Things I feel are missing/or needed on a Ranger

[mike]

From Ford site: https://owner.ford.com/content/ford...-3/android-auto/sync-3-plus-android-auto.html

Connect your smartphone
To use Android Auto, your phone must be compatible with SYNC 3, and be running Android 5.0 (Lollipop) or higher. You must also have the latest version of the Android Auto app downloaded on your phone and update other Google apps, for example Google, Google Maps, and Google PlayTM Music. We recommend you are connected to Wi-Fi when you download and update these apps. You will also need to enable Android Auto in your vehicle. To enable Android Auto, press the Settings icon in the Feature Bar at the bottom of the touchscreen. Next, press the Android Auto Preferences icon (you may need to swipe the touchscreen to the left to see this icon), and choose Enable Android Auto. Finally, your phone must be connected to SYNC 3 via a USB cable.

I'll be interested to to see how the leather works out. Never noticed any sweating issues when driving my Dad's F150 in Florida.

Can't really think of anything else I'll be missing other than the sound/feel of a V6 but I'll get used to it.

Sponsored

 

[j0shm1lls]

Some head units support wireless android auto as do some phones, but they're few and far between. I certainly wouldn't expect it to work in a factory system yet.

 

[don4331]

I'm limiting myself to options that might be possible:

SCrew with 6' bed - deal breaker, I have an Adventurer 76r camper in my existing Ranger and it goes to end of tailgate; a 5' box isn't going to cut it, if I'm not getting SCrew, why upgrade.
"PowerScope" Tow Mirrors - If we can tow >7,500 lbs trailer, I want to see behind it. And I want integrated mirrors, not cheesy aftermarket add ons. (heated, power, folding, etc, etc)
Tailgate step - I'm on wrong side of 50; getting into box needs a step up.
Race Red, with perhaps Magnetic Metallic tu-tone. (matches colours of my '98).
Heated Steering wheel
Full Leather - i.e. King Ranch.
Mild hybrid. - I'll take a 1.5l (well 2.0) EcoBoost, along with something like RAM's eTorque to a. help with the daily commute, b. provide acceptable daily performance*, c, provide passing power when the camper is in and the jet ski's are in tow.

*My '98 has 160hp; the new truck needs a few extra ponies as it is physically larger, but not double (I admit I'm getting older). 2.7 would add weight which would reduce payload/towing and I can't afford that.

From what I have seen, the integrated trailer brake controller is more/less available. Maybe not a nice as I would like, but functional.
Soft open tailgate would be nice to have if I'm spending that much.
I'd like 4x2 (not currently available in Canada); my "need" for 4x4 is limited - again I'm thinking payload, and 2wd gets me 210 lbs.

 

[smlford]

I would have liked if the 2.7l EcoBoost was available. The fuel mileage while towing we're reading about is atrocious. It's like towing was an afterthought.

For anyone who plans on using the truck as a tow vehicle most weekends (even a 3500 lb trailer) will have to seriously think about a different vehicle.

For a realistic scenario that emphasizes my point, I drive 20 miles to work round trip 5 days a week. If I get 24 mpg with a Ranger, I would use 4.2 gallons. If I get 13 mpg with my Crew Cab Super Duty, I use 7.7 gallons.

Then on the weekends I travel 200 miles up north one way hauling a 6000 lb trailer. With the Ranger it would optimistically get 10 mpg and use 40 gallons. With the Super Duty hauling the trailer I can get 17-22 mpg depending on traffic and/or weather conditions. At 17 mpg the SD uses 23.5 gallons.

Total fuel used:
Ranger 44.2 gal @ $2.42/gal=$107 a week.
Super Duty 31.2 gal @ $3.13=$97.65 a week.

I don't have any personal experience with a F150, but with it's higher city mpg and reasonable expectations of better towing mpg, I suspect the difference is even greater.

A Ranger with the 2.7 liter EcoBoost would be the right set up with a smaller footprint imho.

Forget about the 2.7 Ecoboost...
You cannot get a factory integrated brake controller in the new Ranger and depending on the laws in your state you will not be able to tow a 6000 pound trailer without one...most states require a brake controller if your trailer is over 1500 - 3500 pounds.

Fords stating that the Ranger can tow 7500 pounds is bs...

 

[uthunter]

Forget about the 2.7 Ecoboost...
You cannot get a factory integrated brake controller in the new Ranger and depending on the laws in your state you will not be able to tow a 6000 pound trailer without one...most states require a brake controller if your trailer is over 1500 - 3500 pounds.

Fords stating that the Ranger can tow 7500 pounds is bs...

Then buy Ford's accessory brake controller and have the dealership install it. Factory-installed vs. dealer-installed isn't that big of a difference. I have a Super Duty so if I need to tow heavy, I'll just take that truck. No need for a brake controller on my truck and I'm guessing many other people won't need them either.

 

[FordBlueHeart]

Forget about the 2.7 Ecoboost...
You cannot get a factory integrated brake controller in the new Ranger and depending on the laws in your state you will not be able to tow a 6000 pound trailer without one...most states require a brake controller if your trailer is over 1500 - 3500 pounds.

Fords stating that the Ranger can tow 7500 pounds is bs...

I don't have to worry about anything with my state as far as requirements go.
Who cares if it doesn't come with an integrated brake controller. I don't. If I need a brake controller because whatever I'm towing needs one, I'll add it. Not a big deal at all.
Jeez, based on your logic, I wouldn't own any half ton truck or even a 3/4 ton truck built into the mid 2000's. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T COME WITH THEM!
I probably will never even come close to towing the max rating for the Ranger. If I had the need to do that on a regular basis I would be getting a F150.

 

[pannwfn]

About the only thing I want is a truck with no carpet. Jeez I'd even pay for carpet delete On my lariat.

 

[smlford]

Then buy Ford's accessory brake controller and have the dealership install it. Factory-installed vs. dealer-installed isn't that big of a difference. I have a Super Duty so if I need to tow heavy, I'll just take that truck. No need for a brake controller on my truck and I'm guessing many other people won't need them either.

I have a 2016 F-350 diesel also so if I want to tow anything bigger than my kayak trailer it's not an issue but for many guys who don't have the luxury of having two Ford pick ups I think it's misleading of Ford to advertise the tow rating of 7500 pounds right from the factory.

In 2006 when I bought my first Super Duty one of the main reasons I bought the Ford was the fact that it was the only manufacturer to offer it as a factory component and was integrated into the trailer sway control.....Does the dealer installed option integrated with the sway control?? ......crickets.

Let me back up and say that I own a construction company and am always towing something from a unit of plywood to a CAT Excavator (with our Mack dump truck ) and I am constantly amazed at what people try to tow with... having nearly gotten killed a few years ago by a driver who lost their brakes I am a little sensitive to people (and companies) trying to tow haul more than they should...

Off my soapbox...

 

[StAugKid]

But Ford didn't advertise that it'd tow 7500 from the factory. It advertised that it can tow up to 7500 with a brake controller.

 

[pannwfn]

I have a 2016 F-350 diesel also so if I want to tow anything bigger than my kayak trailer it's not an issue but for many guys who don't have the luxury of having two Ford pick ups I think it's misleading of Ford to advertise the tow rating of 7500 pounds right from the factory.

In 2006 when I bought my first Super Duty one of the main reasons I bought the Ford was the fact that it was the only manufacturer to offer it as a factory component and was integrated into the trailer sway control.....Does the dealer installed option integrated with the sway control?? ......crickets.

Let me back up and say that I own a construction company and am always towing something from a unit of plywood to a CAT Excavator (with our Mack dump truck ) and I am constantly amazed at what people try to tow with... having nearly gotten killed a few years ago by a driver who lost their brakes I am a little sensitive to people (and companies) trying to tow haul more than they should...

Off my soapbox...

Tell it like it is if you haven't hauled 44000 lbs of French fries up grape vine or even mt Shasta stay around half your rated tow capacity.

 

[Pinecrestjim]

…..
In 2006 when I bought my first Super Duty one of the main reasons I bought the Ford was the fact that it was the only manufacturer to offer it as a factory component and was integrated into the trailer sway control.....Does the dealer installed option integrated with the sway control?? ......crickets.

FYI, the Ranger comes standard with trailer sway control, per the specs from the price and build and as mentioned in the Owner's Manual. Sway control does not necessarily need to be integrated with a trailer brake controller. It would seem to be preferable (I'm not an engineer) but may not have any bearing on regaining control of the towing vehicle.

 

[Pinecrestjim]

I don't believe I've seen this one mentioned - an extra capacity fuel tank. If you're towing a trailer, say a 2500# boat, fuel mileage is going to suffer. Reasonably estimated at 15mpg or worse. At 15mpg, you could drive a reasonable maximum of 225 miles (3 gallon reserve in the tank), roughly 3 1/2 hours drive time at 65mph, between refueling stops. If only 12mpg, you could manage 180 miles or 2 3/4 hours. Stopping that frequently would be brutal. An extra 10-12 gallons would go a long way towards making a long haul trip a lot more enjoyable.

 

[rangerdanger]

I don't believe I've seen this one mentioned - an extra capacity fuel tank. If you're towing a trailer, say a 2500# boat, fuel mileage is going to suffer. Reasonably estimated at 15mpg or worse. At 15mpg, you could drive a reasonable maximum of 225 miles (3 gallon reserve in the tank), roughly 3 1/2 hours drive time at 65mph, between refueling stops. If only 12mpg, you could manage 180 miles or 2 3/4 hours. Stopping that frequently would be brutal. An extra 10-12 gallons would go a long way towards making a long haul trip a lot more enjoyable.

They existing on the aftermarket abroad. A 140L tank is roughly 36 gallons or double the factory gas tank.

https://www.rough-side.com/long-ranger-replacement-fuel-tank-140l-ford-ranger-t6-diesel.html

https://www.browndavis.com.au/ford-ranger-px-2011-present-long-range-replacement-fuel-tank/

Edit: Another good option is an auxiliary fuel tank in the bed. I think they make them for midsize trucks and you could always remove it when you need the full bed.

 

[JoshE]

Based off your list, I would add that a 6' bed option would have been nice on the crew cab to compete with Tacoma, Canyon, and Colorado. Also, very disappointed in the rear seat configuration, it is not class leading in room, lacks 60/40 split, no flat-floor fold up rear seats, poor under-seat storage, and no flat load deck when top half of seats fold down.

Agreed on the rear seat, this is the big issue that might keep me from getting a Ranger. The 3rd Gen Tacoma's 60/40 split fold flat rear seat lets me fit my dog crate with seating for 3 or space for gear in the truck. With the Ranger, I wouldn't be able to get my Gunner Kennel in, so I'd be restricted to putting it in the bed. This would likely mean needing to get a $2,000+ topper...

 

[JoshE]

I'm with you... I've owned an '06 SCab F150 for ten years after driving a mix of mostly Rangers before that. Had a family member recently purchase an '18 SCrew F150 and parked next to mine in the driveway, my '06 looked 3/4 scale. I will say I was surprised how comfortable I was behind the wheel of the SCrew. Electric steering and backup cameras make a huge difference.

The '06 F-150 super crew is within inches of the new Ranger dimensionally, and they have quite a resemblance. The Ranger is only about 6" narrower and about 6" shorter accounting for the 6" shorter bed. The Ranger produces more HP and TQ then the standard v8, and isn't too far off from the 5.4, matches 300hp with 93 octane, but the Ranger is down about 50 lb-ft tq. Payload is similar, but f-150 is rated at 8,500 lbs towing. So essentially, in my mind, you are getting an early 2000's f-150 with marginally smaller dimensions, similar capability, and some updated tech, and these can be found with low millage for ⅓ the price of the new Ranger...

Sponsored