2019 Ranger Powertrain

[Pt_Ranger_V8]

Shit... I might have to buy a new vehicle.

 

[priceman142]

The 3 liter v6 diesel for the F-150 is at least partially based on a land rover design, or it was developed with them, and that engine is actually made in Britain. I was surprised to see a timing belt on it at the auto show.

I don't think It'd fit in the ranger. I honestly don't know if there will be a diesel ranger - the inline 5 diesel from the US transit could fit, but I don't think that engine will meet future emissions requirements. They could do a ford 4-cylinder diesel that's common in Europe, but I don't know if they'd bother getting it approved for the US market for only one vehicle.

I think the 2.3 ecoboost will be the only engine in the ranger for a while, at least until a mid cycle refresh.

Maybe there will be a bigger gas engine later on, who knows.

I think the engine choices were made for fuel economy, the ranger has to get better gas mileage than the F-150.

 

[Jim Oaks]

Shit... I might have to buy a new vehicle.

Well shit, look who joined the party!

 

[bobbywalter]

The 3 liter v6 diesel for the F-150 is at least partially based on a land rover design, or it was developed with them, and that engine is actually made in Britain. I was surprised to see a timing belt on it at the auto show.

I don't think It'd fit in the ranger. I honestly don't know if there will be a diesel ranger - the inline 5 diesel from the US transit could fit, but I don't think that engine will meet future emissions requirements. They could do a ford 4-cylinder diesel that's common in Europe, but I don't know if they'd bother getting it approved for the US market for only one vehicle.

I think the 2.3 ecoboost will be the only engine in the ranger for a while, at least until a mid cycle refresh.

Maybe there will be a bigger gas engine later on, who knows.

I think the engine choices were made for fuel economy, the ranger has to get better gas mileage than the F-150.

it will fit. they all will fit.


like the expedition, the ranger will for some time keep one engine. if it proves out ideal it may stay that way. it makes sense and really simplifies and reduces production costs.

but a diesel....3-4-5 cylinder I see as needed. the frontier and Colorado will dictate that...people quit buying those and maybe there wont be a need for a ranger diesel.

hard to say.....they have to start selling rangers first. might not sell any.

 

[2000sport]

the 2.3L puts out 280 hp and 310 torque in the exporer, if they're close to that. In '05 for comparison, the 5.4L put out 300hp and 365 torque in the f-150. Another comparison, 3.3L in the 2018 F-150 puts out 290 hp and 265 t. I don't really see a need for another engine at this point for an average buyer. Most won't pull anything, and nearing 300 horse with a 10 speed and 300 ft/lb of torque, it would pull anything I would want to pull behind the midsize safely. If they did bring in the 2wd regular cab version, maybe add something around a 1.5l ecoboost and shoot for the moon in mpg's

 

[bobbywalter]

wont know till its out for a bit.

the 2.3 has a really good torque curve. astonishingly good. it really is a superb piece. very tunable to get even more power...

initially that is.


we just recently turned in our ecoboost edge. it was a 2.0. awesome vehicle all around...but at 60 k it was really showing some premature age, had some tune issues and after just 10-12 k miles is a buzzy pos at idle.

its the nature of a four cylinder.

but they are needed for the power and economy goals of every manufacturer...almost everything has a 2.0 turbo somewhere...Cadillac to buick to Lincoln....they tend to do well and are on 2nd and 3rd owners since being introduced...but they do have issues. major miles before repairs is not a rule for any of the turbo anything from what I have seen if it is not a diesel.. like I would never expect to have a costly not easy to fix at the house issue with a Windsor or cologne or Vulcan for a minimum of 250 k miles. not seeing that as the case with these things.

our new explorer is the big n/a 6 cyl.....its averaging 13.x now on e85 on the little computer deal. I imagine on premium 93-94 octane it would be 16 plus...
the neighbor across the street has the 2.3 eco....same exact explorer..little different drive cycle but avg 20.x on its little computer deal...

running them to 60 side by side they are closer then I would have thought...and the 6 has an advantage no where. these things are heavy awd beasts. but the 2.3 spanks the big 6. and both are set up to tow.


I suspect where the 6 will have the advantage is longevity, of course that remains to be proven and just a guess. and the 6 is much much smoother.


that is the roll of the dice ford is doing with the 2.3. but it does not seem overly risky.

my daughter hated her mustang with the 2.3...but she was used to a v8 audi and they had a gtr before the stang... the mustang did have running issues and was in the dealer several times. so there was some frustration there as well. they settled up on a fusion and a edge at this time..


we have had several ecoboosts at our house...and I liked them all.

time will tell for the ranger.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

the 2.3L puts out 280 hp and 310 torque in the exporer, if they're close to that. In '05 for comparison, the 5.4L put out 300hp and 365 torque in the f-150. Another comparison, 3.3L in the 2018 F-150 puts out 290 hp and 265 t. I don't really see a need for another engine at this point for an average buyer. Most won't pull anything, and nearing 300 horse with a 10 speed and 300 ft/lb of torque, it would pull anything I would want to pull behind the midsize safely. If they did bring in the 2wd regular cab version, maybe add something around a 1.5l ecoboost and shoot for the moon in mpg's

IIRC Colorado has surpassed the tow rating of my '02 5.4 F-150 and the Tacoma is pretty close... might be interesting.

I figured my scab shortbox would tow better as a truck (I know he has way more power than I do) than my brothers 2014 F-150 std cab shortbox 3.5 Ecoboost since mine is longer and thus it should be more stable with a cast iron block V8 hanging farther out there for counterweight... nope, his still rides nicer even with a tractor on a trailer. They are getting good at cheating past the traditional norms.

I do wish they could get the powerband and mileage of the 2.3EB out of a NA engine though...

 

[blksn8k]

Since none of us has seen power figures for the 2019 2.3 Ranger engine I will hold judgement until those numbers are out and I have had a chance to test drive one equipped similar to what I would buy. I will also wait to see some reviews and what kind of fuel mileage numbers it gets while towing the max it is rated for. I doubt all that will be available until at least a year from now.

Then I will probably start looking for a leftover 2018 F-150 Screw 4x4 with a 5.0L.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Since none of us has seen power figures for the 2019 2.3 Ranger engine I will hold judgement until those numbers are out and I have had a chance to test drive one equipped similar to what I would buy. I will also wait to see some reviews and what kind of fuel mileage numbers it gets while towing the max it is rated for. I doubt all that will be available until at least a year from now.

Then I will probably start looking for a leftover 2018 F-150 Screw 4x4 with a 5.0L.

EB or otherwise I think towing MPG still sucks across the board.

 

[2000sport]

Then I will probably start looking for a leftover 2018 F-150 Screw 4x4 with a 5.0L.

Problem that I'm fearing, the mpg's won't be much better, and to get the options I want, I could get a 2 or 3 year old low mileage loaded up F-150 cheaper.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Problem that I'm fearing, the mpg's won't be much better, and to get the options I want, I could get a 2 or 3 year old low mileage loaded up F-150 cheaper.

That is what I did 12 years ago. Hard to spend the same $$ on a smaller truck, with less power and less seating that gets the same mileage. It is going to be hard to buck that although at least in my area though 2-3 yo F-150's don't depreciate like they used to until they get up there one miles.

Typical midsizes right now run about $10k cheaper than a comparable F-150, if Ford wants to get into the game they will have to be close to that.

 

[don4331]

I will also wait to see some reviews and what kind of fuel mileage numbers it gets while towing the max it is rated for.

Then I will probably start looking for a leftover 2018 F-150 Screw 4x4 with a 5.0L.

You should be looking for a leftover 2018 F-150 SCrew 4x4 with the 3.0 diesel if you want reasonable numbers towing at midsize max. Or a Colorado Crew 4x4 with Duramax.

The Duramax will probably get 50% better mileage when towing; the right tool for the job.

Given >90% of my mileage is without trailer, I'll take the hit when I put the the camper on & hook up the boat.

Hard to spend the same $$ on a smaller truck, with less power and less seating that gets the same mileage.

The ability to find parking with Ranger is worth almost costing the same - specifically my 18' deep garage that an F-150 will never snuggle into - heck, the F-150 would struggle to fit through the 7' door even with mirrors folded in.

'Course I am one of the weird ones which would have bought Ranger in original size...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

'Course I am one of the weird ones which would have bought Ranger in original size...

My Ranger of original size (as in the same body as 1983 original ) has a permanent claim to my single car garage so that is kind of a non issue. It would be nice to have top option to boot it to the barn and be able to pull the dd in the garage for repairs though.

 

[blksn8k]

You should be looking for a leftover 2018 F-150 SCrew 4x4 with the 3.0 diesel if you want reasonable numbers towing at midsize max. Or a Colorado Crew 4x4 with Duramax.

The Duramax will probably get 50% better mileage when towing; the right tool for the job.

Given >90% of my mileage is without trailer, I'll take the hit when I put the the camper on & hook up the boat.

Not interested in the added initial cost, maintenance costs, fuel costs and general inconvenience of a diesel. I don't tow on a regular basis either but I still want a reasonably sized truck that can handle 7000 lbs when I need it to without all those issues.
IMO the 2.7L EB would have been perfect in the Ranger. They have already said they modified the frame to accept drivetrains for this market.
They could have gone one step further and hit a real home run with the Ranger but so far it sure looks like they have chosen not to. They already use the 2.7 in several much lighter vehicles than the Ranger. It's not considered overkill in those vehicles.
The only logical explanation for why Ford has chosen not to offer that engine in the Ranger is to protect F-150 sales. If you're not comfortable with the idea of a 2.3L EB in a 4x4 crewcab occasionally towing at it's max rating in mountainous terrain then you can either buy a truck that is bigger than you need 90% of the time or you can shop elsewhere.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

If you're not comfortable with the idea of a 2.3L EB in a 4x4 crewcab occasionally towing at it's max rating in mountainous terrain then you can either buy a truck that is bigger than you need 90% of the time or you can shop elsewhere.

Who else makes a midsize that would top the 2.3?

265hp Taco? 300hp Colorado? Both are high revving engines to boot.

The 2.3 fits the market well right now, it should own the two biggest competitors for power. Dunno how the Colorado diesel compares but I agree, I am not interested in the expense and headache of a modern diesel.

7k in the mountains... I would make do with a 3.5EB and probably wishing for a '250 diesel. That crap doesn't play fair, especially if it is shaped like a camper or a vehicle on a trailer.