Ranger vs. F-150: CC, 4x4 Pricing

[MrClortho]

I am getting closer to buying a truck and have been sniffing around the local dealerships. Basically, I am looking for a crew cab, 4x4 on the lower end of the trim spectrum and was leaning towards a Ranger. I have been following the truck for months now.

The Ranger pricing is interesting in comparison to a F-150 of similar trim.

Example: The least expensive CC, 4x4's on the lot, and they have many of them.
Ranger: $35,400 (several), $37,800, etc...
F-150: $34,900, $35,200, $35,400, $35,600, etc...

I am struggling with the idea of buying a lot less truck for more cost and why anyone would, unless they just have to have the Ranger over a F-150 for whatever reason they have. The posted fuel economy is fairly similar, so that really is not a big game changer. The Ranger is less capable in every way (other than needing a smaller rig for off-roading) and has a lot less room...a lot less room.

Sigh, I suppose that is how the ball rolls with a new design, but what a bummer.

Sponsored

 

[sjeagles]

For me it came down to weight, I need a vehicle I can tow behind my motorhome and the F-150 was too heavy in the Supercrew where the Ranger is prefect. Also I was able to get a Lariat with all the tech and comforts for a lot less then a comparably equipped F-150. And really I am happy to be able to find parking easier with the smaller Ranger as I had a 2013 F-150 Supercrew with a 6'5" bed and had to search for parking spots at times that could accommodate.

 

[Anthony]

Whenever a new vehicle rolls out, the initial builds are mostly higher MSRP versions and as you are finding out, low to no incentives.

However, I see so many internet comments out there (not on 5g) that say "Rangers cost $40k and I can get an F-150 for $25k!"

Compare apples to apples. Don't compare a loaded Ranger with a Base model F-150. Compare an FX4 vs FX4. Crew cab vs Crew Cab, etc....

Generally, if you do a build and price and option the trucks exactly the same, the price discrepancy equals around 20% higher for the F-150 (before the inevitable incentives). Which is completely what you would expect.

How does the final price stack up then? If they are still similar (with the F-150 incentives) then it just comes down to vehicle that suits you better and makes you happy at the end of the day.

Does it matter if in the end they are similar in price? You end up with a vehicle that fits your needs better than a "bigger" one that may not fit your lifestyle.

Don't think what the "other guy" is getting. Think what you are getting.

 

[RedlandRanger]

Whenever a new vehicle rolls out, the initial builds are mostly higher MSRP versions and as you are finding out, low to no incentives.

However, I see so many internet comments out there (not on 5g) that say "Rangers cost $40k and I can get an F-150 for $25k!"

Compare apples to apples. Don't compare a loaded Ranger with a Base model F-150. Compare an FX4 vs FX4. Crew cab vs Crew Cab, etc....

Generally, if you do a build and price and option the trucks exactly the same, the price discrepancy equals around 20% higher for the F-150 (before the inevitable incentives). Which is completely what you would expect.

How does the final price stack up then? If they are still similar (with the F-150 incentives) then it just comes down to vehicles suits you better and makes you happy at the end of the day.

Does it matter if in the end they are similar in price and you end up with a vehicle that fits your needs better than a "bigger" one that may not fit your lifestyle?

Don't think what the "other guy" is getting. Think what you are getting.

My sentiments exactly. While they have some HUGE incentives on F-150s (and I do like them - my son has one that is really nice) - An F-150 is just too big for what I need it for - for a variety of reasons. I've asked myself the same question over and over and I keep coming up with the same answer - the F-150 is just too big for me.

 

[MrClortho]

All good points gentlemen.

The incentives on the F-150 (factory and dealer) are almost $12k on the F-150's and practically none on the Rangers. This is unfortunate, but to be expected.

 

[RedlandRanger]

All good points gentlemen.

The incentives on the F-150 (factory and dealer) are almost $12k on the F-150's and practically none on the Rangers. This is unfortunate, but to be expected.

I wonder if they will have some incentives at the end of the 2019 model year to clear out the 2019s in preparation for the 2020s. Or, maybe they will still be having supply issues and have no need for incentives.

 

[Geoff]

Whenever a new vehicle rolls out, the initial builds are mostly higher MSRP versions and as you are finding out, low to no incentives.

However, I see so many internet comments out there (not on 5g) that say "Rangers cost $40k and I can get an F-150 for $25k!"

Compare apples to apples. Don't compare a loaded Ranger with a Base model F-150. Compare an FX4 vs FX4. Crew cab vs Crew Cab, etc....

Generally, if you do a build and price and option the trucks exactly the same, the price discrepancy equals around 20% higher for the F-150 (before the inevitable incentives). Which is completely what you would expect.

How does the final price stack up then? If they are still similar (with the F-150 incentives) then it just comes down to vehicles suits you better and makes you happy at the end of the day.

Does it matter if in the end they are similar in price and you end up with a vehicle that fits your needs better than a "bigger" one that may not fit your lifestyle?

Don't think what the "other guy" is getting. Think what you are getting.

I built my Ranger Lariat and it came out to ~44K. Then I built a similar F150 and it was 58K. Besides being too rich for my blood the F150's are too large for my needs (and garage).

 

[VAMike]

I built my Ranger Lariat and it came out to ~44K. Then I built a similar F150 and it was 58K. Besides being too rich for my blood the F150's are too large for my needs (and garage).

Like you I really just don't want an F150. It kinda sucks that the street price on the F150 after rebates is more like $46k, which suggests that eventually Ford will turn a knob and make the Ranger dramatically cheaper also, but it's a choice to either buy now or wait even longer. A lot of people talk like "look how much more truck you can get" and don't seem to get that it's just too much truck. I'm glad Ford finally figured that out and realized that some people just don't want the F150. I suspect their upcoming mini truck will do well also, even though the big truck guys won't understand why. The only thing I wish they'd change is to add a 2 seater option.

 

[SRAces]

I have owned 3 F-150s (bought new) since 1992. Always said if I was going to need a 1/2 ton truck it would be an F-150. I tend to hold on to them for a while and they have been great trucks. Sold Rangers at the dealer level years ago and can appreciate the need for the mid-sized segment. My first truck was a 1983 Toyota Hilux that I put 140,000 miles on in 7 years in Alaska. I am back to the mid-size truck with the Ranger.

My 2004 F-150 SuperCrew Lariat 4X4 was around $38K MSRP with the only option left off being heated seats. To price the same truck now is in the mid to upper $50K range. While I think the world of an F-150, it's time to downsize a little for me as I am getting a few years from retirement. The new Ranger fits the bill for me. I like the styling (inside and out) and hope this truck last me as long as the last F-150. Going from a 5.4 V-8 and a 6-speed transmission to a 2.3 4 cylinder turbo and a 10-speed transmission. Cassette/CD and no bluetooth to all the current technology.

Cannot wait for my Ranger to show up. This week!!!!!

 

[toddiscdn]

Ya, thats about how I explain it to people, you have to want the Ranger to buy it. Fuel mileage is not a huge leap better, you could say they are close in price, but I think my Lariat would be much cheaper than a similarly optioned F150.

Anyway, I left Ford for Nissan after many years so I could stay In a midsized truck and now that the ranger is here Im happy to be back.

 

[djrobb]

If I lived in a suburb or rural area and shopped at strip malls or big box stores or other places with actual parking lots I would consider a 1/2 ton. Where I live in DC the 1/2 tons are just too wide. Here it's parking garages and parallel parking and small shopping centers with tight rows. Owning a full size truck would be a hassle in some way shape or form every single time I took it out. The Midsize trucks still provide the ability to tow, haul and off-road along with some performance in snow. Where I live a Midsize makes sense and I am happy to pay more for a well appointed one that doesn't annoy me every time I get groceries or go out to eat. I'm square within the target market for a midsize.

 

[jsphlynch]

I am struggling with the idea of buying a lot less truck for more cost and why anyone would

My two cents: Buy the truck that fits you. I see no reason to spend $35k on a truck that looks better on paper if there's another $35k truck that actually fits your needs better. So if you would make use of the upgraded capabilities, or if the extra cab room makes up for the decreased nimbleness, get the F-150. If you'd honestly be happier in something a little smaller, get the Ranger.

 

[VAMike]

It's also worth pointing out that the ranger is about the same size and has about the same capabilities that an F150 had a couple of decades ago. It's weird how back then I don't remember people complaining that they were "too small" for real work. I suspect it's less about capability and more about creature comforts (fluff), ironically enough.

 

[technological_marvel]

Lots of folks say things like "why get less truck when you can get more for close to the same price?" My reply is the same as it is when I'm offered a deal anywhere. "Buy one get one half-off, if you act now you can get two for less money" kind of thing.

But what if I don't want two? What if I just want to pay the regular amount of money for the amount of truck that I want, instead of $2K more for a "more capable" truck, as if the Ranger isn't capable for my needs. It's a fallacy based on the idea that you would always want the "bigger" amount (or thing), even if the bigger amount is more than you need. More isn't always better, and if I'm spending my money I'm choosing to spend it on what is valuable to me.

 

[MrClortho]

Thank you for not dragging this post through the ditches with a hateful comments. There are many good discussion points brought to light.

Sponsored