Sherminator98 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 https://fordauthority.com/2026/01/north-american-ford-ranger-tremor-arrives-later-this-year/ Allay some of the fear of the Ranger going away..... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 18 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said: https://fordauthority.com/2026/01/north-american-ford-ranger-tremor-arrives-later-this-year/ Allay some of the fear of the Ranger going away..... Meh, that won't stop Ford lol. They just announced that Lightning STX thing for 2026 (I think it was STX) before giving it the chop. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 3 minutes ago, rmc523 said: They just announced that Lightning STX thing for 2026 (I think it was STX) before giving it the chop. Yea, Lightning STX. Very disappointing that it got the chop from the big shots at Ford. ☹️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 6 minutes ago, rmc523 said: Meh, that won't stop Ford lol. They just announced that Lightning STX thing for 2026 (I think it was STX) before giving it the chop. Yeah but the Ranger isn't as affected as the F Series was with the fire at the aluminum plant either. LOL 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: Allay some of the fear of the Ranger going away..... Yes! This is new investment in the North American version of the Ranger and I'm taking that as positive news. This is consistent with @jpd80 speculation that the Ranger is likely staying with some selective North American trims. Now I just need to hear that a Ranger Powerboost hybrid is coming to North America. If that happens I will become insufferable with my glee and celebrations. 3 hours ago, rmc523 said: Meh, that won't stop Ford lol. I must insist that you take that back. Edited January 14 by Texasota 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-dubz Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 Yes! The Australian ranger tremor is a very good looking truck. Guessing this will come in around $46-47k? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 JP @jpd80, you knew the Ranger Tremor was coming to North America, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 9 hours ago, Texasota said: JP @jpd80, you knew the Ranger Tremor was coming to North America, right? I strongly suspected so because it’s a higher trim and something pickup buyers really like either side of the pacific. We have V6 diesel, you get 2.7 Ecoboost, everyone is happy… 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I continue to hope that the ICE engines are getting some development $ again, because their outputs have been basically the same for ages. The "dealer code tunes" were a good start, but some of us still remember the PAG days where the actual Ford products aged with minimal attention.... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 14 hours ago, jpd80 said: I strongly suspected so because it’s a higher trim and something pickup buyers really like either side of the pacific. We have V6 diesel, you get 2.7 Ecoboost, everyone is happy… JP, any other strong suspicions you would like to get off your chest? We are good listeners. Edited January 15 by Texasota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 5 hours ago, ZanatWork said: I continue to hope that the ICE engines are getting some development $ again, because their outputs have been basically the same for ages. The "dealer code tunes" were a good start, but some of us still remember the PAG days where the actual Ford products aged with minimal attention.... At some point, what is the point of increased power output? To race to the next red light 0.1 seconds faster. I think it far more advantageous for the capital to work on efficiency improvements. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 hours ago, blazerdude20 said: At some point, what is the point of increased power output? To race to the next red light 0.1 seconds faster. I think it far more advantageous for the capital to work on efficiency improvements. How much is enough? 2.3L - 315/350 5.0 - 500 hp 5.2sc - 760 hp powerstroke - 1200 lb/ft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) 4 hours ago, Texasota said: JP, any other strong suspicions you would like to get off your chest? We are good listeners. Nope but very curious to know about new affordable truck going into BOC or whatever they are calling it now wondering about possible F100 and what the heck something called that would even look like F Series alloy body on a slightly modified Ranger Frame? Who knows, I’m sure the net will go wild with theories Edited January 16 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 minute ago, jpd80 said: Nope but very curious to know about new affordable truck going into BOC or whatever they are calling it now wondering about possible F100 and whatever they heck thst would even look like Me too. This has peaked my curiosity and interest even more than CE1. I suppose that is largely because it is shrouded in mystery and speculation right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) On 1/15/2026 at 2:34 PM, blazerdude20 said: At some point, what is the point of increased power output? To race to the next red light 0.1 seconds faster. I think it far more advantageous for the capital to work on efficiency improvements. The point is to avoid the "adequate" stupidity that cost them so dearly a couple of decades ago. When Toyota can tout a 300 hp turbo 3 cylinder, Benz has 400 hp 2.0 turbo 4s, and so on...it's called competition, and it's not a new thing. The 5.0 in the Dark Horse is obviously excellent, but the 2.0 EB is lagging behind its competition (unless they make the performance remap a real option, which would help), and the same is true in the engines assigned to the remaining "volume models". As Ford is basically known a recall factory right now, having some updates to show progress in something besides class action suits would, in itself, be good for business. Edited January 26 by ZanatWork 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, ZanatWork said: When Toyota can tout a 300 hp turbo 3 cylinder, Benz has 400 hp 2.0 turbo 4s, and so on...it's called competition, and it's not a new thing. But those aren't mass market engines and they don't compete with Fords. The Tacoma 2.4l turbo has 278 hp/317 lb/ft Lexus RX-350 2.4l turbo is 275/317 Ranger 2.3L turbo has 270 hp/ 310 lb/ft. Mustang 2.3 turbo is 315/350. Big difference in low volume high performance engines vs mass market engines. Apples and oranges. Ford puts their money into Coyotes and Diesels and Godzilla. Others put their money into smaller engines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 On 1/15/2026 at 8:44 AM, ZanatWork said: I continue to hope that the ICE engines are getting some development $ again, because their outputs have been basically the same for ages. The "dealer code tunes" were a good start, but some of us still remember the PAG days where the actual Ford products aged with minimal attention.... I agree current ICE availability still has more potential. Might as well go for it while they're here.🤷♂️ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew L Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 So take it with a grain of salt but Borg reported today on GMI that Ranger is in fact dead and being replaced by a Bronco Pickup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 35 minutes ago, Andrew L said: So take it with a grain of salt but Borg reported today on GMI that Ranger is in fact dead and being replaced by a Bronco Pickup He's been saying this since the announcement a few weeks back. I'll file it under "believe it when I see it". I still think it's dumb to drop Ranger. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 43 minutes ago, rmc523 said: I still think it's dumb to drop Ranger. Without a replacement I would agree. But that's why I think they'll expand Bronco variants at MAP and replace Ranger with this new midsized TTP truck. Shouldn't be hard to replace 75K units. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 5 hours ago, akirby said: Without a replacement I would agree. But that's why I think they'll expand Bronco variants at MAP and replace Ranger with this new midsized TTP truck. Shouldn't be hard to replace 75K units. I still don't see the reasoning to replace the Ranger in North America when the expense is covered by ROW, just to spend more money on another brand new product that costs even more in R&D on what is ultimately going to be a dead segment in 10-15 years (expecting replacement by an EV product) It just doesn't make ANY sense to me from a business perspective, nor does a unibody product, that will be laughed at by perspective Ford truck buyers-the Maverick doesn't count because its was a cost leader and pointed at competing hatchback style products with its price. It would be like Ford stop building the Fusion just to replace it with a wagon like product that really doesn't appeal to the market. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said: I still don't see the reasoning to replace the Ranger in North America when the expense is covered by ROW, just to spend more money on another brand new product that costs even more in R&D on what is ultimately going to be a dead segment in 10-15 years (expecting replacement by an EV product) It just doesn't make ANY sense to me from a business perspective, nor does a unibody product, that will be laughed at by perspective Ford truck buyers-the Maverick doesn't count because its was a cost leader and pointed at competing hatchback style products with its price. It would be like Ford stop building the Fusion just to replace it with a wagon like product that really doesn't appeal to the market. These are my sentiments exactly. I don’t think people are clamoring for a Bronco truck, especially if the Gladiator is any indication. This strikes me as an exercising futility, something that Ford has been good at as of late. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 9 hours ago, tbone said: These are my sentiments exactly. I don’t think people are clamoring for a Bronco truck, especially if the Gladiator is any indication. This strikes me as an exercising futility, something that Ford has been good at as of late. Gladiator sold 50k last year. Ranger was only 75k. I think Ranger is tapped out from a profit perspective. Adding more cab and bed options would increase sales but probably not profits. And adding Gladiator to MAP is cheap and easy. It also makes way for more Bronco variants and sales increases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 11 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: It just doesn't make ANY sense to me from a business perspective, nor does a unibody product, that will be laughed at by perspective Ford truck buyers-the Maverick doesn't count because its was a cost leader and pointed at competing hatchback style products with its price. Even with economies of scale I don't think Ranger is killing it profit wise. Maverick is likely doing far better on both volume and profit and it's no longer a loss leader. I think the ce1 cost reduction opportunities means they can make a new Maverick significantly cheaper but still give it more capability and flexibility and higher end trims to replace some of the Ranger volume. I don't know for sure that's what they're doing but it makes perfect sense to me from a business perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew L Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 11 hours ago, tbone said: These are my sentiments exactly. I don’t think people are clamoring for a Bronco truck, especially if the Gladiator is any indication. This strikes me as an exercising futility, something that Ford has been good at as of late. And... call me crazy... I dont think a Bronco Pickup buyer is the same as a Ranger buyer. Those are 2 pretty different customers. I doubt you will see a small time contractor using a Bronco Pickup. I know I know they can get a F150 if need be but Ranger is attractive on price vs an F150. 33k vs 39k. Idk not a fan of dropping the Ranger for a Bronco Pickup. I think both could work but what do I know. Anecdotical but my ex's father did AC and loved his 19 Ranger he said it was the perfect size he didnt want an F150 at all, he test drove several and didnt like the size. No way I could see him doing his work with a Bronco Pickup Edited January 28 by Andrew L 3 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.