Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Ford F-150 SuperCrew EcoBoost

[Sir Osis of Liver]

This exact vehicle is very common in places like Thailand, the Philippines and Australia. Have a look here at the Philippine version:

http://www.ford.com.ph/servlet/Satellite?c=DFYPage&cid=1137383108386&pagename=FPH%2Fcontroller&site=FPH

that is exactly what we need here...the top model works out to be $31k with 4 doors, 4x4 and a 3.0L diesel (lower models and trims available)...instead we get big behemoth F150's etc.

That Ranger is only marginally smaller than the current F-150. That's why Ford decided not to bother.

[dirtyjeffer]

That Ranger is only marginally smaller than the current F-150. That's why Ford decided not to bother.

while it might not be a LOT smaller, it is SUBSTANTIALLY lighter...in other words, while it's footprint isn't that much smaller, the truck itself is MUCH smaller...it is hard to compare apples to apples, as a Ranger Sport only offers an extended cab and a 6 ft box vs the 6.5 ft box in the F150 FX4, you can still look at some things...when comparing the two on www.ford.ca, you can look at these differences:

Ranger MSRP: $25,749
F150 FX4 MSRP: $46,149

not everyone wants to spend $50k for a truck.

Ranger length: 5171mm
F150 lenth: 5888mm
Ranger width: 1811mm
F150 width: 2012mm
Ranger height: 1720mm
F150 height: 1933mm
Ranger weight: 1633 kg (3593 lbs)
F150 weight: 2498 kg (5496 lbs)
Ranger Cargo box volume: 1056 L
F150 Cargo box volume: 1855 L
Ranger interior cargo volume: 629 L
F150 interior cargo volume: 1158 L

as you can see, the F150 is substantially heavier and most dimensions are a sizeable difference (up), and the price difference is also important...i am sure if people could have a well equipped 4 door Ranger for $25-$30k like they have available in other markets, it would sell quite well...pick up trucks can be useful, but most people don't need a gargantuan behemoth that seems to be all we are offered here...an affordable small truck with an efficient diesel engine would be perfect.

[Ex-airbalancer]

You can have a nice F-150 for $25-30gs

[dirtyjeffer]

You can have a nice F-150 for $25-30gs

and you can get a Ranger starting at $13k...my point is, you compare the details as you can...the fact reamins, we don't have a practical, reasonably affordable compact pick up...unless you consider the Dakota, but it's a Dodge.

[Cord]

Ranger length: 5171mm
F150 lenth: 5888mm
Ranger width: 1811mm
F150 width: 2012mm
Ranger height: 1720mm
F150 height: 1933mm
Ranger weight: 1633 kg (3593 lbs)
F150 weight: 2498 kg (5496 lbs)
Ranger Cargo box volume: 1056 L
F150 Cargo box volume: 1855 L
Ranger interior cargo volume: 629 L
F150 interior cargo volume: 1158 L

Was all that really necessary to convince anyone that a Ranger is smaller than an F-150? 

[dirtyjeffer]

Was all that really necessary to convince anyone that a Ranger is smaller than an F-150? 

i wouldn't have thought so, but apparently someone didn't agree with me.

[tortoise]

Keh-vin, what took you so long? 

I was about to post a link to your threads for a real world (and entertaining) review.

Instead - I'll summarize.

1) Goes like a bat out of hell.  The right foot makes you happy.
2) V8 probably gets better mileage.  See #1 for the reason why.

[Vanstar]

Keh-vin, you can be absolutely sure that if my car did not require premium fuel, I would most certainly not be paying for it!

[PJungnitsch]

This exact vehicle is very common in places like Thailand, the Philippines and Australia. Have a look here at the Philippine version:

http://www.ford.com.ph/servlet/Satellite?c=DFYPage&cid=1137383108386&pagename=FPH%2Fcontroller&site=FPH

that is exactly what we need here...the top model works out to be $31k with 4 doors, 4x4 and a 3.0L diesel (lower models and trims available)...instead we get big behemoth F150's etc.

That Ranger is only marginally smaller than the current F-150. That's why Ford decided not to bother.

It's 3/4 the size, considerably smaller (we went through all this already    ), which is why it is so much lighter. Ford is using the 90% figure to fool people, they'd really rather sell the F150's they already build.

It is a strange logic, sort of like cutting the Fiesta and the Focus and building only Fusions.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Was all that really necessary to convince anyone that a Ranger is smaller than an F-150? 

i wouldn't have thought so, but apparently someone didn't agree with me.

I'm talking about the Euro/Asian Ranger, not the one we get here. It's bigger than the Tacoma. It's roughly the size of the 1996 generation F150. The reason Ford states that they don't bring it here is that it's 90% as large as the F150. Me and PJ already had this discussion. Ford is correct in that the footprint (LxW) is 90% of the current F150. Volume wise, it's different of course.

The outgoing Ranger pricing is irrelevant. Compare the price of a Tundra Double Cab 4x4 ($36k) versus Tacoma Double Cab 4x4 ($32k) to get a better feel for what the F150 neoRanger would run. In North America, most truck buyers will gladly hand over the extra $4k for the bigger truck.

I'm not sure where you got your weight figures, but the new Ranger Crew Cab Widtrack 4x4 is over 2000kg. Still lighter than the F150 Crew Cab, but still really heavy.

 

[Vanstar]

This exact vehicle is very common in places like Thailand, the Philippines and Australia. Have a look here at the Philippine version:

http://www.ford.com.ph/servlet/Satellite?c=DFYPage&cid=1137383108386&pagename=FPH%2Fcontroller&site=FPH

that is exactly what we need here...the top model works out to be $31k with 4 doors, 4x4 and a 3.0L diesel (lower models and trims available)...instead we get big behemoth F150's etc.

That Ranger is only marginally smaller than the current F-150. That's why Ford decided not to bother.

It's 3/4 the size, considerably smaller (we went through all this already    ), which is why it is so much lighter. Ford is using the 90% figure to fool people, they'd really rather sell the F150's they already build.

It is a strange logic, sort of like cutting the Fiesta and the Focus and building only Fusions.

 

Much more profit in building such gargantuan objects.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Taking a look at last month's sales, it's pretty obvious why they're dumping small trucks. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Here are the dimensions of the Aussie T6 Ranger versus the F150. It's where the 90% figures come from:

2011 T6 Ranger Crew Cab
Length 211.2"
Width 72.1"
Height 71.9"
Wheelbase 126.7"
Track 61"

2010 F150 SuperCrew (5.5" box)
Length 231.7"
Width 78.9"
Height 76.2"
Wheelbase 144.4"
Track 67"

[PJungnitsch]

Here are the dimensions of the Aussie T6 Ranger versus the F150. It's where the 90% figures come from

Again. 90 X 90 X 90 = 73%

It is a much smaller truck than an F150, and not that much bigger than the current Ranger. Compared to a Tacoma it is longer but 2 inches narrower.

Pickuptrucks.com eventually figured it out:



http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/03/grown-ranger-measuring-the-all-new-global-ford-rangers-size.html

Maybe another way to get the point across is that the current North American Ranger is dimensionally 88% the size of an F150. But in actuality it is, as Cord points out, a much smaller truck than that as soon as you sit in one.

[johngenx]

Some observations only based on the above pic/poster:

1. The Global Ranger (GR) is the best looking of the three.
2. The American Ranger (AR) is really, really dated.
3. The GR is quite a bit smaller than an F150.
4. The GR's diesels are CHOICE!  Hello, Ford?
5. I wonder if the GR has a longer bed option?

[tpl]

The AR 2011 looks more like a real truck to me not a "sport truck"  and I'd bet that the GR is available without that chrome bar.    Those GR diesels... yes please

[Gwido]

The differences between gasoline and diesel turbos is significant.
Diesel Turbo boost in PSI 5-8. Diesel RPM <50,000.Diesel burns at low temperatures and exhaust temps are typically in the range of 500-800ºF Vs Gasoline Turbo setup boost 10-15 PSI Gas turbo RPM up to 125,000 RPM. Gasoline exhaust gases are HOT, in the range of 1000-1400ºF when under load.
The different stresses above lead to massive differences in both maintenance and reliability when comparing Diesel vs Gasoline turbos.

Thanks for this information redman!

[Gwido]

Just wait.... just wait for the stuck variable vanes... the carbon buildup on the intakes and the high-pressure lines and pumps issues after a few seasons. Not to mention the Microsoft MyFordTouch ordeal from hell.

You gotta be nuts to be an early adopter on this one.

Here's info on the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost torture test and tear-down:
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experiencef150/?intcmp=fv-fv-a1b02c03d000616e00f00g05h07j11k09m3n0p20101221
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like.html

[Gardiner Westbound]

Here's info on the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost torture test and tear-down:
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experiencef150/?intcmp=fv-fv-a1b02c03d000616e00f00g05h07j11k09m3n0p20101221
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like.html

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

The Detroit automakers for decades turned out cars that barely outlived their warranties. They pushed junk out the door and expected their customers to serve as field testers, death by a thousand cuts. They say their cars are better but won't back it up with an honest, 10 year/200,000 km, no weasel, comprehensive warranty.

If the EcoBoost is as durable as Ford says why doesn't it put its money where its mouth is?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Here are the dimensions of the Aussie T6 Ranger versus the F150. It's where the 90% figures come from

Again. 90 X 90 X 90 = 73%

It is a much smaller truck than an F150, and not that much bigger than the current Ranger. Compared to a Tacoma it is longer but 2 inches narrower.

Maybe another way to get the point across is that the current North American Ranger is dimensionally 88% the size of an F150. But in actuality it is, as Cord points out, a much smaller truck than that as soon as you sit in one.

I understand your point. Always have. I just don't think the typical consumer buys based on volume.

This morning in the parking lot, there was a Tacoma 4x4 crew cab parked next to an F150 4x4 super crew. Yes, the Taco was smaller, but realistically not small enough to really make a difference in maneuverability. And for that you get a narrower bed and a much smaller cab, for only a few thousand less, so what's the point? It's not like a person will be saving much fuel.