Ford Announces The Return of The Ranger in 2019 - TRS's 20TH Anniversary

[ford4thot]

3.5 n/a or boosted?

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

3.5 normally aspirated.
Most likely NOT the same 2.3 as in the Mustang Ecoboost Package.
That 3.2 5 cyl. diesel is a wimp.

I will take the 3.5. It is a big upgrade, performance-wise, from the 3.7.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

And the F-150 is a much higher volume vehicle than anyone should expect the Ranger to be. The percentage of diesel sales on the F-150 is more likely to justify the development and certification costs of a diesel. My guess is the only reason they made that decision was to compete with Ram for the full-size fuel mileage title and not because they needed the extra sales volume.
Toyota does not offer a diesel in the Tacoma and they are the current mid-size class sales leader.
Just about everyone who offers diesel powertrains is facing some sort of legal issue whether it be from the EPA or class action law suits.
I personally have a hard time seeing any advantages of a diesel in this size truck in the North American market and especially not when you have a comparable, if not superior, option with EcoBoost.
Diesel makes perfect sense if you have a constant need to tow or haul heavy loads and do it more than 25,000 miles per year. That's what they make the F-series Super Duty and 6.7L Powerstroke diesels for. Totally different market.

They are probably wanting to compete with the diesel Colorado. I don't see either that or the Ram being much to worry about but Ford should know more than me.

Glad they are going with a 3.5, it is a good engine. I think if they would have offered it 10 years ago in a Ranger they might not have had to bring it back...

 

[blksn8k]

My contacts within the plant are telling me it will carry a 3.5 v6,3.2 5cyl diesel and a 2.3 eco.

Unless the 2.7 EB is offered you can probably count me out. I don't see anything in that lineup to get exited about. My old Sport Trac will do just fine and when the 4.6L gets tired I will probably replace it with the 5.3L shortblock from Ford Performance which is based on a bored and stroked 4.6L iron block. Everything from the 4.6 will bolt on including the 3V heads, intake and exhaust manifolds.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

Nothing wrong with the 2.3 EB. 310 hp @ 5500 rpm, 320 lb. tq @ 3000 rpm.

 

[blksn8k]

I want a truck that can comfortably tow 7000 lbs on occasion but I don't want the size of the current crop of "half" tons including the F-150. My Sport Trac can do that but could use a little more torque, thus the plan to increase the displacement to 5.3L. I don't see a 2.3L EB being able to the same. It might be able to pull that kind of weight but it would be in the turbo most of the time and would suck gas worse than my current V8. No thanks.

The 2.7L EB, on the other hand, will be rated at 400 lb ft @ 2750 RPM in the 2018 F-150. That would be awesome in the new Ranger especially with the 10-speed auto. If Ford can justify using the 2.7 in the Edge and Fusion I see no good reason why it would be taboo in a mid-size 4x4 truck that will probably outweigh either of those vehicles by at least 600 lbs.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Unless the 2.7 EB is offered you can probably count me out. I don't see anything in that lineup to get exited about. My old Sport Trac will do just fine and when the 4.6L gets tired I will probably replace it with the 5.3L shortblock from Ford Performance which is based on a bored and stroked 4.6L iron block. Everything from the 4.6 will bolt on including the 3V heads, intake and exhaust manifolds.

Pullout coyotes should be becoming common and decently priced.

I have mulled that over in case I have problems with my 5.4... so far the powertrain is my truck's strong point though. I am good with it but I think the body will go away before the powertrain does.

 

[don4331]

blksn8k:

You lost me: How is 2.7EB supposed to get better fuel economy than a 2.3EB (assuming everything else is equal)? Both are turbo engines, and a 4 gets better economy than a 6 (6 can make more power as the individual components are lighter, so it can rev higher, but we aren't worried about that here).

I note the 2.3EB in the Mustang and the 2.7EB in the Edge make basically same power; in the Fusion/F-150, they turn the wick up a little.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

blksn8k:

You lost me: How is 2.7EB supposed to get better fuel economy than a 2.3EB (assuming everything else is equal)? Both are turbo engines, and a 4 gets better economy than a 6 (6 can make more power as the individual components are lighter, so it can rev higher, but we aren't worried about that here).

I note the 2.3EB in the Mustang and the 2.7EB in the Edge make basically same power; in the Fusion/F-150, they turn the wick up a little.

The 2.7EB does a pretty passable impression of a truck engine in the F-150. The 2.3 has not yet.

 

[blksn8k]

blksn8k:

You lost me: How is 2.7EB supposed to get better fuel economy than a 2.3EB (assuming everything else is equal)? Both are turbo engines, and a 4 gets better economy than a 6 (6 can make more power as the individual components are lighter, so it can rev higher, but we aren't worried about that here).

I note the 2.3EB in the Mustang and the 2.7EB in the Edge make basically same power; in the Fusion/F-150, they turn the wick up a little.

The 2.3 probably would get better mileage unloaded. However, we are talking trucks here, not Mustangs, and under heavy load the 2.7 should get better fuel mileage because it will not have to work as hard.

The other thing to note here is that Ford would have a huge power advantage with the 2.7 EB over anything the competition currently has to offer. If you want to make a big impression with an all new truck what better way to do it than to outclass the competition? Go big or go home.

 

[blksn8k]

Pullout coyotes should be becoming common and decently priced.

I have mulled that over in case I have problems with my 5.4... so far the powertrain is my truck's strong point though. I am good with it but I think the body will go away before the powertrain does.

I hear you on the Coyote. However, there are other things to consider besides raw power when swapping engines. For example, even though there is ample room in the engine bay of the Sport Trac for a V8 (it already has one) to my knowledge no one has ever made exhaust headers for the factory 4.6L 3V much less a 5.0L Coyote or even the taller and wider 5.4L 3V in this chassis. If I use the 5.3 shortblock assembly from Ford Performance I can still use factory 3V heads and factory exhaust manifolds along with the factory cats which would greatly simplify the swap process and keep it emissions legal. There would also be no issues or extra costs with any electronics or transmission hookups. My 4.6 has decent power but an extra 42 cubic inches should bump the torque output a decent amount all without fooling around with electronics, engine accessory hookups (alternator, power steering pump, AC compressor), exhaust plumbing, etc., etc. What makes this so simple is the fact that the 5.3 is just a punched out 4.6 block but with all forged internals including pistons, rods and crankshaft.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

'tis been done

http://www.stangtv.com/features/car-features/ford-explorer-sport-trac-gets-coyote-5-0-upgrade/

Sport Trac engine bay probably is tighter than my '02 F-150 engine bay though.

 

[don4331]

By definition, both engines would be working equally hard to move same load at same rate. And while the 2.7EB might not be as close to its limits, I doubt it would enjoy a significant fuel economy advantage, if any.

Given 2.3 isn't in a truck yet, I'm willing to give it benefit of doubt. It has the same decently low torque peak.

I doubt Ford would get a free pass on the 2.7EB in the Ranger - the General is probably testing L83s in the Colorado (Given Chevrolet had the LH8 in the previous version, them putting one in current version wouldn't be too surprising. Only our current politicians believe the other guy is completely stupid, so they can pull a fast one and not get caught).

Don't get me wrong, I like power (331 in my Ranger) but 2.7EB in Ranger puts it too close to F-150, IMHO. And Ford doesn't want to lose sales leader in Full size trucks just to build a hot Ranger...

 

[blksn8k]

And Ford doesn't want to lose sales leader in Full size trucks just to build a hot Ranger...

But are they willing to lose the sale of both because buyers like me want a reasonably sized truck with decent power? Ford has already stated that they would rather lose a sale to themselves rather than to their competition when it comes to the new Ranger vs F-150. I guess we'll see just how serious they are.

Here's a quote from a Motor Trend article back in January:

And Ford says it isn't worried about the new Ranger taking away sales from the F-150. "The best thing is when you cannibalize yourself," Bill Ford told Motor Trend's Detroit editor Alisa Priddle at the show. "I'd rather do it than have someone else do it."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/confirmed-ford-ranger-coming-in-2019-bronco-in-2020/ar-BBy50iK

 

[blksn8k]

'tis been done

http://www.stangtv.com/features/car-features/ford-explorer-sport-trac-gets-coyote-5-0-upgrade/

Sport Trac engine bay probably is tighter than my '02 F-150 engine bay though.

I have seen articles on the Shrader truck before. If you notice, they used a manual transmission. I would rather keep my AWD/4WD factory transmission and transfer case. Not sure that would be so easy with a Coyote considering all the electronics hurdles.
One of the other potential problems would be routing the exhaust through the frame rails. The Sport Trac front suspension locates the upper control arms on top of the frame rails which might place them directly under the heads on the Coyote. That apparently was not an issue on the Shrader Adrenaline but the frame width was. I guess Shrader found a way around that one using a BFH.
I have not heard anything about this since those initial articles came out so I assume Shrader Performance has yet to offer a swap kit.