My19 ranger revealed - Page 2

CyberWasp · 19-05-2018, 08:17 AM

Yes I understand that, and have every intention to do that.

I am just looking at technicalities and the subtle differences in the technologies manufacturers are offering.

Just trying to work out what Ford are offering in this update.

jpd80 · 19-05-2018, 08:32 AM

XLT Tech Pack.
Traffic sign recognition joins lane-keeping assist, lane-departure warning and adaptive cruise control
-optional on XLT, std in Wildtrak

Park assist - optional on XLT, Std on Wildtrak

Keyless entry and push-button start- optional on the XLS, and Std on XLT and Wildtrak

Quote:

"The Australian market has shifted in a relatively short timeframe, pushing pick-ups like Ranger
towards the top of the sales charts. It’s also seen new buyers come in to the segment, especially
at the premium end, which is why we’ve made Ranger more refined and more capable at an even
wider variety of uses."

eb2fairmont · 20-05-2018, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

Why buy a GT...body kit an XT.

Because a GT has a big engine in it, and goes like stink, far more so than an XT.

Which is kind of the point of a performance vehicle. Last time ford paid more attention to handling we got the FTE experience.

And holden sold a lot more commodores and HSV's

Given times have changed, but given all the bespoke stuff on the raptor, if you weren't rallying it or seriously off roading it, then the spindles, suspension arms, coils, body, fox shocks are just simply extra cost waiting to happen when it wears out. And its not extra performance you can use unless your off road either.

The value proposition is just simply out of line with market expectation for a performance vehicle.

**Fordman1** · 20-05-2018, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eb2fairmont

The value proposition is just simply out of line with market expectation for a performance vehicle.

Let’s see.

eb2fairmont · 20-05-2018, 09:11 PM

Sales will tell so yes let’s see

Adamz Ghia · 20-05-2018, 10:29 PM

The amount of Wildtracks that sell at a premium over an XLT despite no special engine upgrades suggests Raptor will more than hold its own.

chrisandsharon · 20-05-2018, 11:09 PM

Not too interested in sales personally. I’ve done enough off-roading and touring in all sorts of fourbies from and mild to wild to happily have a serious look at this truck. Suits what we’ve done and will do perfectly, and without having to stuff around with suspension/tyres etc like I see many do with their dual cabs. Power wise it will be more than enough and the fuel usage will be excellent. Perfect round Oz tourer for us.

jpd80 · 21-05-2018, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eb2fairmont

Sales will tell so yes let’s see

Not meaning to be a smart *** here but in a way,
You’re “ leading with your chin” a little there because
all of them will be sold but not to your typical HP buyer.

FX4 sold just like that at $64k without any push and those
were barely better than an XLT. The latest Ranger adds the
New 2.0 Panther and 10 AT across XLT, Wildtrak and Raptor
so if prices will jump around $4k for the new engine/trans
that means the 4x4s become $64k, $68k & $74k

Ford has said all of its latest customers are at the top end
and it looks like they’re really exploring the depth of those
sales.

jpd80 · 21-05-2018, 06:14 PM

Sure people can buy XLT with the good engine and buy
Aftermarket wheels suspension and body kits but did it
occur to anyone that Ford wouldn’t be that concerned
as they will still get Raptor buyers regardless

Romulus · 22-05-2018, 11:08 AM

Fuel tank capacity upgrade.....it's the one thing Toyota has over it's rivals....Wouldn't it be grand if Ford had the Everest/Ranger updates include a fuel tank with 150+L so one can take their 4WD off road and not worry about running out of fuel. 4WD consumption typically sees 15-20l/100km. You don't get far on a 75l fuel tank.

Vesper Martini · 22-05-2018, 11:33 AM

Funny we have a 2004 Prado with 180L capacity, you can really feel the extra weight when you fill up. (very seldom have we filled the second tank)
but if the Everest can consume the claimed 6.8L/100 it will travel as far on one tank as our Prado with both tanks filled..

so I don't think the double tank isnt that important anymore, hence newer Prados only have one tank standard.
take a Jerry can if your concerned

Romulus · 22-05-2018, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Funny we have a 2004 Prado with 180L capacity, you can really feel the extra weight when you fill up. (very seldom have we filled the second tank)
but if the Everest can consume the claimed 6.8L/100 it will travel as far on one tank as our Prado with both tanks filled..

so I don't think the double tank isnt that important anymore, hence newer Prados only have one tank standard.
take a Jerry can if your concerned

Where does one place a couple of dirty diesel fuel cans in their Everest?

naddis01 · 22-05-2018, 11:53 AM

The extra fuel capacity is of benefit to those who will be using their vehicles for towing especially when getting up towards the GCM. I'm sure the Everest will be using much more than 6.8L/100km then. I've averaged over 20L/100km at times with my Ranger whilst towing. Even if the new one is 25% more efficient, that is still 15L/100km.

Vesper Martini · 22-05-2018, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

Where does one place a couple of dirty diesel fuel cans in their Everest?

roof rack, rear custom rack, Trailer..
I carry one in an air tight zip bag in the back of my Territory on occasion.

Romulus · 22-05-2018, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

roof rack, rear custom rack, Trailer..
I carry one in an air tight zip bag in the back of my Territory on occasion.

I'd rather a larger fuel tank. My two VO RWD Transit vans have 100l fuel tanks. Even though the VO uses less fuel than the VM the extended range is of great benefit, allowing over 1000km per tank highway driving at the speed limit.

That Ford haven't increased fuel tank capacity is an oversight in my opinion.

Smoke Pursuit · 22-05-2018, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

Fuel tank capacity upgrade.....it's the one thing Toyota has over it's rivals....Wouldn't it be grand if Ford had the Everest/Ranger updates include a fuel tank with 150+L so one can take their 4WD off road and not worry about running out of fuel. 4WD consumption typically sees 15-20l/100km. You don't get far on a 75l fuel tank.

Simple I just put a 140 litre tank in one of our Rangers.

$1100 plus a few dollars for a mod plate.

I think ill put one in my Wildtrak.

Romulus · 22-05-2018, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Pursuit

Simple I just put a 140 litre tank in one of our Rangers.

$1100 plus a few dollars for a mod plate.

I think ill put one in my Wildtrak.

Should be stock, not aftermarket. The 138l tank in my old LC200 was great.

simon varley · 23-05-2018, 01:11 AM

I'm sure they are well engineered, but the 80L tank is crash tested. Are the aftermarket ones?

Vesper Martini · 24-05-2018, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

I'd rather a larger fuel tank. My two VO RWD Transit vans have 100l fuel tanks. Even though the VO uses less fuel than the VM the extended range is of great benefit, allowing over 1000km per tank highway driving at the speed limit.

That Ford haven't increased fuel tank capacity is an oversight in my opinion.

Not sure you took in my earlier post about the difference in fuel economy from when Toyota made two tanks standard to now when they don't.

times have changed.

you will get 1000ks of highway driving in the new Everest, if the economy figures are remotely similar to whats been promised.

for example a 20L jerry can should give you at least another 250KM

the customer requirement for a factory 2nd tank is very small, so I doubt its an oversight.

chrisandsharon · 24-05-2018, 12:40 PM

https://www.motoring.com.au/ford-hik...ricing-112767/

Bossxr8 · 24-05-2018, 01:43 PM

$1200 for the 10 speed and twin turbo motor is a very reasonable price.

8k extra for 4x4 seems bloody excessive though.

Romulus · 24-05-2018, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Not sure you took in my earlier post about the difference in fuel economy from when Toyota made two tanks standard to now when they don't.

times have changed.

you will get 1000ks of highway driving in the new Everest, if the economy figures are remotely similar to whats been promised.

for example a 20L jerry can should give you at least another 250KM

the customer requirement for a factory 2nd tank is very small, so I doubt its an oversight.

Fuel should be stored outside the vehicle, not inside the vehicle so the notion of 20l fuel containers inside the vehicle is completely out of the question.

Why not just have an increased fuel capacity from the factory? Not that difficult now is it.

Vesper Martini · 24-05-2018, 02:01 PM

My point was that you wouldn't need to, but for comparison Do you every carry a BBQ gas bottle in the car? as that takes up more space and could be considered more dangerous?

Not that difficult? to fit a 2nd tank you could do away with the spare, but I have a feeling that may be important if going Bush. otherwise the hatch style tailgate could be a problem compared to the Prados swinging door.

Anyway as stated before We have a vehicle with twice the fuel consumption of the new Everest, and never fill the two tanks.
(actually makes me think its time to upgrade!!)

csv8 · 24-05-2018, 05:18 PM

Ford Ranger 2019 pricing announced
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/201...cing-announced

simon varley · 24-05-2018, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romulus

Why not just have an increased fuel capacity from the factory? Not that difficult now is it.

yes, actually. The aftermarket tank guys don't have to worry about clearances, service requirements, crash requirements etc. they just cram the bigger tank into the space any way they can. Ford however do have to account for all these other issues. The tank is as big as it can be made without compromising all these other needs.

mike_nofx · 25-05-2018, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon varley

yes, actually. The aftermarket tank guys don't have to worry about clearances, service requirements, crash requirements etc. they just cram the bigger tank into the space any way they can. Ford however do have to account for all these other issues. The tank is as big as it can be made without compromising all these other needs.

Forget the litre capacity of the fuel tank. It’s the engine litre capacity that would concern me.

simon varley · 25-05-2018, 04:58 AM

$1200 difference for the 2.0 10spd isn't bad

Sabantien · 25-05-2018, 07:20 AM

I imagine they could put in a bigger fuel tank if they wanted to, but why would they? Does the competition have it? Hilux is what, 80L?

They know the great majority of their buyers never leave the bitumen, let alone leave the city.

csv8 · 25-05-2018, 09:09 AM

I was listening to Josh Dowling on Motor Torque ABC last night. He said " Ford are keeping the 3.2 in Everest/Ranger as there is buyer resistance to small motors in big vehicles." Interesting!

Vesper Martini · 25-05-2018, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

I was listening to Josh Dowling on Motor Torque ABC last night. He said " Ford are keeping the 3.2 in Everest/Ranger as there is buyer resistance to small motors in big vehicles." Interesting!

Yes, as is evidence on this forum some people cant get the head around a smaller engine being more powerful.

I believe many bought Ranger over Hilux on engine capacity alone.