2019 Ranger Powertrain

[alwaysFlOoReD]

The problem with that graph is they are comparing fuel saved rather than distance traveled. Look at the graph a different way. Distance traveled by increasing mileage from 12 mpg to 15 mpg is 3 miles VS distance traveled by increasing mileage from 30 mpg to 60 mpg is 30 miles.....an improvement of ten times the distance for the same gallon of gas. The way the author words the question and outcome is directly related to who he works for...Fiat Chrysler, and they would love to not have to do research and development to meet government standards.
This is the type of corporate spin doctoring that we have to watch out for. I'm sure there are shills promoting the graph on social media and most people won't think twice.

 

[stmitch]

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

It's not my math. Everything in that link comes from the US Department of Energy.

The problem with that graph is they are comparing fuel saved rather than distance traveled. Look at the graph a different way. Distance traveled by increasing mileage from 12 mpg to 15 mpg is 3 miles VS distance traveled by increasing mileage from 30 mpg to 60 mpg is 30 miles.....an improvement of ten times the distance for the same gallon of gas. The way the author words the question and outcome is directly related to who he works for...Fiat Chrysler, and they would love to not have to do research and development to meet government standards.
This is the type of corporate spin doctoring that we have to watch out for. I'm sure there are shills promoting the graph on social media and most people won't think twice.

The graph wasn't made by the author. It comes from the US Department of Energy. The author doesn't work for FCA, he follows the company and reports the latest news just like most sports reporters who follow a sports team around aren't actually an employee of the team. It's not propaganda being put out by the car companies, it's a report from the US government.

Obviously, strict fuel economy standards require the car companies to work harder and spend more in order to meet the goals. I'm sure they'd love to get out of some of the regulations (and they might with current leadership). But, what the author is really saying is that the cheap and easy to obtain improvements have already been made. It's going to cost more and more (engineering time, advanced materials, etc) to increase fuel economy and most of that cost will be passed onto consumers via higher prices (which we all complain about regularly). So, the new Ranger is going to have to have better fuel economy to meet regulations, Which is going to ultimately contribute to a higher price.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

^^^ Well, I do have a tight fitting tin-fool hat.....lol.

 

[gw33gp]

What is not being pointed out is that at 12 mpg the cost per year is $3,500 and is dropped to $2,800 at 15 mpg; then at 30 mpg, the cost per year is $1,400 and is dropped to $700 at 60 mpg. Even though both are reduced by $700 the total cost per year is considerably more attractive at the lower mpg.

Of course, you are never going to reach 0 as the gallon usage per year with an internal combustion engine if you drive it 12,000 miles per year. Anytime you approach 0 in the denominator you will get results like is shown in the graph. I think it is more useful to look at it as spending $700 per year on fuel is much better than spending $2800 per year.

Yes, I still get 15 to 18 mpg and am willing to pay for that for what I do with my Ranger. If I could get better mileage without sacrificing the ability of the truck, I would be taking a look at it.

 

[wildbill23c]

If the new ranger does in fact come back with a diesel option, would it be worth looking into for fuel economy? What about reliability of these new diesel engines being electronically controlled as opposed to the old mechanical diesel engines. How often does a person have to add DEF?

I wouldn't mind having one...not a new one right off the line but a used one a year or 2 old. Don't want a first year model, and wouldn't want to take the depreciation hit either LOL. Of course it would have to be a 4WD, and if manual trans is offered I'd want it with a manual.

 

[trader007]

i can still squeeze 19mpg out of my ranger if i really baby it... but since i like driving it like its a badass baja mobile i only get 15 lol

 

[stmitch]

What is not being pointed out is that at 12 mpg the cost per year is $3,500 and is dropped to $2,800 at 15 mpg; then at 30 mpg, the cost per year is $1,400 and is dropped to $700 at 60 mpg. Even though both are reduced by $700 the total cost per year is considerably more attractive at the lower mpg.
I think it is more useful to look at it as spending $700 per year on fuel is much better than spending $2800 per year.

Thanks for clarifying. Without a doubt, spending less on fuel is always better. I'll just add that the implication of that article is that getting to that 60mpg capability will be significantly more difficult and expensive than the increase from 12-15mpg from a technical perspective. The "low hanging fruit" is long gone. So, the car companies will be spending tons of money on development for what amounts to less and less gain. That cost of course will be passed to consumers in the form of increased prices.

If the new ranger does in fact come back with a diesel option, would it be worth looking into for fuel economy? What about reliability of these new diesel engines being electronically controlled as opposed to the old mechanical diesel engines. How often does a person have to add DEF?

I'd expect it to get fuel economy on par with the GM diesels, so lower 20s in the city, and hovering around 30mpg on the highway. If it becomes available it will also probably be priced like the GM twins, making the price north of $35k, and likely closer to $40. Everybody has to do their own math to decide if the increased upfront cost will eventually pay for itself in fuel economy gains/increased resale value, etc.

Generally speaking, modern diesels don't like short trips. The emissions systems get sooty, and they inject extra fuel to burn off the soot in a process called "regeneration". This has a negative effect on fuel economy. A "regen" is usually triggered once temps in the exhaust reach a certain point, and it takes around 30 minutes to complete from there. If the regen can't complete, then it will try again the next time the engine is started, and it will continue until it's complete. So, modern diesels that are driven longer than 30 minutes at a time usually see better fuel economy (and happier customers) than if they just do short trips in town, which will cause frequent regens.

DEF usage varies depending on the type of driving you do, and the vehicle calibration. It's usually not significant, especially if you're paying $40k for the truck.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

If the new ranger does in fact come back with a diesel option, would it be worth looking into for fuel economy? What about reliability of these new diesel engines being electronically controlled as opposed to the old mechanical diesel engines. How often does a person have to add DEF?

I wouldn't mind having one...not a new one right off the line but a used one a year or 2 old. Don't want a first year model, and wouldn't want to take the depreciation hit either LOL. Of course it would have to be a 4WD, and if manual trans is offered I'd want it with a manual.

DEF goes for quite awhile.

For the expense of the diesel option they are not worth it to me.

Generally speaking, modern diesels don't like short trips. The emissions systems get sooty, and they inject extra fuel to burn off the soot in a process called "regeneration". This has a negative effect on fuel economy. A "regen" is usually triggered once temps in the exhaust reach a certain point, and it takes around 30 minutes to complete from there. If the regen can't complete, then it will try again the next time the engine is started, and it will continue until it's complete. So, modern diesels that are driven longer than 30 minutes at a time usually see better fuel economy (and happier customers) than if they just do short trips in town, which will cause frequent regens.

Diesels in general are made to be actually ran and worked. Even our 1967 JD 4020 loader tractor here at work slobbers out the exhaust because it never gets warmed up and worked hard. It just farts around just off idle lifting crap... not at rated RPM under a load like it was designed to.

That was also part of the 6.0's problem. People bought them for a status symbol and never hooked anything up to them. All that putting around would coke up the turbo (sticking the VGT) and blow the headgaskets if they ever actually got on it.

 

[wildbill23c]

That's the trouble, most people who buy diesels never actually use them, they buy them to show off and never do anything more than drive around town with them...here where I live its pretty common to see a big fancy diesel truck that someone just bought to drive to work across town and show off that they have more money than brains.

To me a diesel would be nice for the fuel economy but in my case I don't drive very far very often so it would not get driven much during the week mostly just weekends. I even hate driving my regular gasoline vehicles around town because they never get properly warmed up either.

It would take about 20 years to recoup all that up front cost to buy a diesel. The upfront cost, plus additional maintenance costs because its a diesel just completely outweigh the fuel economy. I can buy a lot of gas for that additional $20k they throw on a diesel vehicle LOL.

 

[priceman142]

A higher-efficiency gasoline engine is the only powertrain that will really improve mileage and save the owner money in the US. I think that was the argument Ford made when they came out with the 2.7 ecoboost in the F150, though they did announce the F150 diesel recently.

Every midsize truck for sale right now in the US has a 4-cylinder gas option, so the Ranger will almost certainly have a smaller gas engine option when it comes out.

The global T6 comes with a 2.5 Duratec engine in some markets, which makes about 167 lb-ft and about 120 HP, but I think that engine would be considered underpowered in the US market, which Is why I think the 2.3 ecoboost will be the 4-cylinder option instead.

 

[don4331]

In other markets the Ranger/Everest have:

2.5 Duratec gas
2.2 Duratorq diesel
3.2 Duratorq diesel
2.0 Ecoboost gas

2.2 Duratorq isn't certified in North America, other 3 are. Loss leader is the 2.5 Duratec- think 2wd supercab, main seller is the 2.0 Ecoboost - 250hp in Ranger is enough, no need for the 2.3; and 3.2 is for those who have to have a diesel.

Question is: Does Ford need a V-6, just for those who want more cylinders. IMHO, the 3.3 Cyclone is too big, and it is the smallest naturally aspirated 6 ford is currently selling

 

[priceman142]

In other markets the Ranger/Everest have:

2.5 Duratec gas
2.2 Duratorq diesel
3.2 Duratorq diesel
2.0 Ecoboost gas

2.2 Duratorq isn't certified in North America, other 3 are. Loss leader is the 2.5 Duratec- think 2wd supercab, main seller is the 2.0 Ecoboost - 250hp in Ranger is enough, no need for the 2.3; and 3.2 is for those who have to have a diesel.

I didn't know that the Everest was available with the 2.0 twin scroll ecoboost. From what I've been able to look up, the 2.0 EB isn't in the ranger anywhere - only the Everest, and it looks like it's been dropped in most (if not all) markets for the 2017 everest.

 

[stmitch]

To me a diesel would be nice for the fuel economy but in my case I don't drive very far very often so it would not get driven much during the week mostly just weekends. I even hate driving my regular gasoline vehicles around town because they never get properly warmed up either.

It would take about 20 years to recoup all that up front cost to buy a diesel. The upfront cost, plus additional maintenance costs because its a diesel just completely outweigh the fuel economy. I can buy a lot of gas for that additional $20k they throw on a diesel vehicle LOL.

If fuel economy on a budget is what you're after, a Duratec 2.3/manual truck can get you 25 City/ 30 hwy and have none of the drawbacks of the diesel. I can find them for under $5k near me pretty easily. Obviously, it's not going to have the torque of the larger turbo diesel but it sounds like you don't really need that.

 

[Ram Man 02]

It seams like there is a bit of misinformation about diesel engines going on.

DEF consumption on modern diesels is minimal. A gallon will average 1-2k miles depending on how your driving. Some bigger gas stations have it at the pump next to the diesel fuel and almost every auto parts store sells it in jugs. Its not that big of a factor.

Electronics are a major roll in all modern vehicles, gas and diesel alike. That improves power and fuel economy across the fleet for every manufacturer along with easier diagnostics should they break down.

That's the trouble, most people who buy diesels never actually use them, they buy them to show off and never do anything more than drive around town with them...here where I live its pretty common to see a big fancy diesel truck that someone just bought to drive to work across town and show off that they have more money than brains.

To me a diesel would be nice for the fuel economy but in my case I don't drive very far very often so it would not get driven much during the week mostly just weekends. I even hate driving my regular gasoline vehicles around town because they never get properly warmed up either.

It would take about 20 years to recoup all that up front cost to buy a diesel. The upfront cost, plus additional maintenance costs because its a diesel just completely outweigh the fuel economy. I can buy a lot of gas for that additional $20k they throw on a diesel vehicle LOL.

-I see plenty of fancy lifted diesel trucks too. While thats not my style what those people do is their business.

-If people are short tripping and not putting many miles on per year, it makes it very hard to justify the extra expense. I too would recommend a gas engine in those driving situations.

-dodge said the break even point on the eco diesel was around 40k miles when compared to the hemi engine since those are the 2 engines with the closest tow ratings. When compared to the v6 gas its would take a while longer but eventually will come out ahead. The average person only keeps a vehicle 6.4 years so that too is going to play into the payback. even at an average 16k/yr thats a bit over 100k so they are coming out ahead.

as STMITCH mentioned a 2wd 2.3l duratec stick will produce good fuel economy! I love my little truck and it consistently get 27-28mpg while driving it 60mph. A similarly equipt diesel ranger would probably only get in the low 30s. that gain in fuel savings might not be justified for everyone but as i mentioned previously theres a reason you are seeing more diesel powered vehicles from Dodge, Ford and GM. they have looked at the extra cost of the engine compared to consumer demand. They know its not going to be the best selling engine in the fleet but people do want diesels and are willing to pay for them.

I really dont understand why theres all the dislike for having several different engine choices in the new trucks to meet everyones needs. This should be a good thing....

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

-dodge said the break even point on the eco diesel was around 40k miles when compared to the hemi engine since those are the 2 engines with the closest tow ratings. When compared to the v6 gas its would take a while longer but eventually will come out ahead. The average person only keeps a vehicle 6.4 years so that too is going to play into the payback. even at an average 16k/yr thats a bit over 100k so they are coming out ahead.

I keep my crap forever. DD has been in my stable for 12 years and counting. Ranger for 17 years this fall.

That is why I like simple. My 5.4 will never, ever eat a turbo. Or need a turbo rebuilt, or resealed. No turbo lube lines to leak. No high or low pressure fuel pumps to screw up. No problematic regen exhaust systems. Cracks right off in subzero temps without being plugged in. Will never gel up. Injectors are cheap on the very odd chance you need them. No EGR cooler to mess up. No pile of expensive coolers on the nose waiting for a deer to wreck.

I know she won't last forever, that is why I want NA V8's to stick around with the big push for turbo diesels and turbo V6's though. Not really shopping for a new Ranger but if I was the same thinking would apply... only NA V6.

I toy with the idea of getting a bigger tractor, same thing. Do I want a $30 carb kit and $45 of spark plugs and points for worst case tuneup or the same thing with a $1500 injection pump, 6x $100 injectors and/or a $1500 turbo that could run thru the engine? And that is with the run forever and ever era of diesel. I bounce back and forth. "man the diesel sure sounds nice" vs "dang it is cold out, sure glad I have a easy starting gasser to blade the driveway"