Charlotte Showing

[Delford]

The Charlotte Auto Show wasn't giving test drives and the one they had was behind a circular barricade. I wish I'd been in Seattle. I could test drive it and see my uncle and cousins. It is going to be a challenge for it to catch up to Canyon/Colorado. I think the 2.3T will be better than the 3.5 but without driving it I'm withholding further speculation.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

Better than the na 3.5 ? OK.

 

[Rangerx2]

When you say the 2.3 Ecoboost would be better than the GM 3.5 N/A V6; by what measure are you comparing the two engines? I believe many people would rather have the NA V6 in the Ranger than a turbo-4. I know I would. They provide more consistent overall mpg between loaded and unloaded, depending on the weight that is behind it. In my opinion, the V^ would also be more reliable over the long term than the smaller turbocharged 4 cylinder. There is something to be said for having a larger engine that doesn't need to work as hard than having a smaller engine that is constantly under mechanical stress. The smaller engine may theoretically get better fuel economy but if it's constantly being stressed to its mechanical limits then fuel economy will undoubtedly suffer. As will the long term durability of the engine itself.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

When you say the 2.3 Ecoboost would be better than the GM 3.5 N/A V6; by what measure are you comparing the two engines? I believe many people would rather have the NA V6 in the Ranger than a turbo-4. I know I would. They provide more consistent overall mpg between loaded and unloaded, depending on the weight that is behind it. In my opinion, the V^ would also be more reliable over the long term than the smaller turbocharged 4 cylinder. There is something to be said for having a larger engine that doesn't need to work as hard than having a smaller engine that is constantly under mechanical stress. The smaller engine may theoretically get better fuel economy but if it's constantly being stressed to its mechanical limits then fuel economy will undoubtedly suffer. As will the long term durability of the engine itself.

Hard to say for durability.

I do not care for a peaky high winding car engine. The competitive V6's are like the old Ranger's 3.0. They really have no business in a truck but they are to lazy to develop a truck engine.

If you need 270hp you are going to feed 270hp, no way around it. Nice thing about a smaller boosted engine is if you don't need it you don't feed it. I would rather the mpg swung from 25 to 15 than from 17 to 15.

For servicing I like that it is a 4cyl. And while not necessarily a fact a 2.3 4cyl has the potential for larger more robust parts than say a 2.7 6cyl. Bigger rods, bigger pistons, bigger valves, bigger bearings... each hole is displacing more and thus needs more.

 

[Ranger850]

I said this in a different thread but, If your motor is the heart of your car, wouldn't you want a big healthy heart (V6/V8) that doesn't have to work hard to get you going, over a smaller heart with a pacemaker (I4w/turbo) to do the same jobs. Give me the BIG heart please.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I said this in a different thread but, If your motor is the heart of your car, wouldn't you want a big healthy heart (V6/V8) that doesn't have to work hard to get you going, over a smaller heart with a pacemaker (I4w/turbo) to do the same jobs. Give me the BIG heart please.

There is no big heart worth fussing for on the table though.

Looking at what the 3.5EB can do (and has done since 2011) I don't see what would be so taxing about about a 2.3EB in a midsize.

 

[Ranger850]

There is no big heart worth fussing for on the table though.

Looking at what the 3.5EB can do (and has done since 2011) I don't see what would be so taxing about about a 2.3EB in a midsize.

What is so taxing (IMO) is that the little bitty motor has to work harder to make HP in a midsize, than a small v6.

I think Ford has outdone itself with this little turbo 2.3. It apparently is a strong engine and reliable. OK. SO what. Not everybody wants a little bitty motor working twice as hard as a bigger engine with more cylinders. They put the EB2.3 in everything. Talk about cannibalism. Why do they even bother building other motors, if this one can do everything a V8 can do.
270 hp is 270 hp right? wrong. A four cylinder( with turbos) at 270 hp is working harder than a v6 with 270 hp, and that engine works harder that a V8 @ 270 hp. That is just common since.
Now yall hit me with all the knowledge that make that statement wrong

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What is so taxing (IMO) is that the little bitty motor has to work harder to make HP in a midsize, than a small v6.

How do you know they are working harder? Do they sweat more?

I think Ford has outdone itself with this little turbo 2.3. It apparently is a strong engine and reliable. OK. SO what. Not everybody wants a little bitty motor working twice as hard as a bigger engine with more cylinders. They put the EB2.3 in everything. Talk about cannibalism. Why do they even bother building other motors, if this one can do everything a V8 can do.
270 hp is 270 hp right? wrong. A four cylinder( with turbos) at 270 hp is working harder than a v6 with 270 hp, and that engine works harder that a V8 @ 270 hp. That is just common since.
Now yall hit me with all the knowledge that make that statement wrong

Time marches on and all that. Fours have been matching sixes and sixes matching 8's as technology advances for decades. The infamous flathead V8 had less power than my 115hp 2.8 V6.

 

[BlackBII]

These are my favorite threads. Get 'em 85_Ranger4x4

 

[Ranger850]

Yes they do sweat more. Turbos put off more heat than a N/A i4.i.e. intercooler

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

What is so taxing (IMO) is that the little bitty motor has to work harder to make HP in a midsize, than a small v6.

I think Ford has outdone itself with this little turbo 2.3. It apparently is a strong engine and reliable. OK. SO what. Not everybody wants a little bitty motor working twice as hard as a bigger engine with more cylinders. They put the EB2.3 in everything. Talk about cannibalism. Why do they even bother building other motors, if this one can do everything a V8 can do.
270 hp is 270 hp right? wrong. A four cylinder( with turbos) at 270 hp is working harder than a v6 with 270 hp, and that engine works harder that a V8 @ 270 hp. That is just common since.
Now yall hit me with all the knowledge that make that statement wrong

WRONG. The ecoboost engines make their peak numbers at low rpm (2500rpm for my 3.5TT). N/A engines work at a much higher RPM to make their peak numbers.

 

[Ranger850]

WRONG. The ecoboost engines make their peak numbers at low rpm (2500rpm for my 3.5TT). N/A engines work at a much higher RPM to make their peak numbers.

Way to enter the conversation about 4 cylinders with a v6. which , to me, makes my point.
the V6 turbo still doesn't work as hard as a I4 turbo
anybody got the HP#'s for the I4 EB at 2500 rpm?

 

[fastpakr]

WTF? The V6 Eco is used in the F150 as the most powerful engine option and it provides a board flat torque curve from about 2000 RPM on up. He introduced it as a comparison to the N/A V8's that are also offered in the F150. You missed the point completely.

If a normally aspirated 6 were introduced in the Ranger, you'd be looking at much less area under the torque curve. That's the point of the new, smaller DI turbo engines that are taking over the market. With modern turbo design and direct injection paired, we can have the available power required for heavy towing (and at a much larger RPM range), but still get 4 cylinder fuel economy when that power isn't on tap.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yes they do sweat more. Turbos put off more heat than a N/A i4.i.e. intercooler

That isn't really how intercoolers work. When supercharged air is compressed it makes heat, intercoolers cool the intake air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercooler

Way to enter the conversation about 4 cylinders with a v6. which , to me, makes my point.
the V6 turbo still doesn't work as hard as a I4 turbo
anybody got the HP#'s for the I4 EB at 2500 rpm?

And that is the Mustang version which isn't tuned to be in a truck, note torque right off idle and it never really goes away.

 

[Ranger850]

I just like ruffling ya'lls feathers really. I couldn't care less. I personally don't care for the extra maintenance of a turbo. I know they are better today than they were a decade ago. I still don't want one. I know that if they put all this technology into a single engine, they have to promote the Fawk out of it and make it seem like the best thing since Kraft singles, but my 12 year old Corolla gets the same or better mpg than a ecoboost anything. I know, I know, but it does not have 200+ HP. But if you are getting the power band into 200Hp you AINT getting 20+ mpg. and that bitch is getting HOT. I don't care what you say more heat is coming off that turbo motor than a N/A motor.
EDIT: those squiggly lines in a box look cool btw,