Bigger vehicles are safer, that is not a misconception from what I have personally witnessed.

no, its not an f-series truck. just as a colorado doesn't count as a silverado sale, tacoma doesnt count as a tundra etc.

If we're talking about a dump truck crashing into a Honda Civic, I'd much rather be in the dump truck due to mass.

But for standard road going cars, size doesn't matter a whole lot. I've personally witnessed many more fatal or serious injury accidents from passengers in large vehicles as opposed to small. This is backed by three friends who work for the fire department and deal with many extractions.

Just because there's more metal between passengers and the object of impact, doesn't mean all that metal is all for impact absorption. Leading to whiplash and spinal injuries.
Half the time it's just puffed up panels for aggressive lines anyway.

It comes down to the safety features. Mercedes and Volvo has boron steel frames that have proven to make them the safest cars on the road. Subaru also has a record for some of the safest vehicles and their line up is almost all cars and small SUVs. I'm talking about real world crashes, not controlled environments where a car smacks a wall.
Of course, there's also the debate that SUVs and trucks are more likely to roll over in an accident due to the higher center of gravity, making it more dangerous for passengers. The extra weight also makes them harder to stop and less nimble to react, which has sparked further debates as to whether the roads would be safer without big vehicles. But that will never change.
But then we also get companies like Hyundai, Kia, and even Chevy, that are putting air bags and restraint systems in cars to make them pass the tests with flying colors, but they give a bad name to small cars on the road because of accident injury/fatality rate. You get what you pay for...

Of course, there can be too small. The Mercedes Smart car is technically safe on paper, but the small size means it "bounces." Most people were protected from the initial impact, but the 2nd or 3rd bounce is what hurt them.

It all comes down to the trend in cars. As manufactures continue making bigger cars, the others will make bigger cars to answer. But just because it's big doesn't mean it's safe and just because it's small doesn't mean it's unsafe.

Another reminder that when the Ranger was canceled, it was the only compact pickup truck still on sale in the U.S. and it was still the #2 seller in the segment, despite using the same cab as the 1993 model. Quite astonishing.

I feel like a compact truck WOULD have been the way to go, however, since they are using the global model as the basis for this one, hopefully they can keep the price at compact truck levels. Price is the #1 factor here. If you've only got to go up a small amount to get into F-150, that'll kill sales.

I owned 3 extended cab Rangers, then went to a midsized Frontier crew cab, and now am in my F150 crew cab. There isn’t that much of a difference in size between the compacts and the midsized. And all of the benefit goes to passengers in the rear seats, and today’s customer wants extended and crew cabs. On the flip side, my F150 is huge in comparison to my Frontier. It's longer, wider, and a lot heavier.

I’m one that actually likes midsized trucks. They do better off-road on trails, are easier to zip around on narrow back-roads, and have all the capability I need. I’m really only in my F150 so I can fit 3 kids in the back, as soon as they are grown I’ll probably go back to a midsized because I REALLY miss my Frontier.

Ford and GM made it obvious with the Ranger and S10 that they didn’t want customers buying them, they really wanted you to buy a ½ ton. A “fully loaded” Ranger basically got you an automatic transmission, crappy V6, and motorized door locks and windows. On the flip side, with the Tacoma and Frontier you could get things like heated seats, leather, motorized seats with lumbar, a flow through console, sunroof, and a pretty powerful engine. If Ford was smart they would have given us the “rest of the world” Ranger years ago, but they decided they’d try to force us into F150’s instead. Apparently it didn’t work, because just like GM did they are offering a midsized truck. I’m for one happy to see the Ranger come back. The midsized market has been pretty dead since the mid 2000’s, this will force some competition.

I like mid sized trucks, but pound for pound they are too expensive compared to a half ton.

A lot of why trucks are bigger is based on "capacity creep". Chevy introduces something that beats Ford by a little. Ford answers with a 1 up that tops Chevy. Chevy responds, etc. etc. You sell more trucks when you can brag about bigger, faster, more capable.

My '86 J10 pickup was based on a design that first showed up in 1963. Jeep never spent money keeping up with the big 3 so the chassis and most of the sheet metal never changed from 1963 to 1987, When Chrysler bought Jeep in 1987 they killed off the full size Jeep trucks completely because they wanted to stay with the Dodge Ram and Jeep was selling less than 1,000 full size trucks each year. As a result, my truck pales in comparison to modern trucks.

My truck is small by comparison sitting next to a modern truck. It really does look like a compact or mid size truck. The bed of my J10 is roughly the same size as a Dodge Dakota, though I get a full 8' of capacity. From the factory, my truck had a 5,000 pound tow rating with a payload capacity of well less than 2,000 pounds. The average Chevy Colorado has a similar cargo capacity and can tow up to 7,000 pounds. And that's a "compact" truck. A modern "half ton" truck quite possibly can best the "one ton" trucks from the 1960's when it comes to hauling and towing. I've upgraded my truck over the years. I've swapped in 3/4 ton axles and done disc brake upgrades, along with several other upgrades. But I doubt I'd be able to handle a lot more than 10,000 pounds safely on a bumper pull trailer. The F150 I ordered comes from the factory rated to tow over 11,000 pounds. The 3/4 tons can handle double that or more. But go back in history, and my J10 was probably on par with a stock F150 from the 70's. Probably similar dimensions and similar capacities. But any of those old trucks would be left far behind by the capability enhancements they've been adding over the years.

Overall length? Cab height? If it's comparable to the current Colorado and Tacoma, then it's a lot bigger. Also, none of these mid-sizes are offering a single cab truck anymore.

No matter, I am just glad I went with the F150, because for a while I was kinda waiting on the F100 that would never be...

not sure where youre getting your data from. as of 2014 (newest year on record) iihs small four door cars fatality rate have the chevy cruze at 42 out of an exposure of 2,220,302 and the hyundai elantra at 44 out of an exposure 1,509,235. compare that to the subaru impreza, which has a rate of 54 out of an exposure of only 117,068 and the ford focus with a death rate of 68 out of an exposure of 1,000,942.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates

I don't know of a "crappy v6" in any Ranger. HP doesn't make a good engine. Reliability and longevity does.