12/27/18 review 4x4 tfl.

[bobbywalter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9n31MZoqQw




this is a well documented run and test for almost everything these guys run.


for off road stuff.


not what i wanted to see but it is what it is.

 

[bobbywalter]

i would like to see these up against the raptor and "big green" on cliffhanger 2.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vna2oVTYzPQ toy/ranger drag race

 

[sgtsandman]

From what I’m seeing, it looks like Ford might be getting it right as far as keeping up with the competition. They talked about testing the Ranger against the Colorado/Canyon, so that will be interesting to see. The Tacoma seems to be the benchmark to meet or beat, so not disappointing so far.

They do some other runs that seem to be more challenging and I would like to see those too.

Time will tell whether Ford has a winner on their hands or not. Especially on the long term reliability and durability. There have been countless vehicles that looked like they were great at first until the warranty ran out then bam! Fell right on their face.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bobbywalter]

i agree....

but the ecoboost for work, now that vvt, di ,and variable displacement on larger engines is coming into play ....we may see the call for smaller turbo engines reaching some of the predictive limits.

this years towing test on the half tons had the dodge and gm v8's spanking the ford in the tow test for economy and handling...and within 5-10 seconds at elevation.

the gm inline diesel six and 4 cylinder turbo 1/2 tons in this same test will be telling for sure.


pcm reported economy was 3.3 for the ford...3.8 for the gm and 4.7 or so for the hemi. that is incredible development in 4 years. not sure if it was accurate, be nice to see physical fuel measurements...and sea level testing.

end of the ecoboost reign in the 1/2 ton? looks like a possibility to me.




so...looking at the 3.5 or 3.3 n/a v6 in direct comparison to the ecoboost 2.3 its really a tough call in stock parameters. unladen the 2.3 is the clear winner.

vehicle to vehicle my neighbors 2.3 easily bested our 3.5 n/a explorer when they both were brand new...less then 500 miles....same year 2017...actually they both just turned 1 year old..

basically same truck just different engines. after about 15k miles they are much closer midrange. the 2.3 does not run away as much as before... quite surprised how much better the n/a 3.5 got. i had zero expectations of improvement.

more surprising...fuel economy is par..19 mpg avg (ecm reported)....which is excellent for the fat bastard explorer 7 seaters.

and i would find very acceptable for a 4wd crew ranger.


of course these tfl tests are done at elevation. here on the deck at milan in michigan those two trucks would likely be tied in a drag race with hole shot dictating the winner.

for guys doing daily 3-5 k trailer pulling work i would say the colorado with diesel would be the clear choice.

i hope to see a gauntlet run between them all towing soon. they did the diesel vs gas gm's earlier and it was very very surprising. the n/a hp of the gas engine won in regards to time vs the baby gm turbo diesel which was unexpected.



at least offer a manual trans option if they insist on the 2.3 ecoboost.

if toyota puts out a cyclone style engine...things will get crazy for sure...especially after jeep enters the market.

2020 is going to be interesting.

 

[sgtsandman]

I would have preferred a V6 myself. The turbo engines seem to be holding up better than they did in the 80s but I pushing an engine harder by force feeding it still doesn’t seem right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I would have preferred a V6 myself. The turbo engines seem to be holding up better than they did in the 80s but I pushing an engine harder by force feeding it still doesn’t seem right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The V6s are working a lot harder than they were in the 80's too.

My 2.8 had best in class horsepower... at a whopping 110hp.

 

[sgtsandman]

The V6s are working a lot harder than they were in the 80's too.



My 2.8 had best in class horsepower... at a whopping 110hp.

Yes and no. They have certainly found a bunch of ways to increase the horsepower output of engines since then, there is no doubt.

What they are being put in has changed in the name of “save the planet” and fuel efficiency. The engines were matched the class of vehicle to the most part.

I don’t remember there being any mid-sized trucks then, so not a complete apples to apples comparison. Maybe the Dakota and I don’t remember a four banger ever being put in one.

Six cylinders aren’t new to a full sized truck. So, the concept isn’t alien. Just not desirable. Of course the trucks were geared to match the engine as well so they weren’t fighting to get out of their own way. Then came the gas crisis and the push for fuel efficiency.

My first Ranger had 3.45:1 in the axle with a 2.5. WHY!?!? It drove so much better and the fuel mileage didn’t change after I put a 4.10:1 in it.

In any case, I think they might be pushing a little to hard just because of the government paper pushers say they have to meet a certain goal because of the religion of environmentalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Finally got a chance to watch the video.

Interesting about the Toyota frame. Without good bodylines for good reference it didn't look that twisted up though.

Ranger did good, a little more slippage but different tires and really nothing is predicable as far as traction goes anyway. They noted the Ranger cockpit was larger so that is a plus for me.

 

[sgtsandman]

Finally got a chance to watch the video.



Interesting about the Toyota frame. Without good bodylines for good reference it didn't look that twisted up though.



Ranger did good, a little more slippage but different tires and really nothing is predicable as far as traction goes anyway. They noted the Ranger cockpit was larger so that is a plus for me.

The tires used makes a world of difference. One of the first things off roaders and overlanders recommend be looked at is tires and axles.

IIRC, Toyota uses Duratracs, which are a pretty good off road tire. The tires the Ranger has isn’t bad but there are better choices.

I think it was a fair test all considered. I’m very interested to see how the Ranger holds up against platforms that are tried and tested as the standard to meet up to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Not duratracs, they are a more generic tire than that on the Taco.

 

[Ranger850]

In that video the Ranger looked stuck @7:50. Before he put it in reverse. I know it wasn't. It just looked like it couldn't go forward anymore.

 

[sgtsandman]

Not duratracs, they are a more generic tire than that on the Taco.

You are correct. Goodyear Wranglers with kevlar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]