Ranger Spy Pics?

[jniffen]

I have to wonder if the current version passes the safety standards for the US.

Thus the delay to get it to the US market.

 

Wasn't that one of the main reasons Ford dropped the original Ranger or didn't update it?

Edited February 3, 2017 by jniffen

[bzcat]

Again, I wouldn't read too much into the different grille... these are mules so they were put together with whatever parts that were available. The most obvious clue is that US-spec bent exhaust pipe. This suggest to me that these Rangers have non-production drivetrain. In another word, they were probably in the US (or where ever) getting US-spec drivetrain installed, and are now back to Melbourne where the Ranger development team is probably going to conduct some sort of durability testing.

[rmc523]

Is it possible the US will get the new and improved Ranger first but other markets won't get it until a year or two later? A minor facelift would make more sense for the ROW markets if the new model was still 3-4 model years out.

That's an interesting thought - I didn't think about that.

[jpd80]

I think that's a valid point, global truck gets a make over of the grille and new diesel engine (s)

while Nth America gets next gen Ranger first and then the global truck follows after that.

 

This could be similar to when Mondeo switched from EUCD to CD4, the CD4 Fusion preceded the CD4 Mondeo

Edited February 3, 2017 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

Again, I wouldn't read too much into the different grille... these are mules so they were put together with whatever parts that were available. The most obvious clue is that US-spec bent exhaust pipe. This suggest to me that these Rangers have non-production drivetrain. In another word, they were probably in the US (or where ever) getting US-spec drivetrain installed, and are now back to Melbourne where the Ranger development team is probably going to conduct some sort of durability testing.

 

I like this theory best. These are pretty thinly disguised trucks. They aren't really showing anything new other than the tailpipe. The Everest front clip could be just a diversionary tactic. The competition is probably thinking the same things we are. The "real" next gen Rangers (and Broncos) are probably hidden behind the walls at Geelong. I can't imagine they would have spent all this time and this is the only styling change they could come up with. As jpd80 has said before, the test mules are probably running around in plain sight. Here's proof.

[rmc523]

 

I like this theory best. These are pretty thinly disguised trucks. They aren't really showing anything new other than the tailpipe. The Everest front clip could be just a diversionary tactic. The competition is probably thinking the same things we are. The "real" next gen Rangers (and Broncos) are probably hidden behind the walls at Geelong. I can't imagine they would have spent all this time and this is the only styling change they could come up with. As jpd80 has said before, the test mules are probably running around in plain sight. Here's proof.

 

I agree with this as well. Especially the line about spending all this time and only the grille and bumper would get minor changes. We know Ranger will be here for the 2019 model year, which means production next year. The current Ranger has been on sale since 2011, with the refresh for 2015. It's due for a complete redesign, which is why an all-new model with the US debut makes sense to me.

[sullynd]

I wonder if Ranger will get an Aluminum skin, and if so whether it would in the ROW too (or perhaps they'll get aluminium instead).

[blksn8k2]

I wonder if Ranger will get an Aluminum skin, and if so whether it would in the ROW too (or perhaps they'll get aluminium instead).

 

I think this has been mentioned in some of the other Ranger threads.

 

On the one hand the fact that this truck is sold all over the planet would make the cost of updating three other existing plants to deal with aluminum a potential issue. However, because of the ability to spread the cost over that many plants it could actually be an advantage. I also believe an aluminum body would be a huge marketing advantage.

 

My guess is that Ford is going to try to keep the price as low as they can, especially in foreign markets, which could make an aluminum body a non-starter. I also seriously doubt they would do aluminum here and steel everywhere else but who knows?

 

An aluminum body would be my personal preference not only because of the lighter weight but also due to where I live and how long I tend to keep my vehicles. There is more than one reason why they call this the "rust belt".

[akirby]

 

I think this has been mentioned in some of the other Ranger threads.

 

On the one hand the fact that this truck is sold all over the planet would make the cost of updating three other existing plants to deal with aluminum a potential issue. However, because of the ability to spread the cost over that many plants it could actually be an advantage. I also believe an aluminum body would be a huge marketing advantage.

 

My guess is that Ford is going to try to keep the price as low as they can, especially in foreign markets, which could make an aluminum body a non-starter. I also seriously doubt they would do aluminum here and steel everywhere else but who knows?

 

An aluminum body would be my personal preference not only because of the lighter weight but also due to where I live and how long I tend to keep my vehicles. There is more than one reason why they call this the "rust belt".

 

I think it's possible they could do aluminum here and not in ROW. It probably depends on how much of an advantage it gives them on payload and mpg as to whether it's worth it or not. And whether they plan to use aluminum for Bronco.

[bzcat]

I think aluminum hood or door skins are probably for sure. Those parts can be swapped with steel pieces in markets that wants lower costs and/or assembly plants that have no aluminum supplier base.

 

I don't think Ranger will have aluminum cab or bed. Ford will wring extra CAFE numbers out of using smaller engines and 10 speed auto.

Edited February 3, 2017 by bzcat

[blksn8k2]

I'd be surprised if the current Ranger doesn't already have an aluminum hood...

[blksn8k2]

One thing I sure hope they learned their lesson on was the styling of the last Ranger that was built here. I have no doubt you could bolt the cab and bed from a 1993 onto a 2011 Ranger and never be able to tell the difference. Other than the grill, front bumper and maybe the tail lights they didn't change much of anything on the exterior for eighteen flipin' years!

[akirby]

Completely Incorrect!!!!!!!!

 

They changed the hood in there somewhere.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Last major redesign was in 1998. The front suspension changed from twin I beam to ifs. Also the cabs got 1.5" deeper. It really makes all the difference in the world in a regular cab. I highly recommend them.

 

But the lack of big revisions is what made the ranger so appealing to us ranger mafia. You can stockpile 6 of them for $1200 and have parts to last you a lifetime!

 

I only hope the new one lives up to the same lofty standard set by the old one!

Edited February 4, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[blksn8k2]

My comments were sort of tongue-in-cheek. I am painfully aware of how many changes were NOT made over the years. I owned three different Rangers. The first being an '83 that I swapped a 5.0L and T-5 into before I sold it. Fun little truck. Next was a '94 Splash SC 4x4 4.0L 5-speed manual. The last was a 2002 FX4 with a 5-speed manual. I couldn't take the mediocrity and the tiny rear seats in the SC anymore which is why I switched to a Sport Trac in '07.

[fuzzymoomoo]

I couldn't take the mediocrity and the tiny rear seats in the SC anymore which is why I switched to a Sport Trac in '07.

Which exactly why by the time it died in 2011 it was a fleet queen.

[jpd80]

Again, I wouldn't read too much into the different grille... these are mules so they were put together with whatever parts that were available. The most obvious clue is that US-spec bent exhaust pipe. This suggest to me that these Rangers have non-production drivetrain. In another word, they were probably in the US (or where ever) getting US-spec drivetrain installed, and are now back to Melbourne where the Ranger development team is probably going to conduct some sort of durability testing.

The bent rear exhaust is currently sold in Asian markets.

 

These vehicles are more than just bits and pieces mules, the infill panel is similar to Everest

but the lower panel is different / unique to these vehicles,

[Sevensecondsuv]

My comments were sort of tongue-in-cheek. I am painfully aware of how many changes were NOT made over the years. I owned three different Rangers. The first being an '83 that I swapped a 5.0L and T-5 into before I sold it. Fun little truck. Next was a '94 Splash SC 4x4 4.0L 5-speed manual. The last was a 2002 FX4 with a 5-speed manual. I couldn't take the mediocrity and the tiny rear seats in the SC anymore which is why I switched to a Sport Trac in '07.

I've been driving them continuously since I started driving. My first vehicle was a 92 two door explorer 4.0/manual, had it for 13 years and 260,000 miles. Then I had a 1990 reg cab 2.3/manual that I turbocharged using the 80s 2.3 turbo cars parts. Upon hearing of the Ranger's planned demise, I traded the '90 in for a brand new 2011 2wd xlt supercab 2.3/manual. Being as it is not replaceable, I've never driven that one in the winter. Lately I've gotten the itch for a suped-up ranger again but the 2011 is still way too nice to hack up. That being the case, I picked up a real clean 2001 reg cab 2wd flareside with the 2.5/manual. I'm currently gathering parts for a turbo conversion on that one too. I'm excited to be able to tune this one a lot better than the old one since it is OBD-II. Goal is 300 rwhp.

 

Anyways, I'll be driving them for a while yet. I may just have to grab a new one once they come out (or maybe a bronco?). It really depends on how invasive the nanny electronics are. That and I'd be hard pressed to settle with an automatic trans in a ranger. I've learned to accept and even enjoy them in certain vehicles, but it'd just be all wrong in a ranger.