At least in the west coast of Canada it was. I waited several years for the ADM to go away on the Raptor and finally gave up.
I expect that the California fiberglass shops will have a fix for that.
Much of it comes down to plant capacity and profit margin- there isn't very much costly hardware involved in a Termor Ranger. That makes for big, juicy margins. They may make the RR a volume limited halo model and milk the Tremor for all it's worth.
If they are bold enough to offer the 2.7 with the Tremor package (doubtful) that would be a great option for anyone who wants good off-road performance but also needs the towing capability and doesn't want the size of the F-150. I'm not sold on the RR being a good towing option with its coil spring/Watts link rear suspension. The Tremor should also be considerably lighter and a little more fuel efficient than the RR. Believe it or not, the current gen RR that we can't buy is actually about 500 lbs heavier than my '18 F-150 Supercrew 4x4 with the 5.0L and 10-speed.
Even bolder… How about a Tremor with 2.7 and offer it in a SuperCrew/Longbed configuration? That would be my choice… the perfect overland truck with no major mods need and right from the factory. Just take my money!!!
Unless VW has a similar requirement for the Amarok that will be built on the Ranger chassis I don't see Ford building that particular combination. There has to be enough demand and I doubt Ford believes there is or they would have done it already with the current gen. They do offer a regular cab model with a 6 ft bed in other markets but they have yet to sell that combination here. All Rangers are currently built on the same length frame, shorter cab = longer bed, and so on. As I said, about the only way I see Ford building more than one frame length is if VW demands it for the Amarok and even then that truck will only be built in South Africa, not here. Then again, we are getting the Raptor so I guess there's reason to hope.
This is pretty unlikely also, the Amarok is only available in one chassis length, and is sold mostly in crew cab configuration. Amaroks, at least in Australia, are marketed less as work vehicles but more so as lifestyle vehicles. This is highlighted by the fact that the automatic transmission is not available with low range. The same could be said for the Ranger, but Ford sells a huge number to fleets.
Do we know that the new Raptor gets a Watts linkage? I would expect it to share suspension layout with the Bronco- for that matter, I would expect short-bed US Rangers to use a coil rear suspension.
Apples to apples, the F150 is only about 260lb heavier than the Ranger. The Raptor stuff is HEAVY! A base raptor is 1000lb heavier than a bare-bones F150 Crew.
My point exactly. If you are concerned about fuel mileage, which is directly affected by the weight of any vehicle, don't expect the Ranger Raptor to be all that efficient. As a matter of fact, some versions of the F-150 will probably get better fuel mileage than some versions of the Ranger, especially the Raptor. Doesn't say much about the design of the physically smaller Ranger when compared to the F-150.
That's what I was wondering about- I knew the current RR used a Watts linkage. I didn't know that had been pronounced for the new model. The Bronco Raptor uses the same 5-link arrangement as other Broncos, So I had thought it plausible (likely) that the RR would simply use the same thing.
Everything I've been told is that the Ranger Raptor is the the same car everywhere (including the US) save for local law differences with emissions, fuel quality, compliance etc.
Your persistence in wanting the SC/longbox has not gone unnoticed....(at least by me). I do the same thing regarding interior options; hoping someone from Ford notices.
