From 1997-2014, regular cab long bed (8') F-150s were the same dimensions as SuperCab or SuperCrew models. For 2015, they lost 4" of cab (and wheelbase, and length) because the B-pillar got moved forward on the other cabs, and Ford decided it wasn’t worth it to go back to those funky clamshell doors on the 2004-08…
Not to mention, there’s no way it’s 85" wide. That would mean it gained 13" in width from a pair of 2" flares. Plus, I don’t see any clearance lights, which would be a requirement on any vehicle over 80" wide (like the F-150 Raptor). Most likely, it’s a typo, and it’s supposed to be around 75". That would correspond…
Those are clearance lights, which are required for any vehicle over 80" wide (mostly one-ton DRW trucks) Since this doesn’t have them, it can’t be 85.6" wide like the article says. 75" is more likely, given that’s the approximate width of a Colorado ZR2 or Tacoma TRD Pro.
That width is an obvious typo. Expect 75" for the actual width. Anything over 80" would require clearance lights.
Don’t believe that 85.6" width figure for a second. It’s obviously a typo. How could it not be, when the standard Ranger is 72" wide? Other off-road midsizers are also around 75".
How is that 85.6" width figure even remotely possible on the Ranger Raptor? The normal Ranger is around 72" wide, and a stock F-150 is 79".
My only qualm with the CTS wagon is that its C-window was too small.
IIRC, most/all Buick wagons in the ‘70s and ‘80s wore the Estate nameplate. But that was back when the mental image conjured up by “estate” wasn’t so maligned.
The longest bed on any Ranger was about 7' long, plus or minus a few inches. That particular model was 201" long with a 118" WB.
I can’t check the dimensions of a vehicle that doesn’t exist for sale in the U.S. market.
Well, I kinda gave a snappish answer. I tried to be concise and ended up being curt.
The 4.3L V6 in the newest Silverados is noticeably more fuel-efficient than the old one that was in the S-10 and C/K pickups. Not quite at the level of Pentastar with an 8-speed, or 2.7 F-150 driven by a grandpa, but for a full-size truck it’s not bad. And it’s about as reliable as it’s always been.
The problem with I6s is that they’re space inefficient, which is a no-no today. You’d need a long hood to stuff one into a compact/midsize truck with adequate crumple space.
Ah, so it will be steel-bodied. That answers that question. I never give curb weight the recognition it deserves.
Where are you getting those measurements for the 2010 US Ranger? No Ranger SuperCab in the US has ever had a 118" WB.
The first number is the number of wheels with brakes, because originally, not every wheel had a brake.
Check the actual dimensions before you make yourself look bad:
New midsize Dakota seems unlikely, if only because it would overlap with the new midsize Jeep Scrambler. Unless it was built off a Scrambler...
Just a PSA: when describing drive systems, the first number is how many wheels the vehicle has, and the second number is how many can be powered. So it’s 4x2 and 4x4, or 6x4 and 6x6 for those tandem axle UTVs. The first number must always be the largest, because you can’t power more wheels than you have on the vehicle.
4x4, sure. V8, yes, but only on 2009-12 extended cab or crew cab models.
