2019 Ranger Powertrain

[85_Ranger4x4]

The more crap you add to an engine the more you choke it down...all the emissions stuff does is choke your engine down, you loose a lot of power. Even removing the cats will gain you quite a bit of power as you aren't restricting the engine's ability to breathe.

Electronics hasn't done anything other than provide a false sense of more power as it does nothing more than compensate for all the power robbed due to the emissions stuff. Not to mention all that crap just adds a bunch of weight to an already heavy vehicle.

How many factory 400+hp 302's where there back in the day? Run 12's in the quarter? That was big block turf... and it took a darn good stock big block to do it.

Now any stock Mustang GT does it with ease. With A/C, leather seats, radio, full exhaust, passing emissions and will crowd 30mpg really hard on the highway.

My brother's '11 Mustang GT weighs about the same as my dad's old SS396 Chevelle... and for that matter his 4dr '57 Chevy with a 283 as far as this supposed weight gain.

I don't know about you, but I've got far better things to do with my time than adjust a carb or set ignition points on my daily driver. It gets gas and oil changes as needed, and that's it. It starts every time. It's never flooded. It works the same in sub zero temps as it does in triple digit temps. My time is one of the few things that I can't buy or make more of and I'd hate to waste such a valuable resource on making sure I can get to work on time in some low-tech beater because I didn't like electronics.

Oh, now they ain't that bad.

fuel+fire+compression=no worries can be a beautiful thing too.

I have several carb/point/magneto machines. Ignition and fuel system upkeep are pretty minor. They don't stray far from home for elevation changes but they do get ran quite a bit year round (not this year so much, no snow worthy of plowing)

 

[Flash Gordan]

The more crap you add to an engine the more you choke it down...all the emissions stuff does is choke your engine down, you loose a lot of power. Even removing the cats will gain you quite a bit of power as you aren't restricting the engine's ability to breathe.

Electronics hasn't done anything other than provide a false sense of more power as it does nothing more than compensate for all the power robbed due to the emissions stuff. Not to mention all that crap just adds a bunch of weight to an already heavy vehicle.

Wish they would come up with a way to take care of the emissions issues without having so many sensors and electronics having to be present.

I'm wondering if the residents of Los Angeles will agree with you on this? I remember seeing the city shrouded in a thick layer of smog in the 70's to the point where you couldn't see the city at all. Now thankfully to all that "emissions crap" the air is cleaner and you can actually see the city.

 

[AllanD]

Personally, the 2.3 Eco-boost would be more "badass" than anything anyone here has ever seen in a Ranger factory Or swapped
(as I haven't seen any DOHC supercharged V8's in a Ranger_)

But I'd personally kill to get my hands on a 3.5liter Ecoboost powered Ranger should ford actually build them, PREFERABLY as an AWD sport truck for true lunatics like me!!!

AD

 

[wildbill23c]

I'm wondering if the residents of Los Angeles will agree with you on this? I remember seeing the city shrouded in a thick layer of smog in the 70's to the point where you couldn't see the city at all. Now thankfully to all that "emissions crap" the air is cleaner and you can actually see the city.

That smog wasn't exactly all vehicle related, factories throwing pollutants into the air 24/7 is a much larger problem and once all that stuff got outsourced to other countries...poof the huge smog problem was reduced...nobody seems to think and look at that aspect they always think the reason was the emissions from cars.

I'd love to drive a new ranger when they are released but couldn't afford one LOL. Really anymore I don't do enough towing/hauling to warrant a huge truck, may make sense to just rent one if I needed to tow or haul something.

 

[wildbill23c]

I understand you don't like anything new and different, but everything about this post is nonsense. They tried to control emissions without a bunch of electronics in the 70s, and the result was a bunch of massive v8s with 150hp that got crap fuel economy and broke constantly. It's because of the "electronic shit" that we're no longer living in the doldrums of the Malaise Era of cars. There is nothing about old engines that is better than new ones. Modern engines are more reliable, they last longer, more powerful, and get the same, or better fuel economy all while emitting far less harmful stuff that we all have to breathe. What is there to complain about?

I don't know about you, but I've got far better things to do with my time than adjust a carb or set ignition points on my daily driver. It gets gas and oil changes as needed, and that's it. It starts every time. It's never flooded. It works the same in sub zero temps as it does in triple digit temps. My time is one of the few things that I can't buy or make more of and I'd hate to waste such a valuable resource on making sure I can get to work on time in some low-tech beater because I didn't like electronics.

You've now come into pretty much any thread about the new Ranger and done little more than complain, because it's not going to be the way you want it to be. Don't be that old guy that complains about stuff just because it's different than the stuff he's used to, because nobody likes that old guy. Your complaints aren't going to change anything. You might as well complain about the weather. You're wasting your time and your breath.

Not everyone wants a vehicle full of electronic shit to go haywire within a few years. Just about every vehicle on the road now has electronic gremlins.

You can have your new stuff if you wish but look around the forum even with the older vehicles and see all the problems with electrical stuff going wrong.

All you get with a new ranger is 3/4 of an F150 and the F150 price . I didn't mind the old 80's rangers at all, and never had to adjust a carburetor because of the weather...if you are adjusting your carb all the time you have other problems.

When you hear horror stories of electrical failures and the costs involved in diagnosing and repairs it really makes you afraid to mess with any of it. How often do these major failures really occur? Some probably are user error, such as hacking wiring to install aftermarket stuff?

Wouldn't mind a new ranger but geez the price tag is gonna be ridiculous I can only imagine .

 

[trader007]

the electronic crap is why i still have my 99 ranger. im terrified of buying a new truck... if something goes wrong with it, the 'fix' is usually to replace an entire module that costs $500+

 

[priceman142]

Found another article about a spotted ranger prototype. Here is the link(click).
It is a supercab left hand drive, it even has a sticker saying 'left hand drive' on the tailgate.

What's strange is that the article says the truck pictured has a V6, and they can tell simply because of the side-exit rear exhaust. I'm not sure how you can tell what engine it has by looking at the taiplipe...

The article also mentions a Ranger Raptor, which I haven't seen any evidence of elsewhere.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Found another article about a spotted ranger prototype. Here is the link(click).
It is a supercab left hand drive, it even has a sticker saying 'left hand drive' on the tailgate.

What's strange is that the article says the truck pictured has a V6, and they can tell simply because of the side-exit rear exhaust. I'm not sure how you can tell what engine it has by looking at the taiplipe...

The article also mentions a Ranger Raptor, which I haven't seen any evidence of elsewhere.

I don't know, my '85 had a side outlet exhaust and had a pretty high output engine.

That article was comical, no way the Ranger is getting a higher output 3.5EB. I would vote the 2.7EB would be pushing it pretty hard.

 

[pjtoledo]

I gotta get me some of that dot camo. should be good for a couple free lunches as I cruise around SE Michigan.

 

[tcbaklash]

The 2.0 liter 4 cylinder in the 2017 Ford Focus makes 160hp and 146ftlb of torque while getting 34mpg. Compare that to a 1971 Pinto 2.0 which made 100hp and averaged 20mpg.

I'm with you on this one.

The 1.6L I4 in my Fiesta ST cranks out 180hp and 220ft-lb of torque at the wheels. Compare that to a 5.0L V8 found in a Fox Body or Exploder that makes the same wheel horsepower, less wheel torque, AND half the fuel economy. It's also a helluva lot more fun to drive than a Ranger.

I was skeptical about buying any vehicle past 2005, but having a new car is honestly a lot nicer than I thought it would be. I can control my phone with the damn steering wheel, and that's very helpful when my job requires me to be making constant phone calls, use GPS, etc.

 

[wildbill23c]

I'd think with the engine technology of today they'll be tossing those 4 cylinder engines in the rangers as the sole power plant, no more V6's .

 

[tcbaklash]

I'd think with the engine technology of today they'll be tossing those 4 cylinder engines in the rangers as the sole power plant, no more V6's .

I don't see why that's a bad thing. The 2.3L Ecoboost makes more than enough power for a 4500LB truck and has great aftermarket support.

 

[wildbill23c]

I don't see why that's a bad thing. The 2.3L Ecoboost makes more than enough power for a 4500LB truck and has great aftermarket support.

Just weird seeing so many 4 cylinder engines being used in what used to be V6 and V8 territory. Still would be fun to have a V8 Ranger though LOL.

So is this 2.3L 4 cylinder engine the same as what they used to be just with the ecoboost or is it a totally different block altogether?

 

[don4331]

So is this 2.3L 4 cylinder engine the same as what they used to be just with the ecoboost or is it a totally different block altogether?

Yes, the EcoBoost traces its roots back to the Mazda L engine which in 2.3 form powered '01-11 Ranger. (Both have 87.5mm bore, and 94mm stroke).

 

[tcbaklash]

Just weird seeing so many 4 cylinder engines being used in what used to be V6 and V8 territory. Still would be fun to have a V8 Ranger though LOL.

So is this 2.3L 4 cylinder engine the same as what they used to be just with the ecoboost or is it a totally different block altogether?

It would be cool to see the 5.2L Voodoo in more Ford vehicles, to be fair.

To add to Don's statement, it's also in the Ecoboost Mustang and Focus RS. I think it's got forged pistons but I could be wrong.