2019 Ranger Powertrain

[2002edgeplussupercab]

Not interested in the added initial cost, maintenance costs, fuel costs and general inconvenience of a diesel. I don't tow on a regular basis either but I still want a reasonably sized truck that can handle 7000 lbs when I need it to without all those issues.
IMO the 2.7L EB would have been perfect in the Ranger. They have already said they modified the frame to accept drivetrains for this market.
They could have gone one step further and hit a real home run with the Ranger but so far it sure looks like they have chosen not to. They already use the 2.7 in several much lighter vehicles than the Ranger. It's not considered overkill in those vehicles.
The only logical explanation for why Ford has chosen not to offer that engine in the Ranger is to protect F-150 sales. If you're not comfortable with the idea of a 2.3L EB in a 4x4 crewcab occasionally towing at it's max rating in mountainous terrain then you can either buy a truck that is bigger than you need 90% of the time or you can shop elsewhere.

What lighter vehicle uses the 2.7 eco ?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What lighter vehicle uses the 2.7 eco ?

Edge/Fusion and their Lincoln relatives.

If and when the competition steps up their game the 2.7 is ready. Until then why force the competition to step up their game too rapidly when you already have a powerplant that will outdo theirs? And in the meantime the 2.3 will do more to improve their fleet mpg ratings.

 

[bobbywalter]

What lighter vehicle uses the 2.7 eco ?

edge and lincolns...

something else was supposed to get them and never happened...I think it was the cop things...

the 2.0 turbo escape is a bad ass lil mofo....those are rated to tow over 3 k.

 

[bobbywalter]

it took 18 minutes for that to post

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

I doubt a Ranger diesel would sale well here. I have no doubt the new Ranger will sale well with the 2.3 eco and 10 speed and I wouldn't be surprised if Ford has a hard time keeping up with demand. A regular cab STX with 3.3 would be great.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I doubt a Ranger diesel would sale well here. I have no doubt the new Ranger will sale well with the 2.3 eco and 10 speed and I wouldn't be surprised if Ford has a hard time keeping up with demand. A regular cab STX with 3.3 would be great.

The diesel Colorado is supposed to be selling well, Ford finally decided the diesel half ton game was worth getting into... it might go over better than you think.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

What could possibly be the benefits of a 4 cyl. turbo diesel over the 2.3 eco in a 'midsize' truck that Ford admits is not a 'work truck' ?

 

[fastpakr]

It would really come down to usage. For most of us there wouldn't be a significant benefit. If you're driving it heavily loaded, towing on a regular basis, or putting down tons of miles, the diesel's advantages come into play more quickly.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What could possibly be the benefits of a 4 cyl. turbo diesel over the 2.3 eco in a 'midsize' truck that Ford admits is not a 'work truck' ?

They also keep saying it will have class competitive or class leading towing... right now the Colorado is sitting at 7700lbs.

Diesels are a cash cow for fullsize trucks, people pay ridiculous amounts of money for the maintenance heavy things.

I am not really sure what Ford meant with their "not a work truck" thing. Most of what I would consider a "work truck" are F-350 or heavier. Their beloved F-150 in the commercial/farming world is more of a "supervisor truck".

 

[fastpakr]

Question - are you sure they've used the word towing, not payload? I was watching a portion of the press conference again the other day and realized that they referred to class leading payload capacity at the time.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Question - are you sure they've used the word towing, not payload? I was watching a portion of the press conference again the other day and realized that they referred to class leading payload capacity at the time.

I remember that at the time, I was like that is such a fuzzy statement. It could go either way depending how much the guy who wrote the speach knew about trucks.

I am 98% sure their noncommittal response was "class competitive or class leading" when we talked to the Ranger team. There are a few articles out there that say Ford seems to go a long with that.

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/news/2019-ford-ranger-preview-article-1.3754965

Notably, Ford also claims the new Ranger will offer segment-leading towing capacity. If that’s true, it will need to exceed the rating for the Colorado and Canyon diesel models, which is 7,700 pounds.

 

[2000sport]

What could possibly be the benefits of a 4 cyl. turbo diesel over the 2.3 eco in a 'midsize' truck that Ford admits is not a 'work truck' ?

Higher maintenance costs. With all the emissions crap on diesels anymore, they aren't the engine they used to be. Ask anyone that had a 7.3L then traded for a 6.0L or 6.4L. Biggest mistake they made. They can't give a 6.0 away unless it's had thousands of dollars poured into it, 6.4 is a little better, but still has problems, 6.7 verdict is still out. A low mileage 7.3L will still sell around the $20K mark. I frequent a farming forum, you'd be surprised how many farmers are switching to the 6.2L gas in their F 250 and F 350's. Gas, tires and drive the wheels off of those they say. Most have well over 200,000 miles on them and that's all they've had to do to them plus maybe a set or two of brakes. They say they pull like a 7.3L did. They got fed up with EGR's, Def, and whatever else was always costing on the newer diesels.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Higher maintenance costs. With all the emissions crap on diesels anymore, they aren't the engine they used to be. Ask anyone that had a 7.3L then traded for a 6.0L or 6.4L. Biggest mistake they made. They can't give a 6.0 away unless it's had thousands of dollars poured into it, 6.4 is a little better, but still has problems, 6.7 verdict is still out. A low mileage 7.3L will still sell around the $20K mark. I frequent a farming forum, you'd be surprised how many farmers are switching to the 6.2L gas in their F 250 and F 350's. Gas, tires and drive the wheels off of those they say. Most have well over 200,000 miles on them and that's all they've had to do to them plus maybe a set or two of brakes. They say they pull like a 7.3L did. They got fed up with EGR's, Def, and whatever else was always costing on the newer diesels.

Corn going from $7+/bu to $3/bu has a lot to do with it too. There are a lot fewer King Ranch farm trucks and a lot more XL's and XLT's around here lately. A few years ago they never got out of warranty before being traded back in so nobody cared, it was either buy a new truck as a farm expense every few years or give the $$ to the govt in taxes so a lot dumped it on new stuff.

Now row crop prices are back at 1970's levels and everybody is upside down on rapidly depreciating farm equipment and farmland... not many new farm trucks period.

As far as high maintenance, DEF and all that, they eat it up on their equipment. That might be changing too though, I saw this morning in the Missouri Farmer Today they were dissing older tractors and planters compared to new... odd they felt the need to pick on 40 year old stuff. Kind of like if Ford came out with a deal saying how much better the new Mustang was than a 1973 Mustang...

 

[don4331]

Question - are you sure they've used the word towing, not payload? I was watching a portion of the press conference again the other day and realized that they referred to class leading payload capacity at the time.

Increasing the towing capability over 7,700 lbs under J2807J is a quantum leap:

The "exemplar trailer for ≤7.7k lbs is Well Cargo TW163 rolling on tandem 205/75R15 tires and having a frontal area of 40 ft^2.

The "exemplar trailer for ≤10k lbs is Well Cargo EW2025 rolling on tandem 235/80R16 tires and having a frontal area of 63 ft^2.

So, if Ford wants an 8k lbs number to out-do the Colorado, they are using the larger trailer for their tests...

Upgrading payload would just be a 3,750lb rear axle rather than the Colorado's 3.5k lbs.

 

[blksn8k]

Upgrading payload would just be a 3,750lb rear axle rather than the Colorado's 3.5k lbs.

Some of the more recent Ranger spy photos showed what looked like the same Dana M220 rear axle as is used on the Colorado.

The brown NAIAS show truck appeared to have the same axle as the current T6 which is not the M220 but I wouldn't put too much stock in that since they did admit that the show truck was pretty much just cobbled together and not representative of an actual production vehicle.