2019 Ranger Powertrain

[don4331]

BW: Possible to wedge all the F-150 engines in, certainly; easy - I'm not so sure.


Ford can take best in class:
Power and towing with the 2.3 Eco 350hp/350 ftlbs, soundly better than what 3.6 V-6; 8k lbs towing (still well below the 13.2k of the F-150)
Fuel economy with the 3.2 PowerStroke + 10 spd

Payload will be interesting - unless they go with the 3,750lb GAWR M220 rumored for the Jeep JTU, hard to improve on the payload of the Colorado - of course, if Ranger is aluminum; then they get a couple hundred pounds. Getting best in class payload without overlapping F-150 territory would be challenging.

Of note on the competition: The latest Wrangler pickups appear to have the same coil rear suspension as the Ram trucks.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The coil sprung Rams are pretty hobbled compared to their leaf sprung competition too.

I am hoping for a NA V-6.

They are not going to worry about competing with the top level F-150, it will the low end F-150 sales the Ranger would potentially cannibalize.

 

[blksn8k]

BW: Possible to wedge all the F-150 engines in, certainly; easy - I'm not so sure.


Ford can take best in class:
Power and towing with the 2.3 Eco 350hp/350 ftlbs, soundly better than what 3.6 V-6; 8k lbs towing (still well below the 13.2k of the F-150)
Fuel economy with the 3.2 PowerStroke + 10 spd

Payload will be interesting - unless they go with the 3,750lb GAWR M220 rumored for the Jeep JTU, hard to improve on the payload of the Colorado - of course, if Ranger is aluminum; then they get a couple hundred pounds. Getting best in class payload without overlapping F-150 territory would be challenging.

Of note on the competition: The latest Wrangler pickups appear to have the same coil rear suspension as the Ram trucks.

I would not be surprised if all 2019 Ranger engines are in-line. The T6 has never had a V6, just 4 and 5 cyl in-line engines. If we get a V6 it would probably be in Raptor only and not until 2020 model year.

If Ford offers the 3.2 PS in Ranger, which they probably will considering it is already used in the T6, I doubt it will be paired with the 10-speed. Probably 6-speed auto just like T6 and Transit full-size van. While Ford does offer the MT-82 6-speed manual with the 3.2 diesel in T6 I doubt we will see that here.

There is also the possibility that the 3.2 PS will be replaced in other markets by the 2.0L 4 cyl EcoBlue turbo diesel and we could get that here as well.
http://www.trucktrend.com/news/1604-ford-introduces-new-ecoblue-2-0l-diesel-in-europe/

Because we are not getting a next gen Ranger but a slightly warmed over T6, I also doubt the 2019 Ranger will be all aluminum, although some bolt-on body parts could be. I wouldn't expect an all aluminum Ranger until at least 2021 or 2022, if ever. Three other manufacturing plants world-wide would need to be converted as well.

On the coil spring rear, rumor has it the only Ranger to get that might be the Raptor since there are pics of at least one Ranger Raptor prototype with the Everest rear suspension which uses coil springs and a Watts link.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Can't hardly wait for all the "how hard is it to put a 198X 300I6 in my new Ranger?" threads...

 

[bobbywalter]

Can't hardly wait for all the "how hard is it to put a 198X 300I6 in my new Ranger?" threads...

the 150 diesel is expected to return near 30mpg.



I still think these rangers should be called f100's. not sure why anyone would think they couldn't or wouldnt be all aluminum. then make a unit body little truck front/awd with a 4 to 7 ft bed and call that a ranger....with a 30 plus mpg avg.





the engine bays are tight in relatives, the ones I have seen. though they were platformed with the big 3 engines. not to mention what is coming in them.

but the inline 4 turbo in variations, and a diesel would be fine by me. the last 3 ecoboost in our yard have me convinced for sub 100k ownership they are a good way to go. just picked up a non eco explorer and its eating up fuel to the point I would rather have a 150. the eco edge spoiled my ideals. of course I rarely even seen it due to work.

was expecting to be able to get a ranger diesel crew later in the year but fords ideas and the lease pull ahead fairy fawked that up. that was 3 years of planning down the drain.

 

[blksn8k]

Can't hardly wait for all the "how hard is it to put a 198X 300I6 in my new Ranger?" threads...

Hey know, I put a 351W in a red '72 Pinto Squire (that's the wagon with the fake woodgrain on the sides) so crazier things have happened.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Hey know, I put a 351W in a red '72 Pinto Squire (that's the wagon with the fake woodgrain on the sides) so crazier things have happened.

That kinda made sense though.

It is amazing how many people want to trade their stock engine for a 100hp I6 in a truck with a really short engine bay...

 

[BlackBII]

That kinda made sense though.

It is amazing how many people want to trade their stock engine for a 100hp I6 in a truck with a really short engine bay...

The fuel injected 300 I6 has ~140hp at 3,400 rpm and 260ft-lb of torque at 2,000 rpm. It's an excellent engine for certain applications.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The fuel injected 300 I6 has ~140hp at 3,400 rpm and 260ft-lb of torque at 2,000 rpm. It's an excellent engine for certain applications.

An RBV isn't one. They kinda fit if you hack up the firewall and move the radiator somewhere else.

And for some reason they usually pick on the old emission choked 80's ones.

 

[blksn8k]

An RBV isn't one. They kinda fit if you hack up the firewall and move the radiator somewhere else.

And for some reason they usually pick on the old emission choked 80's ones.

I had a 1980 Bronco that I bought new for some stupid reason with the 300 and a creeper 4-speed. I don't know whose idea it was to put a 1 barrel carb on a 300 cu in engine but they should have been shot. The 300 was awful on the highway because it didn't have anything past about 4000 rpm so you just had to lug along in 4th gear and God forbid you tried to pass a even slower slower moving anything. What a slug!
I yanked that garbage out at 16k miles and replaced it with a 351C 2V with a cam, headers and aftermarket 4 barrel carb and intake. Huge difference and it even got better fuel mileage.

 

[don4331]

Hey know, I put a 351W in a red '72 Pinto Squire (that's the wagon with the fake woodgrain on the sides) so crazier things have happened.

Too similar - Had a '76 Mercury Bobcat Villager with the "cruising wagon" window panels - I-4 replaced with 302W w/351C 2V heads and SVO's Boss 302 intake. Originally cream with tan interior but repainted '82 F-150 blue. Compared to the '68 F-100 4x4 with 428 it replaced, fuel economy was great.

 

[blksn8k]

Too similar - Had a '76 Mercury Bobcat Villager with the "cruising wagon" window panels - I-4 replaced with 302W w/351C 2V heads and SVO's Boss 302 intake. Originally cream with tan interior but repainted '82 F-150 blue. Compared to the '68 F-100 4x4 with 428 it replaced, fuel economy was great.

Awesome! Must have been an interesting exhaust system with those Cleveland heads.

My 351 was out of a '69 Torino GT. It was the 4V version with 290 hp. I also used the toploader 4-speed from the Torino and used an 8" rear axle from a '65 Mustang. Never quite got used to having the radiator in front of the core support.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

powertrain

Looks like the new USA Ranger will be available with 2.3 Ecoboost and 10 speed. Same as Ecoboost Package Mustang. XL, XLT, Lariat trims with FX4 package available across all. Didn't say what other engines. I don't expect another Ecoboost but I kinda expected the new 3.3 NA or the 3.5 NA.

Thoughts ?

 

[priceman142]

As someone said earlier, it's more likely based on the Explorer version.

I predicted this would be one of the engine choices. My guess is they will add another powertrain, maybe after the mid cycle refresh.

I was surprised they didn't offer a 6 speed on the cheapest trim level.

 

[joshkeller]

So no option for a manual transmission? Guess that counts me out of buying one.