2019 Ranger Powertrain

[priceman142]

Greetings, Ranger Station!

I joined TRS b/c it seems to be the only Ford forum with a section specifically for the new Ranger. I've been looking forward to the new Ranger for a while now, and I thought I'd share what I've found by researching the global Ranger - specifically, the powertrain, since that's still a big unknown, at this point.

Here are my best guesses based on what I've found so far:

Short version:

- 2.3 Ecoboost
- Maybe a 4 or 5 cylinder diesel.
- Six Speed Auto trans on lower trims, 10 speed on higher trims.

Long Version:

ENGINE:

My guess for the ranger is that the primary engine (for launch) will be the 2.3 ecoboost. That engine is currently available as an option for the Explorer, which weighs about 4500 pounds or more, whereas the T6 global Ranger weighs around 4100 to 4400 pounds, based on what I've found so far.

Diesel?

Currently, the only engine in the global Ranger that's also available in the US is the 3.2 diesel, but I've read that that engine may not meet future US emissions. Ford introduced a new series of "EcoBlue" 4 cylinder diesels in Europe which meet tougher standards.

The press release I found lists 251 lbs-ft and 197 horsepower for the 2.0 liter, which seems low compared to the Colorado Diesel's 181 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque, but that is a 2.8 liter.

Other Engines?

A V8 or most Ford V6s seem unlikely. I personally don't think a naturally-aspirated V6 or V8 will be an option, not only b/c of fuel economy, but also b/c they may not be able to fit those engines in the new Ranger, since the global ranger was only designed for inline 4 and 6 cylinder engines. Since the profit margins for midsize trucks are lower than full size, Ford will probably want to keep R&D costs low and avoid as much redesigning as possible.

The 3.5 ecoboost would probably be overkill for a Ranger, even if it fit. The 2.7 ecoboost is smaller, but there's still the question of if it'd fit in a space designed for an inline engine.


TRANSMISSIONS:

The lower ranger trims will probably get a six speed auto. Ford recently made the auto trans available for the 2.2 4-cyl diesel in the global Ranger.

The new ten speed could find its way into the upper trim levels of the Ranger, as Ford is adding the ten speed to every engine for the 2018 F-150, except the base V6, which keeps the 6 speed.

The Colorado is getting an 8-speed, and it would make sense for Ford to make sure that the new Ranger's fuel economy is on par with the competition, and more than the aluminum F-150's.

So those are my thoughts. What are yours?

(sorry if this post was a little too long, that's why I added the summary at the top)

 

[wildbill23c]

6 cylinder gas engine and manual transmission for the higher end trucks should be an option, and the base model 4 cylinder with manual transmission. With all the nonsense emissions crap for diesels now, and the DEF crap forget about diesel period the economy and reliability isn't there with them anymore.

6 or 10 speed auto should be an option keeping the manual transmission as the standard like they used to be. But make all engine/transmission combinations available regardless what trim level.

I don't mind an automatic transmission but I still enjoy driving a manual. So having both be an easy option in all trim levels would definitely keep my interest.

The biggest problem is price...with current "mid-size" trucks on the market you can get a 1/2 ton or even a 3/4 ton for the same price so unless Ford keeps the cost considerably lower than a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton truck they may as well just scrap the new Ranger plans right now as if I'm going to pay $40k+ for a Ranger I'm going to buy a 3/4 ton truck instead.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The biggest problem is price...with current "mid-size" trucks on the market you can get a 1/2 ton or even a 3/4 ton for the same price so unless Ford keeps the cost considerably lower than a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton truck they may as well just scrap the new Ranger plans right now as if I'm going to pay $40k+ for a Ranger I'm going to buy a 3/4 ton truck instead.

That is a very good point.

Kinda sad to hear the T6 is made mainly for inlines, can't hardly wait for the "will a 300 fit?" threads.

 

[bobbywalter]

 

[adsm08]

That is a very good point.

Kinda sad to hear the T6 is made mainly for inlines, can't hardly wait for the "will a 300 fit?" threads.

Sure it will fit, but power and fuel economy wise it will likely suck compared to the engines that come in it from the factory.

America is the only area where in-line engines aren't common, if not the standard. BMW has a lot of I5 and 6 engines, Ford is still using the 250 I6 from the early Mustangs in Australia until recently (You can use those manifolds to convert the old I6 Mustangs to EFI).

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Sure it will fit, but power and fuel economy wise it will likely suck compared to the engines that come in it from the factory.

America is the only area where in-line engines aren't common, if not the standard. BMW has a lot of I5 and 6 engines, Ford is still using the 250 I6 from the early Mustangs in Australia until recently (You can use those manifolds to convert the old I6 Mustangs to EFI).

I know, it is already a semi common question (and kind of an annoying one) with a vehicle that won't take an inline well. And usually it seems the crappiest 300 they can find is picked.

The "I have a 1995 Ranger with a 4.0, will a 1982 300 I can get for free bolt in?" type scenarios.

 

[Ram Man 02]

I too am waiting to see what drivetrain options there will be. Im hoping they offer a manual and/or diesel options but i dont see the manual being offered in anything but lower trim levels. I do see a diesel option being offered across the line up, most likely with an automatic only because of CAFE needs.

GM brought back the cruise diesel, has the colorado diesel, and they are offering a diesel equinox for 2018. Ram has the 1500 diesel. And the F150 is slated to get a diesel for 2018 as well. Mazda is supposed to be bringing a diesel 6 sedan to north america so these companies must see the need or want for diesel in the states.

People continue to buy trucks and SUVs which forces manufactures to find ways to increase economy. Even with all the expensive after treatments on diesel engines they still typically see 20% better economy.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

A supposed Ford engineer leaked that there would be no manual transmission.

The cost to buy a diesel and then the continual upkeep is a major turn off for me. Ecodiesel is $4200 over the base V6 in a Ram 1500, $3000 over a Hemi. Colorado 2.8 Duramax is a $4000 option over the base V6. Chevy says it bumps mpg from 17/24 to 20/28... it would take a lot of time to recoup that extra expense.

 

[adsm08]

I think that people who are worried about MPG due to fuel costs seem to universally overlook the fact that month to month fuel should be the smallest portion of the cost of vehicle ownership, and going from 18MPG to 30 MPG only saves a little bit of money.

 

[priceman142]

I think if Ford does decide to include a diesel option, it will mostly be to try and have the title of "Most fuel-efficient pickup."

I think that's pretty much the reason for all of the half-ton or midsize diesel pickups these days.

 

[stmitch]

Fuel economy gains reach diminishing returns at some point, but most trucks get poor enough fuel economy that even a small improvement can make a noticeable impact on finances. For example, going from 13mpg to 15 mpg can have the same impact financially as going from 30mpg to 60mpg: http://www.autonews.com/article/201...fuel-economy-faces-law-of-diminishing-returns

 

[pjtoledo]

CAFE, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, is still in effect. if manufactures miss the standard there are big fines to pay.

 

[Ram Man 02]

^^ that was my point about the diesel. look at all the smaller displacement turbo gas engines from all manufactures. theyre doing it because they have to, not because its the cheapest option.

I remember hearing that ram ecodiesel sales were 20% of 1500 production. not a huge number compared to the hemi but still enough demand to justify the engine to the bean counters when weighing against mandated fuel economy standards.

My point was that i wouldnt be surprised to see a diesel option in the new ranger and the best part is we live in America, If you dont want the diesel engine you can choose one of the gassers.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

^^ that was my point about the diesel. look at all the smaller displacement turbo gas engines from all manufactures. theyre doing it because they have to, not because its the cheapest option.

And after they hype the crap out of them they can upcharge for them to boot. It is a win-win for the automakers.

As someone who wouldn't mind a newer 5.0 F-150, you have to swim thru a sea of Ecoboosts to find one.

 

[gw33gp]

Fuel economy gains reach diminishing returns at some point, but most trucks get poor enough fuel economy that even a small improvement can make a noticeable impact on finances. For example, going from 13mpg to 15 mpg can have the same impact financially as going from 30mpg to 60mpg: http://www.autonews.com/article/201...fuel-economy-faces-law-of-diminishing-returns

I understand what you are saying but your math is very exaggerated.