2026 Ford Ranger

A strange thing has happened to what used to be compact-sized – and affordable – trucks like the Ford Ranger and its rivals. They have grown in size to the extent that they are now nearly as big as full-size trucks used to be – and they have become twice as expensive as compact trucks used to be as recently as about ten years ago, when all the small ones got replaced by much bigger ones bearing the same names.

On the upside, these no-longer-compact trucks have almost-as-much towing capability as full-size trucks once touted – and much more power (even through they have small engines).

The Ranger is an example – and a case in point.

What It Is

The Ranger, like its rivals, is a mid-sized truck that was previously a compact-sized truck. Also like its rivals, it currently comes as a crew cab (with a short bed) only. But Ford does offer three different engines, depending on the trim.

Prices start at $33,350 for the XL trim with 2WD; adding the optional 4WD system bumps the sticker price up to $36,850. This version of the Ranger comes standard with a turbocharged 2.3 liter four cylinder engine, a ten speed automatic, a six speaker stereo, a digital main instrument panel and a 10 inch LCD touchscreen.

The XLT ($35,875 for the 2WD version, $39,365 for one with 4WD) comes standard with the same drivetrain but you can opt for a more powerful 2.7 liter V6 – if you first buy the 4WD version. This adds an additional $2,295 to the sticker. XLTs also come standard with a 120V household power point, LED bed lighting and a wireless charge pad.

The Lariat ($43,755 for one with 2WD; $47,255 with 4WD) is also eligible (4WD models) for the more powerful 2.7 liter engine and comes standard with a powered sliding rear window, 10 speaker premium B&O audio system, a larger (12 inch) secondary touchscreen and synthetic leather seat covers, among other upgrades.

At the apex is the Raptor – which is a high-performance/off-road variant of the Ranger that comes – uniquely – with a 3.0 liter twin-turbo V6 and 405 horsepower, standard 4WD and slew of off-road upgrades that includes locking front and rear differentials, 17 inch wheels with 33 inch all-terrain knobby tires, tow hooks, fender flares and a modified suspension that features a wider track, along with Fox off-road shocks.

This one stickers for $57,020.

What’s New For 2026

The FX4 off-road package – which used to be limited to higher trims – is now available with the base trim. It bundles skid plates, an electrically locking rear axle, off-road shocks and other upgrades.

What’s Good

Standard 2.3 liter four is almost as powerful as the V8s in full-size trucks were 25 years ago.

Even with the little four, this truck is rated to pull up to 7,500 lbs.

Crew cab is much roomier than the much smaller regular/extended cabs that compact-sized trucks had.

What’s Not so Good

Pushing $40k for the least-expensive 4WD-equipped version of the base XL trim. Rival trucks such as the Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier and Chevy Colorado are similarly pricey – but all of them used to be much less so.

Regular cab/extended cab not available.

Short (five foot) bed is the only available bed size

Under The Hood

The Ranger’s standard turbocharged 2.3 liter engine makes 270 horsepower and 310 ft.-lbs. of torque. To get a sense of how impressive these numbers are – for an engine this small – consider that back in 2005, the full-size F-150’s optional 4.6 liter V8 touted just 231 horsepower and 293 ft.-lbs of torque. This full-size, V8-powered truck could only toe 6,300 lbs., too.

On the downside – relative to now – is that back in ’05, you could have bought a brand-new F-150 with the 4.6 liter V8 for $25,560. Yes, inflation. But the problem is that most people’s incomes have not inflated in tandem. Back in ’05, more people could afford a new F-150 than can afford a new Ranger, today. And – a further point of comparison – back in ’05, the Ranger’s base price was just $14,610. If you doubled what it cost to buy one back then, it’d still cost less than it costs to buy one today.

XLT trims are eligible for the optionally available 2.7 liter twin-turbo V6, which makes 315 horsepower and 400 ft.-lbs. of torque.  This same engine is available in the much larger current F-150, so it transforms the smaller/lighter Ranger into a pick-up with real pickup. It can get to 60 in 5.6 seconds, which – for some sense of just how quick that is – is quicker than a 2005 Mustang GT with a 4.6 liter V8.

Gas mileage (21 city, 26 highway for the 2.3 liter four; 19 city, 23 highway for the 2.7 V6) is better than the gas mileage you’d have gotten back in ’05 with the V8 – in the full-size F-150.

On the downside – as regards the 2.7 liter V6 – it’s a big step up in price to get it because you must first buy at least the XLT trim and then you must buy the optional 4WD to be able to opt for the V6. This will push the price of the Ranger to about $42k. That kind of money used to buy a decently equipped full-size truck – with 4WD – and not as long ago as 2005.

The Ranger Raptor comes with a larger, 3.0 liter V6 that touts an astounding 405 horsepower and 430 ft.-lbs. of torque. A point of comparison? Back in ’95, your Libertarian Car Guy got loaned a Cobra R Mustang to drive for a week. This version of the Mustang was a literal race car that was just barely street legal. Ford only sold them to people who were going to race them (you had to have an SCCA road racing license). It had the very last 351 (5.8 liter) V8 Ford ever put in a Mustang. It made 300 horsepower – and this ultra-light/, made-to-race version of the Mustang was only just barely quicker getting to 60.

On the downside, the Raptor is similar to the Cobra R in that its price renders it exotic. $60k (almost) being enough to price most people who’d like to have one out of the market for one.

All of the Ranger’s engines are paired with a ten speed automatic. When the Ranger was still a compact-sized truck, it was available with a manual – as was true of the others in the class, when they were compact-sized (and still cost much less than a full-sized truck).

On The Road

The new Ranger feels like the nearly full-sized truck it is – at least by the dimensional standards that defined a full-size truck through the early 2000s, before full-size trucks got super-sized.

This has its pros and its cons

On the pro side, you feel as if you’re driving a larger, more substantial – and much stronger – truck than the compact-sized Ranger that Ford cancelled back in 2011. The no-longer-available compact-sized trucks had many virtues, but one of them wasn’t that they were strong. Equipped with their standard, non-turbocharged four cylinder engines that typically made around 150 horsepower – they were not going to get you to 60 in the mid five second range. Ten was more like it. And because they didn’t come standard with a lot of power, they typically were rated to pull 3,500 lbs. Maybe as much as 5,000 lbs. – if you bought one with its optional V6 (which was also not turbocharged and made less power than the current Ranger’s standard four).

On the con side, this is a big truck – and feels like it is. it is just shy of 211 inches long, which is nearly as long as an early 2000s full-size truck. The main difference is that it’s not as wide – and that is a saving grace on narrow country backroads. Today’s super-sized full-size trucks are so wide that when two pass one another going opposite directions on a narrow country road, they sometimes smack mirrors.

That’s not an issue with the Ranger.

Tight-space maneuvering on the other hand, is. Or at least, it is more of an issue than it was back when the Ranger was still compact-sized  and was only 189.4 inches long. The 2026 Ranger is nearly two feet longer – and for that reason isn’t as easy to park in tight spots as the old Ranger and the other compact-sized pick-ups were. The latter were also not as wide as the current model and while that did make for a cozier cabin (less shoulder room) it also left more room in your garage. Those compact-sized trucks only took up about as much floor space as a new Corolla or Civic – and had the additional virtue of coming standard with a six foot bed.

More about that – and related matters – now.

At The Curb

There are at least two interesting things about the Ranger. The first is that it is about as long – 210.9 inches – as a full-sized/regular cab half-ton truck with a six foot bed from the early 2000s. A 2001 Ford F-150 XL regular cab – with the six foot bed – was 206.9 inches long. The 2001 F-150 was a smaller truck, in other words, than the current “mid-sized” Ranger is – except in terms of width. The ’01 F-150 was wider – three could sit across (up front) in the regular cab and even though the bed was short (for a half-ton truck) it was still wide enough that you could lay a 4×8 sheet flat in the bed.

This brings up another interesting thing. More like a curious thing. The Ranger is only available in one configuration: Crew cab with four full-size doors and a short (five foot) bed. The fact that it is a crew cab is why the bed is so short.

The old Ranger – last available in 2011 – was a much smaller truck but it came standard with a longer six foot bed, because it came standard with two rather than four doors. It was feasible to add a six foot bed to a regular or extended cab body – but adding a six foot bed to a crew cab would push the length to too-long and that’s why the current Ranger comes only with a five foot short bed. Others in the class – such as the Chevy Colorado – are similarly crew cab/short bed only. All of these trucks used to offer different configurations – as well as different engines. It’s weird that they’ve become one-size-fits all. Because sometimes, one size doesn’t fit all.

Then again, the reality – apparently – is that most people who buy these trucks buy them mainly to carry people, not 4×8 sheets. The bed is big enough – in a pinch – and it’s perfect size for the dog and a few bags of mulch every now and then. Meanwhile, the cab is big enough to comfortably carry five people, making it practical as a family vehicle that also happens to have the additional utility and capability – such as being capable of pulling nearly 8,000 lbs. – that most family vehicles lack.

Even the base XL is pretty loaded – certainly relative to the way base trim trucks used to come. In addition to the powerful turbocharged engine, there are 17 inch wheels, LED headlights a digital dashboard and a six speaker stereo. Back in the early 2000s, that would have qualified as loaded – even luxurious. Of course, that’s why the Ranger is as expensive as it is – even in “base” trim.

The Rest

It’d be interesting to see what would happen if Ford were to offer a new Ranger more like the old (compact-sized) Ranger. Not necessarily that size – but that basic, at least to start. Instead of the powerful turbocharged four, a powerful-enough four without a turbo – paired with a standard manual transmission. Nix the digital dash and the big touchscreen. Maybe even make manual roll-up windows standard – and AC optional. Get the base price down to around $25k rather than $33k.

Ford might sell a bunch of them.

The Bottom Line

The Ranger is without doubt the most powerful, most capable – and nicest Ranger Ford has ever made. The problem is it’s become as expensive as a decently equipped full-size truck used to be, not all that long ago.

 . . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.