, room for 3 in the back and the 11k towing capability.
Funny how for so long I’ve gotten by with 102 horsepower and never once been dissatisfied.
Instead of building bigger trucks with more power, can we have more rationally sized trucks with better fuel economy? I want my grandkids to have clean air to breathe, and maybe a glacier or two left somewhere.
Your wants are irrelevant. The people have spoken and they want to be lead by Sideshow Bob and his carnival of incompetence.
Stop dissin Bob, he’s way cooler, smarter and competent than Capt baggypants.
I do not understand the never ending need for more horsepower. It is an endless spiral.
I wish people could be happy with enough and not push for more.
Soapbox sponsored by Pepperidge Farms.
I see people mention mulch and stuff, but even a full size bed doesn’t hold that much, never mind these mini-beds and I fit about as much soil as a full size in a compact hatchback (individually bagged, of course). If you need more dirt/mulch than that, get it from a supplier—they deliver and it will be cheaper than the equivalent HD bags even with the delivery. Only issue is that the truckers are fussy about where they drop it, which I understand, but that can be a huge PITA for final transport to where you need it.
I used to need dirt when I had a S-10. I would get a bucket load from a Bobcat and drive it (slowly) home with the suspension on or near the helper springs. Then I would spend hours unloading it.
A couple years ago, I called a local nursery and asked for dirt. The came with a big truck that was towing a bobcat. Paid for a delvery fee and a useage fee for the bobcat plus the cost of dirt. It was spread around and packed down in about 2 hours. I think the total cost including dirt was $500. and I got 5 hard days of working done while sitting on my porch pointing. All for about half the cost of a car payment on a truck.
Damn, I wish my nursery had a bobcat. First house, I moved 18 f’n yards with a wheelbarrow around the house to fill in a hole from an above ground pool and another part that needed leveling. Current place, we hired someone to fill in the area out back that looked like the archaeological forest remains of the Battle of Verdun with the huge holes from trees that had long ago uprooted and rotted away. He was definitely more than $500.
My yard looks like a scale model of a WW1 trench system. My wife does animal rescue. Most rescue dogs locally have some pit bull in the in them. Pit bulls are related to Staffordshire Terriers. Terriers were bred to dig out things. The difference is that while a Jack Russell digs tunnels to catch rats, a Staffordshire Terrier digs tunnels to catch, I don’t know water Buffalo? Are they a pest there?
When you have a group of 10 pitbull mixes having fun in your backyard, it looks like Verdun in a matter of weeks.
Yeah, the rescue system is full of pit mixes, but the shelters always call them anything but so they can adopt them out. “That’s obviously a pug/beagle/collie/boxer mix and not at all a German shepherd-pit! Where do you even get this from?”
They can be absolutely wonderful dogs, but they have a reputation, they are extremely common in the rescue world and to move them you have to find ways advertise them that doesn’t get lost in a sea of pits.
We have two 1 year old dogs ready for a home right now. One male, one female.
The male has lab length fur and his tail has “feathers” on it. The DNA shows him to be 75% Pit. However, with the lab length fur and hairy tail, we looks like he has some lab and some husky. He’s actually got a bit of cattle dog and Great Pyrenes in his DNA. We have had more than a dozen inquiries and my wife is reviewing them to see what would be the best match for him.
The female has that ultra-short pit fur and this shows off the fact that she looks like she spends 10 hours a day in the weight room. There’s no question about her breed other than the breakdown of various purebreeds that end up being called a pit-bull. She’s been listed a lot longer and has had a single inquiry.. from someone in an apartment that doesn’t allow pits when my wife checked.
Both are good dogs. Well, they are 1 year old, they are horrible right now. All 1 year old dogs are horrible. But both will be good dogs, once they mature. But finding a home for a pit that looks like a pit is so damn hard.
That being said. Pit puppies are so easy to home. They are so loving, sweet, rolly polly and smart. We had a couple litters of puppies in the house all at once, and the pit pups were 10x better than the heelers.
A long time ago, I went to the local nursery and bought a yard of dirt, planning on hauling it home in my extended cab S10. The guy put the first bucket load in the back and the bed dropped pretty much all the way. He asked if I wanted the rest right away or if I wanted to go home and unload it and come back for the rest. I decided it was better to go unload it, and left my wife and mother in law behind because they were afraid they would add too much weight. It was a slow drive home, and the steering felt really weird with all the weight in the back. I went back, got my wife and her mom, drove them home, then went back and got the second half of my dirt.
Add to your second point, the bedside height is ridiculous. Whenever I walk past one of these I notice that the top of the bedside comes up to at least armpit height and I’m 6’4″! I grew up with a 1988 Ranger in the family and I remember being able to shovel mulch out of that thing while reaching over the bedsides with no problem.
I remember loading trucks with lawnmowers and the like by backing into a ditch and driving on the tailgate. Any ditch deep enough to do that with a modern truck would be called a culvert and you aren’t getting out without a crane.
I had a moderately steep driveway. I would load/unload heavy stuff into my S10 by pulling into the street and backing up til my back wheels hit the curb, then my tailgate was basically level with the driveway. After that died and I was using my dad’s 2013 F150, I would need to set up a ramp to do the same thing. I can’t imagine how much worse it’s gotten with current trucks.
Cosplay manly men? I get whatever I need delivered.
I’m very interested in hearing more about this service that delivers cosplaying manly men.
11.6l/100km is dismal. 😮
(For Europe)
I’m a bit skeptical on that fuel economy number – I’ve not driven a turbo vehicle yet that can deliver any of that power without MAJOR penalties. …plus they like fancy gas.
My family recently got a ’23 Expedition with the 3.5L twin-turbo. The EPA claims this thingy (also 0-60 in a mildly scary 5 seconds) pulls 17/23 MPG.
I drive with an INCREDIBLY light foot and have never seen anything close to that 23MPG. I _might_ be able to find the high side of 20 on some very clear back roads, but that’s trying REALLY hard.
Before that I drove a ’17 Escape with the 2.5 turbo and got a pretty appalling <22MPG out of that over a month – I babied that thing trying to get better mileage because I was SURE it couldn’t be THAT bad.
So… I figure it’s got power OR it’s got economy, but there’s no way you get both at once. I also wonder whether to be impressed that Ford can make the behemoth Expedition about as efficient as the little Escape (and Ranger, reading this article) or if I should be disappointed that Ford can’t make the Escape and Ranger do any better than the Expedition.
I had an ’18 F150 with the 3.5. I averaged about 13-14L/100km around town (17-18mpg), and long distance trips typically saw me between 10.4-11.4 (20.5-22.5mpg), and I usually cruise around 75mph on highways.
I still miss that truck, and the fact that the ranger gains basically no fuel economy over the F150 is why I’ll just get another half ton when it’s in the budget.
The difference is slim, My wife’s 2019 Escape with the 2.0 Ecoboost (there’s no 2.5 Ecoboost) has never hit more than 30MPG and that was at 70 on a flat road. But it’s more like 18 city and 25 hwy while my F150 2.7 SuperCrew 4×4 does 15 city and 22 HWY under my driving conditions. The 10 spd helps a ton here
I have not driven the vehicles you have listed but I have rented A LOT of turbo cars and crossovers and can generally beat the EPA highway number in mixed driving.
The key is to accelerate with some authority and then get out of the boost. They look well ahead and plan accordingly to reduce the need to continually accelerate / decelerate.
There’s no such thing as a ’17 Escape with a 2.5 turbo — but don’t let facts get in the way of a cool story bro.
My bad – 2.0L turbo. Even less displacement and STILL miserable mileage, though, so I will let my point stand, thankyouverymuch.
Excuse: dad’s car I had to sell after he passed away. Loved the features (Titanium trim), hated the fuel consumption.
I have a SD with the 10 speed. I find it is only OK. Constantly keeping me in the highest gear possible, which in a hilly area really is an issue burning brakes up. It also jumps directly into 3rd gear when going 5mph, which is absurd. I find even manually shifting, it does it roughly, and the gearing doesn’t do much to slow you down. Did you notice any of that while you were in the hills? It sounds like this might be geared a little more solidly than its big brother.
The 10spd in my Expedition is the same way – that’s a LOT of button pushing to get any engine braking at all going on. Those little buttons on the center console are not nearly as easy/intuitive to use as the flappy paddles on my Outback and I notice a LOT more difference going 6->4 in the Outback over 10->5 in the Expedition. Never thought I’d ask for a truck with flappy paddles, but here we are. I’m certainly shopping big-brake upgrade kits for Christmas since we’re in the mountains with it quite a bit and get a little nervous about cooking the rotors coming down a pass.
I’ve heard on the forums that enabling Tow/Haul mode will encourage some more agressive engine braking, but I haven’t had a chance to test it yet.
I drive 100% of my time in tow/haul now, it still sucks at its job. It basically goes 1 gear lower than the regular mode, but it needs to be 2-3 gears lower. It’s an HD truck, not a prius and Ford needs to get it together. I don’t want the best MPG, I want to not re-do brakes every week and feel confident I can stop with a load in my bed.
My 21′ Tundra, a truck I regret having to get rid of, did a phenomenal job engine braking. I do like my 250, but I loved that Tundra.
the 10R80 transmission is trash. GM’s tuning is only slightly better than Ford’s. I specifically looked at 15-17 F-150’s when I was buying so that It would have the 6R80 which is basically bulletproof.
As long as it doesn’t money-shift itself into the wrong gear at speed.
The SDs get a 10R140, same shift pattern, though. The Ranger/Bronco/Explorer 10R60 seems to have a better shift pattern, but I haven’t driven one yet. I just got used to my 10R80, 2 years now and I will no longer complain as long as it keeps working.
$55,110 for a four-door Ranger with black wheels?
I’m voting CP today.
If only F*rd would offer a RWD, regular-cab, 3 or 4-cylinder version for less than half the price.
Power and speed, but no more space or towing or payload, but you do get ford wet belt oil pump drive…. so there is that.
And…. still not an EREV with 70 miles of range. Why is everyone standing around waiting to be left behind. Who ever come out with an EREV pickup first will print money.
Hold my beer… https://www.ford.com.au/showroom/electric/phev/ranger/
There’s actually almost zero reason not to tick the option box for the
V6F150 if you’re already looking at a 4×4 Ranger XLT or Lariat. I have never understood how they sell these midsize trucks when they are just as expensive and get the same mpg.Full sized trucks are cartoonishly huge
Isn’t everything in America? Including my waist?
On roads in the US, I would say they are average sized. My wife drives a crew cab Silverado and I never feel like we are towering over anyone or struggling to park it.
When your Silverado is behind my convertible at a stoplight, inches from my rear bumper, I feel like you’re not only towering over me, but you’re being unnecessarily aggressive.
And when I’m behind you or next to you, it’s easier to look under you to see what’s happening than around you.
Then there’s your trailer hitch either hanging out into the parking lot drive area or extending into the parking space behind you…
…and me braking to an almost complete stop while you gingerly navigate a corner which I could have turned at 25mph or so. I can never be sure if you’re afraid of tipping over or just unsure of where the road stops and your behemoth begins?
this is one of the best comments ever posted here, thank you
i don’t drive a convertible but i do know that the Expedition® MAX King Ranch®, Et al. owners must negotiate each and every minor turn at a glacial speed for some reason
If you look at the sales figures, most Americans agree with you. However, in Europe, the Ranger sized trucks sell well.
“However, in Europe, the Ranger sized trucks sell well.”
Compared to other pick up trucks, not overall, I am guessing.
Yes, vans are more popular in Europe. Ford brags that the Ranger is the best selling truck in Europe for 10 years running and over 40% of European pick ups are Rangers. However, they only sell about 60k a year. In the US, they sell about 70k Rangers. Which sounds impressive, until you read that Ford sold more F150 Hybrids than Rangers in the US last year and I don’t remember those being super popular.
That makes sense. Here the prevalent commercial vehicle is a van. Pickups are mostly bought if you need off road capability.
Honestly, Europeans are more rational… um, Full Stop. But I was going to say about getting a vehicle that fits their needs.
Many Americans get more car than they need. Part of this is in the American ideal of being “independent.” My daughter needs to move, I can show up with a truck and carry all her stuff. My job wants me to relocate, I can hook up a trailer and drive across the country with all my stuff. My fence fell down during a storm, I can go to the store and get everything loaded on my truck….
But what’s funny is that since these trucks are expensive, a lot of people don’t want to do anything with them to keep from damaging them. 15 years ago, we had a horrible storm where I lived. I had a beat up 15+ year old small truck. My neighbors with their big new trucks had teased me. I did about 10x as much with my beat up little truck as they did with their new high capacity trucks because I didn’t care if I damaged it. I lost a mirror, gained about 4 dents and dozens of scratches and a bent tailgate, but I got so much more accomplished because I saw it as a tool to do a job during an emergency, and not something to be kept nice.
If we had narrow roads and expensive gas, we’d buy smaller vehicles, too. As it is, most of the country has wide roads/streets. Unless you drive a ton of miles, even current gas prices are affordable to those who can actually afford to buy these vehicles new.
Where it’s tougher is to find used vehicles that people can afford to buy and to fuel.
I’ve been to Europe. It’s not as bad for getting around in larger vehicles than you think, with one exception. Width.
European rules
In European towns and cities, it is common to see an old city center area where commercial vehicles (those over 180 cm) are banned. This is because the city streets are too narrow.
However, it is also very common for these areas to be small enough to be 100% walkable for all but the fattiest of tourists and to be dominated by pedestrian only areas.
So, as a result, you park outside of these old areas and walk into them, if you want to visit.
For someone living in that city (not just visiting), you either live in the city center, where everything you need is right there within walking distance, so you rarely need a car, or you live outside of the center where you can fit any car you want to where you need to go while avoiding the center.
As a result, 50% of cars sold in Europe are wider than the 180 cm suggestion (200 cm is common).
Now looking at big US pickups. US law restricts width to 102 inches for anything not marked Wide Load. Which means that Dually pickups (which are legal in the US) are also legal in Europe. Like something like an X5 (which sells well in Europe), it isn’t legal to go everywhere with a Dually truck, but for 90%+ of driving, it is legal to drive a dually around Europe.
Now, as for why you would want to daily drive a Dually truck in the first place, I have that question for a couple of my coworkers in America.
Some of my relatives have gotten mid sized trucks because that’s the biggest vehicle that would fit in their garage.
Don’t people tune the snot out of Mavericks now? And they have bigger rear seats? If you don’t need a truck but want a truck the Maverick seems to make more sense.
I’d love a Maverick Lobo and it does at least have paddle shifters and only 7 ratios to deal with.
Do you HAVE to take the babyshit brown paint and black wheels to get the V6?
Thought the color was called dog diarrhea but that’s maybe one shade darker
I feel like these trucks mostly exist so dealerships can upsell people to full sized behemoths. I love the idea of a smaller truck as a family car…a bed would be handy since the wife and I garden a lot/kids are messy and you could just throw their shit back there, I could get around in the city without being a massive inconvenience to everyone around me, the off road ability could come in handy in a pinch, etc. It would be a great compliment to a family hauler in a two car garage.
….BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE USABLE BACK SEATS! Not a single damn one. The Ranger in particular is basically the equivalent to the back seats of a Mustang. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the fact that Ford somehow managed engineer this in a way that it has less rear sear room than a fucking Maverick lol….which itself can’t really handle car seats or anyone over the age of 14 with legs very well.
I’d love a Ranger Raptor or Canyon Denali or whatever…but they’d never work. Hell I’d love a Maverick but really couldn’t make one work either. And yet if I went to a dealership they’d have an F150 ready to upsell me to with a $999 a month payment if I signed RIGHT FUCKING NOW! Ugh. I swear they intentionally nerf these products.
I had a Tacoma for 6 years. My biggest complaint isn’t the very small rear seats (they aren’t sold on space after all) it’s that for a little bit more money, you get a lot lot lot more without much negatives. More power, way more space, more features, way more comfort, more available configurations, similar fuel economy, similar cost to insure, similar cost replacement parts. If you can live with the larger size a pay a bit more, you get so much more in a full size truck without much downside.
The downside is having to pilot a small aircraft carrier through Washington DC lol….
Oh that’s you! I have the hardest time getting around you when I’m filtering through the redlight backup on my mc.
Yet somehow thousands or tens of thousands of people do it every day in DC alone. It’s not that bad.
Could I do it? Yes. Would I immediately be a significantly risk to cyclists, pedestrians, other cars, not to mention an inconvenience to everyone around me? Also yes!
That’s my single biggest issue with modern trucks. When you choose to drive something that inordinately enormous you’re making life worse for everyone around you. If you don’t have a need for it it’s antisocial behavior IMHO.
Exactly this. Especially if you have a family.
I’d wager that rear legroom in this category is mostly a function of the category’s penchant for longitudinal engines vs a desire to keep overall length in check. the Maverick, Santa Cruz, and Ridgeline are all transverse, and all have 2+ inches more legroom than Ranger/Tacoma/Canyon/Frontier.
Seems expensive, but with money off and deals MSRPs are often meaningless.
I would rather have the Nissan or Toyota with a 6ft box, everyday.
It’s a shame Ford doesn’t have a nice midsize RWD sedan to put that powertrain into.
I guess there’s no market for that kind of thing anymore.
had a Taurus back when it looked like a spaceship, that puppy cooked! Until your tranny blew up…
Great truck, but I can’t imagine spending that much and not getting the Ranger Raptor, despite the fact that I’d never go off roading.
I do parking and have seen a handful up close, they are great looking and sounding trucks. Just a little grunt, but wouldn’t bother you in the morning as it passes to get to work. If I was in the market for a mid-size I’d be hard pressed not to pick one.
the 2.3 ecoboost makes 270 horsepower
the 2.3 duratec made 135 ponies 23 years ago