Jump to content

2019 Ford Ranger Misses IIHS Top Safety Pick - Here's Why

Gorehamj
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gorehamj Senior Enthusiast

Gorehamj

Posted
Posted

ranger 19 crash.jpg

John Goreham
Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
7-2-2019

The new Ford Ranger did pretty well on its newest safety tests by the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety (IIHS), but it did not have the scores to earn either level of the Top Safety Pick award. The Ranger fell short in three ways overall. First, it scored Acceptable for its passenger side small frontal overlap crash test. Like some other manufacturers, Ford does not reinforce the passenger side of its Ranger as robustly as it does the driver's side. That boots the Ranger off of the Top Safety Pick Plus designation. Next, the Ranger's best headlights are only Marginal. That boots it off of the Top Safety Pick list. Finally, the child safety anchors are scored Marginal, which does not factor into the IIHS scores, but makes parents swear quite a bit. 

 

You can see detailed score info at this link. IIHS has a good video with more details below. 

 

 

Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
Posted

I don't think safety ratings are as important as some people would want you to believe they are. 

  • Like 1
Daverado Enthusiast

Daverado

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Colossus said:

I don't think safety ratings are as important as some people would want you to believe they are. 

Thanks for sharing.

  • Like 2
Wiggums Senior Enthusiast

Wiggums

Posted
Posted

I had a 2013 Ranger (four door, 2x4) and I don't know why Ford is been calling it "all new."

It's not impressive and I don't know why the Americans are selling it again, it didn't sell well the last time and I don't think it'll sell well again.

Daly Senior Enthusiast

Daly

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 03/07/2019 at 8:07 PM, Wiggums said:

I had a 2013 Ranger (four door, 2x4) and I don't know why Ford is been calling it "all new."

It's not impressive and I don't know why the Americans are selling it again, it didn't sell well the last time and I don't think it'll sell well again.

Because they aren't still selling 2013 Rangers. To North America it is an all new design.

I agree, it's not impressive just like the Colorado and Canyon are less than impressive too me. But much like GM, Ford see's a potential to make sales in the market, so they took it. Sales in the mid size truck market dropped when GM, Ford and Chrysler got out of it. Then GM came back with the new Colorado/Canyon, and saw sales. So Ford scrabbled and brought the Ranger back and Chrysler(now Fiat) finally brought the Gladiator. Give it 10 years and they'll pull back out of the now flooded market again. The same is coming for the over flooded CUV market.

 

The surge in CUV's show that manufacturers haven't learned anything, they continue to flood markets with the same things instead of diversifying. 

Edited by Daly
  • Like 1
Wiggums Senior Enthusiast

Wiggums

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Daly said:

Because they aren't still selling 2013 Rangers. To North America it is an all new design. 

 

Mexico is a part of North America. Heck, you could get a 2019 Sierra SLE 4x4 RCSB like this one. I took a picture of that when I was in Tijuana a month ago.

 

image.png.f69a3d0017359e2ff4a53c61a541ac19.png

The 2019 Ranger has a dashboard and front end that are different than my 2013, but the doors are the same. Your post makes sense though, I agree here.

Daly Senior Enthusiast

Daly

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

Mexico is a part of North America. Heck, you could get a 2019 Sierra SLE 4x4 RCSB like this one. I took a picture of that when I was in Tijuana a month ago.

 

image.png.f69a3d0017359e2ff4a53c61a541ac19.png

The 2019 Ranger has a dashboard and front end that are different than my 2013, but the doors are the same. Your post makes sense though, I agree here.

Don't get me started on RCSB's that still pisses me off. Pretty sure my 2018 RCSB is the last truck I'll buy. Hell in Dubai, and maybe Mexico, you can get a Trailboss RCSB and both GMC and Chevy have full consoles as option. It's pathetic IMO.

But nothing from the 1993-2013ish generation Ranger carried over to the new Ranger. The new Ranger is just a recycled European/Asian Ranger, much like the GM midsize trucks are. There is nothing "New" about them, besides the fact the are new to this Market. 

Edited by Daly
  • 4 years later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 months later...
celemtine New Member

celemtine

Posted
Posted (edited)

Safety crash tests are a test of a vehicle, and I think these safety ratings are granny sexdoll still necessary, so if the Ranger can't win an award, it's time to think about yourself

Edited by celemtine

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...