I've got a feeling, and a hope that Ford is gonna base the

File: ranger_t6.jpg (31KB, 560x350px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 560x350px

My guess is that Ford intends to base the US Ranger on the Ranger that they're still selling everywhere else.

>>16838121
I don't get why they said it was going to be based off the Everest platform when the Everest platform was based on the Ranger. Don't really care as long as we get a proper SWB Bronco coupe.

>>16838131
I think they were addressing rumors that the Bronco was just going to be a Everest rebadge.

>>16838128
>>16838121
>crew cab ranger
If I wanted a ridgeline I would've bought a ridgeline

>>16838167
>Crewcab
If I wanted a ridgeline I would've bought a crv

>>16837879
The Flex is unibody, FWD, and definitely doesn't have an offroad capable suspension. It's a horrible platform for the Ranger

>>16838167
1. It is available as single cab and space cab in global markets

2. It is body on frame, north south turbodiesel with proper 4wd

3. It is the best in its class. You watch/read any review and it comes out well ahead of the hilux, amarok, d max, Triton, Colorado etc. It's not some bitch mall crawler like you americunts seem to be all about. It's a proper work truck.

>>16837879
That abomination on the right looks gay as shit

>>16838167
>crewcab anything

if i wanted a crewcab anything i would of just bought a 5 seater sedan or some crossover atrocity

File: FORDPLS.jpg (207KB, 1450x601px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1450x601px

>>16837879
FUCKING SHIT

these new "midsizetrucks" are fucking huge
bigger than older fullsizes SMDH

>>16839207
This is true, the new Ranger is somewhat bigger than a 2001 F-150 and the older gens.

>>16839207
Right! Why can't we just have a truck that isn't a fuckin behemoth?

>>16837879
It's already confirmed to be the global Ranger.
>>16838146
I think the simple "rebadge" rumour was put to bed after Ford debunked the anonymous shitposter on reddit claiming to be a leading ford designer. At this stage it is believed to be a rebody, albeit still based on the Ranger/Everest platform.
>>16838167
Luckily for you, there's three different cab and many more bed options. Simply get the one that suits your purpose dumbass.

>>16839230
Just like the new F150 is somewhat bigger than the 2001 F250.
>cars have got bigger
Who'd have thought

>>16839207
>>16839256
Because everything has become larger in the modern age. If you want a truck that an older example fits the criteria, get an older truck.

>>16839298
But what is the point of these "midsize" trucks like the Colorado and the Ranger, if they are just going to be about the same size as their full-size counterparts?

File: 1486603196894.jpg (26KB, 398x422px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 398x422px

>>16839284
>>16839298
>>16839348
>tfw can't buy comfy small new trucks anymore

I didn't ask for this

>>16839348
>what is the point of these "fullsize" trucks like the F150, if they are just going to be about the same size as their full-size counterparts?
They not the same size though. They're significantly smaller than their fullsize counterpart, as they were in 2001.
As it turns out, everything is bigger than it used to be. It's all relative.

>>16839764
>if they are just going to be about the same size as their full-size counterparts?
if they are just going to be about the same size as their HD counterparts*
lel copy pasta failure

File: b095cda820d939b8e4f30e235c50c337.jpg (67KB, 736x470px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 736x470px

>>16839284
I can see in the distance future. Heavy Duty trucks will be just as big as today's semis, while Half-tons will be as big as today's Heavy Duty trucks, while Mid-size will be just as big as today's half tons. Holy fuck.

File: aaaaaaa.png (510KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x720px

>>16839284
>tfw your 1990 f-250 extended cab and long bed is smaller than a modern f-150

>>16839813
same size as a modern Chevy Colorado too

>>16839256
>>>New trucks are huge because of MPG requirements by the government....MPG requirement are calculated by the square footage the car/truck occupies based upon its track width and wheelbase.........The larger its foot print the less MPG it is allowed to get.....based on these requirements small trucks of the past like s10s and rangers of the 90s would have to get well beyond 30mpg...a tough task for a full framed truck with brick aerodynamics....
>>Also people want big comfy trucks with every feature possible which is big money for automakers......why sell a truck for 15k when you can sell one for 40k?

>>16839813
>>16839884
Basically yeah. Seen an old E34 5series next to something like say a modern Chevy Malibu? It's depressing.
Honestly though, I wouldn't want a modern midsize pickup much smaller than it currently is. Give me one with a 200ish hp diesel and I'd be a happy man.

>>16840227
Ausfag here.
With the "Duramax" labelled VM Motori diesel (itself an engine that powers Jeep Wranglers in other markets) powered versions of the Colorado making it stateside, I don't see why the 5 cylinder diesel won't make it over there in the Ranger.
Never say never...

>>16838413
>unibody, FWD, and definitely doesn't have an offroad capable suspension.

So a Ridgeline? They'll make it work.

>>16840449
>they'll make it work
Except the Ranger has a market as Ford's staple global pickup, which requirements include a metric tonne plus payload, 3.5 tonne towing off the hitch and real world offroad capability for the recreational market. As long as it remains as such, there's no reason to make it work as a Ridgeline competitor.

>>16837879
Is the Ford Flex basically a Ford Land Rover?

>>16842415
What makes you think that?

>>16837879
that looks fucking ugly as shit

every car these days looks like an ugly alien plastic turd