rmc523 Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: Yeah I agree, but also don't see it replacing the Ranger either. It might make a good sub model, but the biggest issue is how Ford can tackle the changes behind the C pillar on the Bronco to make this work. It would be a great thing to try out for a reaction as a concept at an event too. I agree. Regarding changes, aside from obviously the bed, you'd be looking at a new cab structure, new 2nd row top (I'd imagine similar to Jeep that it would re-use the same front panels). I'd hope they'd invest in different doors, unlike Gladiator that reuses the Wrangler's rear doors, and it looks cheap with the large cutout. You'd have new seats, though they might be able to re-use Ranger's 2nd row seats? Otherwise, interior wise, you could use the same dash, front seats/doors, and center console. The one thing I'm not certain of is the cab strength to have the fully open roof (no center brace) like Bronco without the rear buttress style bars in the cargo area. I wonder if it'd require a Raptor-style bar across the middle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) On 1/8/2026 at 8:44 AM, twintornados said: Corsair is rumored to being continued by importation from China...worked for Nautilus so I guess Lincoln is seeing if (ahem) lightning strikes twice. Though it will be helpful for Ford, that is a pass for me for personal reasons. it does, however, no longer make it a dead man walking, which is positive. Edited January 10 by tbone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/8/2026 at 3:14 PM, DeluxeStang said: I personally believe this is the best looking mid-sized truck coming out. A mid-sized truck with this sort of styling at a lower price would be a smashing success in theory. Scout and Bronco are pretty similar in terns of design,similar blocky shape and proportions, even the rectangular grille, and so on, so this could actually end up being close to the final design. It's more proportional and better looking than most of the bronco truck renderings I've seen. The Scout is a very good looking truck and I think it is going to sell very well when it drops. It won’t hurt that it will be a new kid on the block when there hasn’t been anything particularly new or interesting in the auto industry lately. Regarding a Bronco truck, why not keep the Ranger at a lower price point, and have a Bronco truck at a premium price point? There is little development cost associated with it since it is borne by the ROW. I’m personally not a fan of dropping the Ranger. I think Ranger sales are only hindered by Ford itself, and a unibody version of it would sell about as well as a Ridgeline or worse. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/8/2026 at 3:11 PM, akirby said: I'm not saying a unibody Ranger replacement would do everything, just that it would do enough for 80% of buyers. I could easily see a 5k lb tow rating compared to 7k for ranger. And it only makes sense to kill ranger if they have new bronco variants that would at least replace Ranger volume. Regarding Ranger’s demise I think we may already have a little “tell” and a big “tell” is coming soon. Little “tell”: Ranger is getting a moon roof as a new option for the 2026 (late spring availability). This is a larger investment and engineering effort than many features/options. Does that mean anything or just me grasping at straws? Big”tell”: Farley has already telegraphed that Bronco is getting Pro Power Onboard which means Bronco will have a hybrid power train. I think it’s likely it will be revealed this year and available in the 2027 model year. If the same announcement is made for the Ranger, then the Ranger isn’t disappearing anytime soon. If the Ranger doesn’t get a hybrid power train, then it is likely going away and I can start stocking up on Kleenex. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 4 hours ago, Texasota said: Regarding Ranger’s demise I think we may already have a little “tell” and a big “tell” is coming soon. Little “tell”: Ranger is getting a moon roof as a new option for the 2026 (late spring availability). This is a larger investment and engineering effort than many features/options. Does that mean anything or just me grasping at straws? Moon roof is becoming an option on Ranger in other markets like Australia so it’s more a flow on of already developed option and suppliers. 4 hours ago, Texasota said: Big”tell”: Farley has already telegraphed that Bronco is getting Pro Power Onboard which means Bronco will have a hybrid power train. I think it’s likely it will be revealed this year and available in the 2027 model year. If the same announcement is made for the Ranger, then the Ranger isn’t disappearing anytime soon. If the Ranger doesn’t get a hybrid power train, then it is likely going away and I can start stocking up on Kleenex. You’ll probably find that Ranger stays but only in the trims and pricing that Ford wants to produce, lower price customers are already being directed to Maverick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 59 minutes ago, jpd80 said: Moon roof is becoming an option on Ranger in other markets like Australia so it’s more a flow on of already developed option and suppliers. You’ll probably find that Ranger stays but only in the trims and pricing that Ford wants to produce, lower price customers are already being directed to Maverick. Yes, guess I did not think that through enough. But this makes me wonder, since Ranger is designed and developed in Australia where it has a PHEV power train, is it a non-starter to develop a Ranger Powerboost hybrid version for North America? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, jpd80 said: You’ll probably find that Ranger stays but only in the trims and pricing that Ford wants to produce, lower price customers are already being directed to Maverick. That's already happening with the demise of the supercab. If they aren't expanding Bronco sales then they'll probably keep Ranger. But if the new affordable pickup is a unibody that's $5k cheaper then it's expendable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 14 minutes ago, Texasota said: Yes, guess I did not think that through enough. But this makes me wonder, since Ranger is designed and developed in Australia where it has a PHEV power train, is it a non-starter to develop a Ranger Powerboost hybrid version for North America? The Ranger PHEV is a hard sell in Australia because it’s more expensive than the V6 diesel Ranger sales in Australia are about 4,500/month, PHEV is like 200 of them so far.. 9 minutes ago, akirby said: That's already happening with the demise of the supercab. If they aren't expanding Bronco sales then they'll probably keep Ranger. But if the new affordable pickup is a unibody that's $5k cheaper then it's expendable. Correct, time moves on and haven’t been watching this segment closely but clear that Maverick is a product Ford US has wanted for quite a while, it completes and complements Ranger better than a 2WD BOF T6 could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, jpd80 said: The Ranger PHEV is a hard sell in Australia because it’s more expensive than the V6 diesel Ranger sales in Australia are about 4,500/month, PHEV is like 200 of them so far.. If the Ranger hybrid in Australia was the Powerboost version (like the F-150) instead of the PHEV, then it would be considerably less expensive. I'm guessing the sales numbers would then look much better than the PHEV? I keep clinging to Farley's statement that every Ford Blue model in North America will have a hybrid version. Edited January 10 by Texasota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Texasota said: If the Ranger hybrid in Australia was the Powerboost version (like the F-150) instead of the PHEV, then it would be considerably less expensive. I'm guessing the sales numbers would then look much better than the PHEV? And Ford didn’t do that because it is set up to sell as many V6 diesels as it can. For 2026, the biturbo 2.0 diesel is replaced by a Lopo single turbo and V6 diesel across the range. That is not the actions of a company looking to replace diesel anytime soon. V6 diesel adds a refinement to global Rangerand Everest that virtually none of its competitors can match. Edited January 11 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 4 hours ago, akirby said: But if the new affordable pickup is a unibody that's $5k cheaper then it's expendable. I still call bullshit on this-people aren't going to buy a Ford Ridgeline...and it makes zero sense to spend all that development money chasing a market that is already been filled by another product or something that has its engineering paid by ROW...plus the Ranger WAS the reason the Bronco came back. I still see zero benefit to adding a unibody vehicle to replace the Ranger...you'd be better off using that money on something else. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said: I still call bullshit on this-people aren't going to buy a Ford Ridgeline...and it makes zero sense to spend all that development money chasing a market that is already been filled by another product or something that has its engineering paid by ROW...plus the Ranger WAS the reason the Bronco came back. I still see zero benefit to adding a unibody vehicle to replace the Ranger...you'd be better off using that money on something else. They sold 155k Mavericks vs 71k Rangers last year. I think Ranger is tapped out as far as sales at a reasonable profit margin. But a unibody ranger that can be sold for $5K less and at a higher margin and double the volume makes all the sense in the world if they can pull it off. Nothing else makes sense to me for a "new affordable pickup" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 51 minutes ago, akirby said: They sold 155k Mavericks vs 71k Rangers last year. I think Ranger is tapped out as far as sales at a reasonable profit margin. But a unibody ranger that can be sold for $5K less and at a higher margin and double the volume makes all the sense in the world if they can pull it off. Nothing else makes sense to me for a "new affordable pickup" So if the Ranger is tapped out, how is an unibody cheaper/less capable truck going to all of sudden sell more then what the Ranger does? Why is Ford going to spend all that engineering money on a brand new product that is basically going to be an ICE powered CE1? A new Midsized pickup would also require a wider width. The Ranger is like 75 and the Maverick is 72-not sure C1 can support a wider product like that It make ZERO sense. Notice the graphic below says truck-but its also completely inconstant-the F-150 EREV isn't called a truck, the CE1 isn't called a truck either. "affordable" is nebulous. To be honest the line describing the new product at TTP is a word salad IMO The only thing that MAY make sense is that they move the next gen Maverick production to TTP, which would check all the bullet points. That would make much more sense then making a bigger unibody truck that would be turned down by people in that market because its not a "real truck"...and BOF is easier to build then unibody...and I'd assume cheaper. They get around the tariff issues that way too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 10 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: So if the Ranger is tapped out, how is an unibody cheaper/less capable truck going to all of sudden sell more then what the Ranger does? Why is Ford going to spend all that engineering money on a brand new product that is basically going to be an ICE powered CE1? A new Midsized pickup would also require a wider width. The Ranger is like 75 and the Maverick is 72-not sure C1 can support a wider product like that It make ZERO sense. Notice the graphic below says truck-but its also completely inconstant-the F-150 EREV isn't called a truck, the CE1 isn't called a truck either. "affordable" is nebulous. To be honest the line describing the new product at TTP is a word salad IMO The only thing that MAY make sense is that they move the next gen Maverick production to TTP, which would check all the bullet points. That would make much more sense then making a bigger unibody truck that would be turned down by people in that market because its not a "real truck"...and BOF is easier to build then unibody...and I'd assume cheaper. They get around the tariff issues that way too. 2 big reasons that make perfect sense. Price and fuel economy. Throw $5k rebate on Ranger and sales would probably double. Price sells. Applying ce1 cost savings to a unibody ICE pickup could easily yield a $5k price reduction and likely higher margins to boot. It wouldn't be much bigger than Maverick just more rugged like bronco sport but with more capability than Maverick with more towing and payload and a larger engine option with the 2.3L plus a hybrid. Ranger hybrid would be lucky to see 26-28mpg. A lighter unibody would likely be in the 35-38 mpg range using the Maverick powertrain. So you'd have a bronco sport style pickup capable of towing 5k+ with a 1500 lb payload and a hybrid option getting 38 mpg starting at $32k with higher trims and bigger engines available. Keep Maverick on the low end but move it to the same platform. Keep Ranger too if the factory space isn't needed for Bronco for those who want BOF. And being unibody this would essentially be c3 for ICE crossovers too. I just think the potential cost savings of this new platform is the ticket for Ford to increase volume with more affordable vehicles and increase margins at the same time. Same thing they're doing with CE1. May not happen but you can't say it's a bad strategy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 23 minutes ago, akirby said: 2 big reasons that make perfect sense. Price and fuel economy. Throw $5k rebate on Ranger and sales would probably double. Price sells. Applying ce1 cost savings to a unibody ICE pickup could easily yield a $5k price reduction and likely higher margins to boot. It wouldn't be much bigger than Maverick just more rugged like bronco sport but with more capability than Maverick with more towing and payload and a larger engine option with the 2.3L plus a hybrid. Ranger hybrid would be lucky to see 26-28mpg. A lighter unibody would likely be in the 35-38 mpg range using the Maverick powertrain. So you'd have a bronco sport style pickup capable of towing 5k+ with a 1500 lb payload and a hybrid option getting 38 mpg starting at $32k with higher trims and bigger engines available. Keep Maverick on the low end but move it to the same platform. Keep Ranger too if the factory space isn't needed for Bronco for those who want BOF. And being unibody this would essentially be c3 for ICE crossovers too. I just think the potential cost savings of this new platform is the ticket for Ford to increase volume with more affordable vehicles and increase margins at the same time. Same thing they're doing with CE1. May not happen but you can't say it's a bad strategy. I'll use the Honda Ridgeline as a best case example for Fuel Economy: The Ranger and Ridgeline are virtually identical in weight and overall size also..they are around 4500 lbs depending on trim. The Maverick is nearly 1000lbs lighter and 10 inches shorter then both, so I don't think there is going to be any major savings in MPGs with a unibody truck that is the size of a Ranger, unless Ford wants to give up capability with it, not to mention the CE1 is going to virtually the same size given the info so far put out. IMO it would be just easier to rebody the Maverick to make it look like the Bronco vs going through this exercise to make a slightly larger truck that won't get as good gas mileage nor be as capable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 24 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said: IMO it would be just easier to rebody the Maverick to make it look like the Bronco vs going through this exercise to make a slightly larger truck that won't get as good gas mileage nor be as capable Something like this?? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said: I'll use the Honda Ridgeline as a best case example for Fuel Economy: The Ranger and Ridgeline are virtually identical in weight and overall size also..they are around 4500 lbs depending on trim. The Maverick is nearly 1000lbs lighter and 10 inches shorter then both, so I don't think there is going to be any major savings in MPGs with a unibody truck that is the size of a Ranger, unless Ford wants to give up capability with it, not to mention the CE1 is going to virtually the same size given the info so far put out. IMO it would be just easier to rebody the Maverick to make it look like the Bronco vs going through this exercise to make a slightly larger truck that won't get as good gas mileage nor be as capable But Ridgeline isn't a hybrid. And you're completely ignoring that it would be a new lighter, cheaper platform that would probably replace Maverick as well. The point here is the same as ce1. Cheaper to make, cheaper to sell, higher volume and higher margins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 8 hours ago, akirby said: But Ridgeline isn't a hybrid. And you're completely ignoring that it would be a new lighter, cheaper platform that would probably replace Maverick as well. The point here is the same as ce1. Cheaper to make, cheaper to sell, higher volume and higher margins. But your conveniently forgetting that Fuel Economy is both decided by weight and aerodynamics. I seriously doubt that they can shave say 500lbs off a midsize pickup (that can be used just like a Ranger or Ridgeline) in this hypothetical unibody midsizer your talking about A Ranger replacement would have to be 2-3 inches wider then the current C1 platform, which would make it really hard to share as a C1 replacement. The CE1 future is far more important and would be affected by a product like this, which further reinforces that it doubtful, esp if there are major changes to CAFE in the next 6 years or so. Part of the reason the CE1 will be cheaper are electric motors are far less complex then building an ICE/Hybrid powertrain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Guess we'll have to wait and see. No point continuing to argue. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 11 hours ago, twintornados said: Something like this?? I'd make it similar but not a direct rip of the Bronco Sport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 9 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: I'd make it similar but not a direct rip of the Bronco Sport It is something I found on a google search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 On 1/10/2026 at 5:00 PM, Texasota said: Yes, guess I did not think that through enough. But this makes me wonder, since Ranger is designed and developed in Australia where it has a PHEV power train, is it a non-starter to develop a Ranger Powerboost hybrid version for North America? Theoretically, work would be mostly done for Bronco, and "plug and play" into Ranger.....I know it's not that simple, but, it wouldn't be like starting 100% from scratch. On 1/10/2026 at 9:34 PM, akirby said: They sold 155k Mavericks vs 71k Rangers last year. I think Ranger is tapped out as far as sales at a reasonable profit margin. But a unibody ranger that can be sold for $5K less and at a higher margin and double the volume makes all the sense in the world if they can pull it off. Nothing else makes sense to me for a "new affordable pickup" Ford's own sales release highlights talk about base Bronco trims being "affordable". Meaning, if Ford does go with a Bronco (not Sport) truck, they can offer a base model and still adhere to their "new affordable pickup" label. On 1/10/2026 at 10:36 PM, Sherminator98 said: So if the Ranger is tapped out, how is an unibody cheaper/less capable truck going to all of sudden sell more then what the Ranger does? Why is Ford going to spend all that engineering money on a brand new product that is basically going to be an ICE powered CE1? A new Midsized pickup would also require a wider width. The Ranger is like 75 and the Maverick is 72-not sure C1 can support a wider product like that It make ZERO sense. Notice the graphic below says truck-but its also completely inconstant-the F-150 EREV isn't called a truck, the CE1 isn't called a truck either. "affordable" is nebulous. To be honest the line describing the new product at TTP is a word salad IMO The only thing that MAY make sense is that they move the next gen Maverick production to TTP, which would check all the bullet points. That would make much more sense then making a bigger unibody truck that would be turned down by people in that market because its not a "real truck"...and BOF is easier to build then unibody...and I'd assume cheaper. They get around the tariff issues that way too. The Chinese Ford Edge is reportedly 77.2" wide, while Nautilus is 76.9" wide, both on C2, which falls within your width criteria above, but presumably you'd need to beef it up for truck duty. The problem with your Maverick to TTP theory is that they've called it a new nameplate, so just moving Maverick won't fit that description. Bronco Truck or Bronco Sport Truck are my two theories....they're the only thing that make sense, as they're "adjacent" products to what Ford already has. On 1/11/2026 at 9:25 AM, akirby said: 2 big reasons that make perfect sense. Price and fuel economy. Throw $5k rebate on Ranger and sales would probably double. Price sells. Applying ce1 cost savings to a unibody ICE pickup could easily yield a $5k price reduction and likely higher margins to boot. It wouldn't be much bigger than Maverick just more rugged like bronco sport but with more capability than Maverick with more towing and payload and a larger engine option with the 2.3L plus a hybrid. Ranger hybrid would be lucky to see 26-28mpg. A lighter unibody would likely be in the 35-38 mpg range using the Maverick powertrain. So you'd have a bronco sport style pickup capable of towing 5k+ with a 1500 lb payload and a hybrid option getting 38 mpg starting at $32k with higher trims and bigger engines available. Keep Maverick on the low end but move it to the same platform. Keep Ranger too if the factory space isn't needed for Bronco for those who want BOF. And being unibody this would essentially be c3 for ICE crossovers too. I just think the potential cost savings of this new platform is the ticket for Ford to increase volume with more affordable vehicles and increase margins at the same time. Same thing they're doing with CE1. May not happen but you can't say it's a bad strategy. I doubt a unibody truck would nearly equal Maverick's fuel economy. Spending extra money to develop a regional product that fills the same gap as a ROW-economies of scale product seems like a waste of funds to me, especially with other self-created holes in the lineup. I'm already skeptical on the 2 Bronco truck options mentioned above, but at least I can argue they're "adjacent" products targeting a particular customer that may not otherwise buy a midsize truck. As I've said before, I'm worried about Ford slicing the truck pie too thin by oversaturating with options. The trucks are much more safeguarded against downturns than they were years ago (i.e. better fuel economy, etc), but they run a risk of all the eggs in one basket, IMO. As you said above, we'll have to wait and see...............oh to be a fly on the wall in Ford's product planning rooms..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 On 1/10/2026 at 9:34 PM, akirby said: They sold 155k Mavericks vs 71k Rangers last year. I think Ranger is tapped out as far as sales at a reasonable profit margin. But a unibody ranger that can be sold for $5K less and at a higher margin and double the volume makes all the sense in the world if they can pull it off. Nothing else makes sense to me for a "new affordable pickup" I don’t see the math here. How can Ford make a unibody Ranger that is as capable as the current Ranger and be $5K cheaper? If you make it less capable, then you just have another Maverick. If it is as capable as the current Ranger, I don’t see the cost savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 26 minutes ago, rmc523 said: Bronco Truck or Bronco Sport Truck are my two theories....they're the only thing that make sense, as they're "adjacent" products to what Ford already has. Neither of those would fill up an entire factory - they could easily be added to MAP with or without a 3rd shift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schpark Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 The Maverick is enough for unibody lifestyle pickups, don't need two. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.