2024 US Ranger Without Camo Spotted

[pffan1990]

2 hours ago, JX1 said:

...
Anyway, you get a good idea of what it was like and since this is the 2024 Ranger thread, I'll try to not veer it off topic any further than I have (not the only one per recent discussion). I expect this to be moderated, due to sheer length.

 

Just wanted to let you know I read all your above post. So if it disappears, I have already read it. I think it's a server glitch as it sometimes happens to me too. Maybe try using word processor to type out thoughts and then copy-paste here. I use TextEdit plain-text word processor on my iMac to type out the long comments and then paste here. Sometimes while adding more, I copy/paste back to TextEdit and save. It happens to me too and I think it's due to going over a certain amount of characters. But I'll be sending you a message in your inbox later where we can continue our convo. I don't want to derail this thread. But I appreciate your response.
 

---

Back on topic: I really do like the new 2024 Ranger based on what has been shown so far. I like the subtle Maverick styling on the front.

[T-dubz]

More pics of NA ranger

 

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/us-market-2024-ford-ranger-xlt-spotted-fully-undisguised/

 

this looks different then the previous ones as it’s front end seems to resemble the Australian ranger with the black sections going from the grille to the bumper. It’s hard to tell if there is a separate bumper or not. The bottom is a different color, but I can’t tell if there is actual separation or if it’s just and illusion to make you think there is. Also, this is the second NA ranger we have seen that does not have the step in the back of the bed. Did this feature get removed for NA or are they just trying to hide it? wheels look like they could be carryovers from the ranger splash. That’s a bit disappointing.

Edited February 6, 2023 by T-dubz

[Chrisgb]

37 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

More pics of NA ranger

 

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/us-market-2024-ford-ranger-xlt-spotted-fully-undisguised/

 

this looks different then the previous ones as it’s front end seems to resemble the Australian ranger with the black sections going from the grille to the bumper. Also, this is the second NA ranger we have seen that does not have the step in the back of the bed. Did this feature get removed for NA or are they just trying to hide it?

Ford breaks its own record; decontenting before it's even officially introduced.

[AM222]

1 hour ago, T-dubz said:

More pics of NA ranger

 

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/us-market-2024-ford-ranger-xlt-spotted-fully-undisguised/

 

this looks different then the previous ones as it’s front end seems to resemble the Australian ranger with the black sections going from the grille to the bumper. It’s hard to tell if there is a separate bumper or not. The bottom is a different color, but I can’t tell if there is actual separation or if it’s just and illusion to make you think there is. Also, this is the second NA ranger we have seen that does not have the step in the back of the bed. Did this feature get removed for NA or are they just trying to hide it? wheels look like they could be carryovers from the ranger splash. That’s a bit disappointing.

It looks similar to the Asia-Pacific Ranger Sport which sits above the XLT. 

 

[blksn8k2]

Unless they make a Tremor with the 2.7, which I highly doubt, the only model I would possibly be interested in is the Raptor. I've never paid over MSRP for any other Ford and have no intention of doing it now so I seriously doubt I'll be getting a Raptor either.

[fuzzymoomoo]

12 hours ago, T-dubz said:

More pics of NA ranger

 

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/us-market-2024-ford-ranger-xlt-spotted-fully-undisguised/

 

this looks different then the previous ones as it’s front end seems to resemble the Australian ranger with the black sections going from the grille to the bumper. It’s hard to tell if there is a separate bumper or not. The bottom is a different color, but I can’t tell if there is actual separation or if it’s just and illusion to make you think there is. Also, this is the second NA ranger we have seen that does not have the step in the back of the bed. Did this feature get removed for NA or are they just trying to hide it? wheels look like they could be carryovers from the ranger splash. That’s a bit disappointing.

I don’t know what that color is but there was a Lariat in that color driving through body shop yesterday, I think going to the dimension room for evaluation. It’s a gorgeous color, looks really sharp on that truck. 

[akirby]

Isn’t that Area 51?

[fuzzymoomoo]

It looked a few shades darker to me but it was also in a shadowier part of the building when I saw it so it could be.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

It looked a few shades darker to me but it was also in a shadowier part of the building when I saw it so it could be.

You mean shadier?  ?

[silvrsvt]

Could it have been Azure Grey?

[fuzzymoomoo]

42 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Could it have been Azure Grey?

Possible, it had a blueish hue to it. 

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Possible, it had a blueish hue to it. 

 

Here's a Bronco in Azure Gray:

 

 

And a side-by-side with Area 51.  They love making redundant colors, apparently lol.

 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Here's a Bronco in Azure Gray:

 

 

And a side-by-side with Area 51.  They love making redundant colors, apparently lol.

 

The local dealership had an azure grey Bronco and it looks much different then Area 51-it’s darker/more grey, has a Pearl/metallic finish with a hint of purple in it. I think I would have gotten it instead of cactus grey that I got. CG and Area 51 are closer together in the real world vs Azure grey. 

[rmc523]

30 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

The local dealership had an azure grey Bronco and it looks much different then Area 51-it’s darker/more grey, has a Pearl/metallic finish with a hint of purple in it. I think I would have gotten it instead of cactus grey that I got. CG and Area 51 are closer together in the real world vs Azure grey. 

 

Interesting.  I haven't seen it in person yet.

 

The lack of metallic is actually one of the things I didn't like about Area 51.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Interesting.  I haven't seen it in person yet.

 

Yeah I was like wow this looks pretty nice…thought it was a sliver hue when I saw it. 

 

 

[Hugh]

I feel that colour will look sharp with the Top off.

[maginty]

For those wanting a super cab, I see on the mediaford site for South Africa, on Jan 25/23 they started building reg cab and super cab Rangers. Who knows it could happen here.

[blksn8k2]

I was a little surprised to see that the 3.0L EcoBoost used in the Bronco Raptor uses DI only while the 2.7L EB, which is essentially the same Nano engine design with a smaller bore, shorter stroke and lower compression ratio (10.0:1 vs 10.5:1), uses PFDI.

 

I assume the Ranger Raptor's 3.0 will also be DI only. I wonder why Ford has chosen not to use PFDI on the 3.0?

 

 https://www.ford.com/suvs/bronco/models/bronco-raptor/

 

[T-dubz]

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/u-s-2024-ford-ranger-lariat-spotted-with-rear-bumper-steps/
 

we finally have the step on a NA ranger ?. This lariat looks almost identical to the xlt sport too.

[silvrsvt]

39 minutes ago, blksn8k2 said:

I was a little surprised to see that the 3.0L EcoBoost used in the Bronco Raptor uses DI only while the 2.7L EB, which is essentially the same Nano engine design with a smaller bore, shorter stroke and lower compression ratio (10.0:1 vs 10.5:1), uses PFDI.

 

I assume the Ranger Raptor's 3.0 will also be DI only. I wonder why Ford has chosen not to use PFDI on the 3.0?

 

It appears that all 3.0L Ecoboosts just have DI, the Explorer is showing the same thing. 

[blksn8k2]

2 hours ago, T-dubz said:

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/u-s-2024-ford-ranger-lariat-spotted-with-rear-bumper-steps/
 

we finally have the step on a NA ranger ?. This lariat looks almost identical to the xlt sport too.

 

Notice how Brett Open-Mouth-Insert-Foote called the rear side steps "bumper steps"? Idiot.

[bzcat]

4 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

I was a little surprised to see that the 3.0L EcoBoost used in the Bronco Raptor uses DI only while the 2.7L EB, which is essentially the same Nano engine design with a smaller bore, shorter stroke and lower compression ratio (10.0:1 vs 10.5:1), uses PFDI.

 

I assume the Ranger Raptor's 3.0 will also be DI only. I wonder why Ford has chosen not to use PFDI on the 3.0?

 

 https://www.ford.com/suvs/bronco/models/bronco-raptor/

 

 

 

 

Just a guess... Ford wanted to use 2.7 in F-150 so there was bigger budget to support development of dual port and direct fuel injection. 3.0 was never contemplated for F-150 so only enough budget to program direct fuel injection.

 

Also, a big part of any powertrain development decision is the cost of certification and emission compliance. The nano was originally designed with just DI so the 3.0 probably already gone thru EPA and CARB certification before Ford allocated engineering budget to PFDI for 2.7 with F-150 program's deep pockets paying for it. Just a theory.

 

[tbone]

9 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

 

Notice how Brett Open-Mouth-Insert-Foote called the rear side steps "bumper steps"? Idiot.

I did notice that.  It’s annoying.  

[blksn8k2]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:05 PM, bzcat said:

 

Just a guess... Ford wanted to use 2.7 in F-150 so there was bigger budget to support development of dual port and direct fuel injection. 3.0 was never contemplated for F-150 so only enough budget to program direct fuel injection.

 

Also, a big part of any powertrain development decision is the cost of certification and emission compliance. The nano was originally designed with just DI so the 3.0 probably already gone thru EPA and CARB certification before Ford allocated engineering budget to PFDI for 2.7 with F-150 program's deep pockets paying for it. Just a theory.

 

 

That sounds reasonable. It just seems odd that they wouldn't add PFDI to the 3.0 since those two engines are basically the same physical size. If I recall correctly, they even use the same cylinder head castings and intake manifold so connecting the fuel rails, etc. should basically be a bolt-on especially considering that all of that stuff is already there on a 2.7 Bronco. What caused me to question all this was that I read a post on SVTperformance.com where Sid added an oil separator to his Bronco Raptor specifically because it does not have PFDI. I would also imagine that the Bronco Raptor program had fairly deep pockets as well.

[blksn8k2]

On 2/16/2023 at 12:37 AM, tbone said:

I did notice that.  It’s annoying.  

 

Another thing that annoys me about his articles just as much as the inaccuracies is the fact that 90% of the information is just a rehash of earlier articles. Most of what's new could be stated in one or two sentences, but no, instead the reader gets inundated with links to old articles and what amounts to nothing but chest pounding about stuff we've already seen, some of which is total BS.

 

One glaring example of the BS is in an admittedly old article about the 3.0L EB where they state:

 

"The engine is heavily based on the EcoBoost 2.7L Nano, with cylinder bore increased from 83 mm to 85.3 mm. The engine’s piston stroke was also lengthened by 3.0 mm (for a total of 86 mm). Ford also replaced the Nano’s compacted-graphite iron block design for a cast aluminum construction."

 

That last part is simply not true and that is easily proven by looking at the Bronco engine spec chart on Ford's own website which I included a screen shot of in an earlier response.

 

Again, I get it that it's an old article but that shouldn't be an excuse for not correcting an obvious error that anyone who does a search for info on the 3.0L EB can still find a link to. And because the article has no date (or author's name) that I could see, most readers will probably assume that it is current. Hell, it's so old that it doesn't even list the Bronco Raptor as a vehicle that uses that engine, which is probably a good thing. ?

 

https://fordauthority.com/fmc/ford-motor-company-engines/ford-ecoboost-family/ford-3-0l-ecoboost-engine/