Ford Ranger/Bronco thread

another shitty mid sized truck for fat cunts to haul their kids around the suburb in, great

File: pooh.jpg (40KB, 750x671px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 750x671px

>it's another "crossover with a bed in the back" episode

>>17297247
just get the extended cab version then

>>17297250

So then it'll be an Explorer instead? No thanks

>>17297272
huh? how would it be an explorer? it has a bed

>>17297247
It BoF tho

>>17297278
dont act dumb

>>17297226
>all I've heard so far is that it might get a diesel

what would be the point of a gasoline truck?

Oh boy. I can't wait for yet another 4 door short bed truck!

>>17297226
Not hyped for the Ranger, and I'm upset at what they're doing to the Bronco.

I was hoping they made it into a large two door truckuv again because I don't need another big pickup since I have no need for one nor do I want a four door soccer mom SUV. Which is why I'd wish they brought those back... Not too big, not too small.. fits five like a big fat crew cab pickup or a sedan would and extra cargo room in the back. Decent off-roaders.

Guess I'm stuck with my Yukon GT for now and probably forever until it dies.

File: ford-bronco-concept-23.jpg (587KB, 2000x1460px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 2000x1460px

I wanted this.

I hope they make a plug-in hybrid or full EV version of it. It would really be a game changer.

>>17297226
it had better come with a diesel

>>17297226
Why do they bother with the swirly shit if I can see all the features just fine? Is there some sort of government law saying they have to? Also it literally looks identical to the Chevy Colorado except for the front end.

>>17298656
>it literally looks identical to the Chevy Colorado
that must mean the swirly shit is working :^)

>>17298675
You can't get around the fact that all """modern""" """cars""" look the same. Fucking safety regulations. When is Trump going to remove them so car manufacturers can be creative again?

>>17298683
>implying bathtub cars in the 50s didn't all look the same
>implying landbarges in the 70s didn't all look the same
>implying dreary boxes in the 80s didn't all look the same

>>17298683
Prolly never sadly, but there must be a good reason why they are going to keep this, like u said safety regulations.

>>17298695
I'll give you 50s/60s bathtub cars and 70s landbarges all looking the same. With 80s shitboxes you can at least tell brands apart, i.e. a GM from Mopar, but it's models that look the same, like the Buick Electra vs the Oldsmobile Cutlasseseses, or the Chrysler LeBaron and New Yorker. The 90s and 2000s are where it's at in terms of car designs. They were actually unique and could be distinguished from each other. And now we're facing the same look with 2010s cars: Big fat asses, big fat grilles, "angry" headlights, angular aerodynamics and shit like that. I blame the government for making such strict safety regulations. They should be making people safer, not cars.

File: F-150.png (110KB, 800x334px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x334px

I'm not into the crew-cab style of trucks. Although i see the usefulness of the super-cab for tool storage, it's still $4,000 more. A new single-cab F-150 is $27,110 for a 6-1/2ft bed and $27,410 for the 8ft bed. So I could just spend $300 more for the extended bed and install a toolbox.

Will the base model Ranger be even cheaper than the base model F-150? Has it historically been the cheaper model?

>>17299410
Most people like the crew cabs for the passenger room. Federal regulations are soon going to require all vehicles to have 4 doors, so get your regular cab before it's gone.

>>17299422
Please tell me you're fucking joking.

>>17297247
>>17297279
Either have a source?

I really hope it's BoF, they fucked to with the explorer becoming a generic crossover

File: 56266111.jpg (99KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x768px

Smoltrucks need to make a comeback.

V8 with a bed and a smaller footprint is nice.