2019 Ranger Powertrain

[rob99]

I agree. Makes no sense to use belt driven instead of electric fans on a new vehicle with so much tech.

I think I would remove the fan and replace with a Flex-a-Lite elec unit, I have that on my 4.0 now I have had no issues over the many years, less noise too.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I think I would remove the fan and replace with a Flex-a-Lite elec unit, I have that on my 4.0 now I have had no issues over the many years, less noise too.

I stuck a flex fan on mine so I didn’t have to hear my poser kenny-bell flex-a-lite run as often.

 

[bobbywalter]

Road & Track did an interesting article on the Ranger 2.3L engine including photos of the engine that was on display at the NAIAS. Looks like the block actually has more in common with the Focus RS than the Mustang EB. It uses the same coolant transfer passage between adjacent cylinders as the Focus block which is different than the Mustang block. It is also an "open deck" design, same as both the Focus and Mustang.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/detroit-auto-show/a15840269/ford-focus-rs-ranger-engine/

well, that is not a production vehicle.

that sure as fawk is not a production engine for a ranger.


it will have a different setup in final production. nothing you see under the hood or under the truck for that matter will be 100 percent part of production. some of it will be real close...not 100 percent...

when I was busting their balls over what was cruising in camo here on the strrets of Detroit and s/w Michigan that I had a chance to look at, and then right there what we were looking at... they made it abundantly clear it was just a platform whore...don't judge hard or detail pics....would not even let us sit in the back seat..

99% sure4 it is same 2.3 eco as in the new Explorer.
Explorer Sport gets the 3.5 TT, BTW.

just like the original 3.5 ecoboost debut in the lincoln, when it was being fitted for a hot rod project to showcase it at the naias all those years ago(I was there for that too btw)....p/d sent a block to have a bell housing made. it had to be a front wheel drive block at that time as there was no such thing as a rear wheel drive block. the bell housings they sell to this day for swaps using rwd transmissions are based off of that.

it has been said from day one that the rear face of blocks on a 3.5 ecoboost are different from front wheel drive to rear wheel drive....and that is in fact true....there are differences...just not in the bolt pattern.


in this case...the explorer engine is tuned for truck duty (awd and towing) and the trans programming and entire build are geared to the off road tuning of this 4wd system the ranger will offer. this is the engine I would platform with.

its the easy button. pretty simple.

Interesting, thought belt driven fans went the way of the dinosaur, oh how I long for that clutch fan noisy roar lol.
like to hear from engineer why they are using that 'technology'.

most vehicles have electric cooling for the obvious reasons.. but rear drive truck hd applications also have a mechanical fan, that is these days electronically controlled for low speed load cooling. the super diesels will pull 30-40 hp. would not surprise me to see a mechanical fan in the jeep or ranger heavier tow options.

theres an area under max load at 30-45 mph where an aggressive mechanical fan is the secure option.

Have also heard that Ford is installing a special line at their Cleveland engine plant just for the Ranger 2.3L. If that is true along with all the changes pointed out in the R&T article it sounds like the Ranger engine will be unique to that vehicle.

with this market addition, the diesel and the 2.3 longitudes are going to grow on an exponent. they will need capacity expansion. this will take time.











PLEASE REMEMBER this is a platform whore we are judging here.


slow the roll. the real thing will be much better.

 

[blksn8k]

The photos R&T had on their website were of the cutaway engine Ford had on a stand, not whatever was in the show truck. I would be surprised if the show truck actually had a 2.3L.
Why would Ford have a cutaway engine on display if it did not reflect what they intend to build?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The photos R&T had on their website were of the cutaway engine Ford had on a stand, not whatever was in the show truck. I would be surprised if the show truck actually had a 2.3L.
Why would Ford have a cutaway engine on display if it did not reflect what they intend to build?

It might be what they intended to build a month ago, or maybe even that day. We are still almost a year out as far as regular production goes. Things may (and probably will to a certain degree) change.

It is neat to look at but I would not take it as gospel as a model of how it is going to be.

 

[bobbywalter]

the cutaway trans stand has a 10 speed for the ranger....and reads like its for a 3.5 ecoboost ranger. they are just displays. that same cut away engine was in 3 locations as was the trans cutaway.


if your real sharp...and have pictures of the diesel v8 engine....you would noted over the course of the day the sticker for power figures changed twice....

then again on Friday.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

v8 diesel ?

 

[bobbywalter]

yeah....the scorpion.


all the engines and powertrains were on display.

 

[blksn8k]

yeah....the scorpion.


all the engines and powertrains were on display.

You sure that wasn't the 3.0L V6 for the F-150?

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

I have no idea what "the scorpion" is.

 

[bobbywalter]

You sure that wasn't the 3.0L V6 for the F-150?

absolutely positive I know every domestic ford engine on sight for the last 40 years.


what my point was, these displays were labeled and some were mislabeled.


the power figures are very flexible on the big diesel. when chevy finally put a number out for theirs and then Nissan...the ford guys went up stairs and put a revised power number on the display. then a few hours later they did it again...if you walk up the the scorpion display there is at least 4 little stickers on the power spot at this time if you peeled them all off.. that's the games they play. I thoughtit was funny.


I seen where guys noted the ranger version of the 10 speed was cast different and already making claims its not the same.



ford cast the 2wd and 4x4 cases totally separate as well at this time and car/truck has cast variances as well...likely they did cast the 9 hole to fit a different t case. which is bringing a rant on...


rant alert.


this is a bone picking point I have with ford. they are ****ing retards. they preached modularization in the 80's for max efficiency on the production line and then they came up with the 8 miles of timing chain pos "modular" engine which could have 9 degrees of separation from left to right bank as acceptable.... but did not modularize anything else....even the 1st mod engine had two transmission...actually 3 bolt patterns

then the 2000's came and the cyclone v6 engines which are bad ass...

not only did they lock their fan base out of easily utilizing the bad ass powertrains as far as tuning and wire up.....the number of trans bolt patterns and non modularization of the transmissions is pathetic.

for a minute with the superduty applications it looked like they were gonna do the right thing and make the transmission so it was bell and tail adaptable to engine and 2wd/4wd applications.


a minute.


they realize this and hoppe to do what should have been the case all along and just have a few patterns. big and little if it were me.


with the casting tech being as advanced as it is...I wont hold my breath to things getting less complicated.

 

[bobbywalter]

I have no idea what "the scorpion" is.

the scorpion is the in house ford v8 diesel in the super duty.


it is an actual ford engine.


the 3.0 for the 150 is based on the lion platform...essentially a ford engine.

it s a v6 with.....an 8 mile long timing belt



do they ever learn???....I wanted to throw that team down the stairs.



300k longevity and timing belt don't go hand in hand...... its why I have not swapped a vw diesel into my bronco 2...but at least the vw is easy to work on for reg swap outs...

not these clowns though... they got one running 2 banks and buried so its not a 3-4 hours job for maintenance then shaft compounded to another belt
out back to run the pump!!



....technology has come a long way the last 12 years...so I hope that these prove to be very reliable ....but they are not intended to be the top of the line hd application. the ecoboost was said to be the king still... at least that's what they said to me.









bottom line. I scaled everything. and everything they build that was on the floor will fit in a previous style ranger...even the mighty scorpion.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

this is a bone picking point I have with ford. they are ****ing retards. they preached modularization in the 80's for max efficiency on the production line and then they came up with the 8 miles of timing chain pos "modular" engine which could have 9 degrees of separation from left to right bank as acceptable.... but did not modularize anything else....even the 1st mod engine had two transmission...actually 3 bolt patterns

They say the "Modular" in modular engines actually refers to the fact that the tooling is modular, not the engines themselves.

I haven't read anything on it but I think there is less continuity between the Romeo 4.6, Windsor 4.6 (why make two different of the same thing ) and Windsor 5.4 than there was between the old 302 and 351W.

I love my 2v 5.4, it has been a darn good engine over the last 12 years (and presumably the 3 years prior to me getting it). Only complaint is it is freaking huge and stuffed back into the firewall almost like a van.

The newer F-150 t-case is a whale. You know what I am doing with my truck (putting a fullsize trans and t-case in it) so I eyed the new one just for comparison sake. It might fit in the new Ranger (didn't look much better than any other fullsize Ford t-case for mine), but weight hurts mpg, big heavy parts spinning that don't need to be as big and/or heavy hurt mpg. Massively overbuilt parts also add cost.

Everyone wants a 3.5EB, F-150 trans and t-case and shortened F-150 axles in the new Ranger but everybody would scream bloody murder when it costs the same as an F-150. If you don't need the beef there are few advantages to building it in. They have no intentions of anyone swapping t-cases with a F-150, so they don't need to worry about the bolt patterns matching.

The Ranger may not have as much room underneath for the F-150 pattern to be accessible for service either (as if they would lose a whole lot of sleep over that but you know what I mean) The case being so long (almost as long as the transmission is) with a shorter wheelbase truck may have messed up driveline angles. Or maybe they just adapted the trans to fit the already existing T-6 t-case... which is what I would do.

The F-150 running gear they had on display there.

 

[bobbywalter]

the 5.4 is a triton. its truck from day one.


the 4.6 is a bitch engine from day one.

both are theory from 4 cyl to 12 cyl. the reason for these was based on the ridiculous demands in place of the early 80's from the epa projected to 95... ford did not think it was a good way to go with ohv....boost and cam variation is more efficient. and depending on goals it really is.

I would say gm did the right thing in response to that.

your 5.4 is a good one...the early 5.4 was made to do a slew of things, run on cng, propane and 87 octane gasoline... and for the efforts made I have to say they did well.


modularization is just that.


it should be applied to the transmission and t case systems.


the transfer case in the 150 chassis display is smaller east to west then any of the ones we looked at in the back of my truck and lighter.... .

north to south it seems longer but is not when you include the extension housing of the transmission.. what is there construction wise is for strength purposes. these engines make so much power (especially sd diesel) they will destroy a normal case. the ecoboost is no slouch in low rpm torque.

31 spline and 34 spline outputs underline the standards.


guys running th 350's racing off road with more then 400 hp can tell ya busting cases is a constant. the forsds do hold up better but I have cracked a few cases....I have tore up the extensions on my 4l80 as well... that is why reid built the 400 case they have.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

modularization is just that.


it should be applied to the transmission and t case systems.


the transfer case in the 150 chassis display is smaller east to west then any of the ones we looked at in the back of my truck and lighter.... .

north to south it seems longer but is not when you include the extension housing of the transmission.. what is there construction wise is for strength purposes. these engines make so much power (especially sd diesel) they will destroy a normal case. the ecoboost is no slouch in low rpm torque.

Good catch on the extension housing, I just marveled how long the thing was and didn't put 2 and 2 together.

I also marveled how short the trans was on the stand... oh yeah, they don't have the extension housing on it is why it looks so short.

I don't do much with the newer stuff...

But there might be a reason it didn't work out in the Ranger which was initially designed with a different t-case.