2019 Ranger Powertrain

[don4331]

Some of the more recent Ranger spy photos showed what looked like the same Dana M220 rear axle as is used on the Colorado.

The leaked Jeep pickup, aka Scrambler, specs have their version of the M220 rear axle, with 3,750lb GAWR. The RoW Ranger rear axle is rated for 4,080lbs! The point was Ford has options to take max payload.

My emphasis was supposed to be on the 40 versus 63 ft^2 of trailer frontal area if you want to take 'best in class' from the Colorado. That's a lot more drag for a couple hundred pounds of additional weight in bragging rights.

Caveat: 7.7k in Colorado is with Duramax, V6 is only 7k; Ranger could have 7.7k with Ecoboost and have "best-in-class gas + comparable with any engine.

 

[bobbywalter]

Some of the more recent Ranger spy photos showed what looked like the same Dana M220 rear axle as is used on the Colorado.

The brown NAIAS show truck appeared to have the same axle as the current T6 which is not the M220 but I wouldn't put too much stock in that since they did admit that the show truck was pretty much just cobbled together and not representative of an actual production vehicle.

I have seen 3 different axles. the platform mules are testing in diesel and v6 and n/a 4 cyl.


the 2.3 ecoboost is a beast for sure. I drove a diesel Colorado, and I am positive it will never out run a 2.3 ecoboost ranger in an unladen drag race....mpg will be marginal enough as well for the diesel to be a clear winner just for commuting under 100 miles daily...

but I am also positive that a Colorado will absolutely bitch slap a 2.3 when actually towing 5 thousand pounds, especially when towing mpg comes into view. this alone will mandate a diesel if it is discovered there is a 7 k towing market for the ranger...no way to know it till they get em to the users...

the little dashboard deal on the colorado said 24.x mpg.. that's better then what the dashboard dealio reports on the neighbors eco explorer which is what I expect the ranger crew to do...and over 10 mpg better then our v6 explorers dash dealio says with e85....we only have 2k miles on it though...it may get better. that's city mostly...big idle time...winter fuel...hey its winter right?




so I can see the engine options opening up after the market settles out if it looks like ford can unseat the taco....might take a few years....might always be a single engine option... but if it cost as much as the Colorado I drove...I wont buy it for over 40k....fawk that.

the small inline diesel they have in the little trucks I can deal with....the big truck v8 diesels are way too costly all around... if towing is the main objective they are still the best way to go. as long as its always on the road putting on miles.

as to the big current 6.2 gasser fords...when your going back to the 6.0-6.4 diesel era for comparision....you can put a good argument up... but don't compare it to the scorpion 6.7...you may as well be in the ranger.


the 6.2 fords are ok for general use....they suk to tow with though. all the guys I work with that have to tow with them...hate them more then I hate the gasser I have to use. towing around the Tunkhannock area...12-14 k trailers I would rather have my 95 psd any day of the week. down in west Virginia its worse.


I remember the 1st month of diesel sales for the Colorado with gm...Toyota made fun of the sales decline and they actually doubled sales....in January no less....no small feat for the shitiest month of the year..i was laughing reading it then....

but then after a few months Colorado sales basically nearly doubled...you look at the 5 year spread its perplexing. but what they left out is all of the diesel trucks were presold...and there were change over supply issues as well...

at the end of the day, with Toyota leading with no diesel...the ford strategy seems sound for now.

I can see me buying a 2wd crew, and swapping in dana 60's and a transit 3.2 diesel to get what I need and being happy as a pig in sheet...

you bastages can have your ecobooster 4 whizzer

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

the 6.2 fords are ok for general use....they suk to tow with though. all the guys I work with that have to tow with them...hate them more then I hate the gasser I have to use. towing around the Tunkhannock area...12-14 k trailers I would rather have my 95 psd any day of the week. down in west Virginia its worse.

Most farmers don't really go cross country either. Shuttling anhydrous tanks around, hauling hay/livestock to the and from the sale barn, totes full of seed from the seed vender and chasing the combine from field to field with combine heads would catch most of what they do in my area.

And there are guys that get by doing all that with a half ton, not really heavy enough to do all of that safely though. Stuff like anhydrous tanks and combine heads are pretty heavy and being on four wheel running gears have no tongue weight and surge brakes at best (not all even have brakes) Guys with 6.2's seem happy with them.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

I'm thinkin more and more of a 6.2 F250. I have a new F150 with HDPP and max tow but sometimes it isn't enough and I use it as if it is anyway.

 

[blksn8k]

Unless Ford gets their head out of their arse and offers more engine choices I might just keep my Sport Trac. I've been eyeing that 5.3L modular shortblock from Ford Performance. It uses the Boss 5.0 iron block which is based on the 4.6L deck height and uses an Eagle forged 3.75" stroker crankshaft, Eagle forged rods and Mahle forged pistons. Everything from the 4.6 bolts on including the 3V heads, intake and exhaust manifolds. Would be a direct bolt-in and gain 42 cubic inches.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Unless Ford gets their head out of their arse and offers more engine choices I might just keep my Sport Trac. I've been eyeing that 5.3L modular shortblock from Ford Performance. It uses the Boss 5.0 iron block which is based on the 4.6L deck height and uses an Eagle forged 3.75" stroker crankshaft, Eagle forged rods and Mahle forged pistons. Everything from the 4.6 bolts on including the 3V heads, intake and exhaust manifolds. Would be a direct bolt-in and gain 42 cubic inches.

You know a stock 2.3 Ecoboost (in Explorer trim) makes about the same power as your 3V but at a lower RPM right?

A plug and play tuner would make life really really hard for the 3V against the little Ecoboost...

I would be more worried about the IRS than a lack of power for towing with an ST.

 

[Big'Un]

Personally, the 2.3 Eco-boost would be more "badass" than anything anyone here has ever seen in a Ranger factory Or swapped
(as I haven't seen any DOHC supercharged V8's in a Ranger_)

But I'd personally kill to get my hands on a 3.5liter Ecoboost powered Ranger should ford actually build them, PREFERABLY as an AWD sport truck for true lunatics like me!!!

AD

DITTO !!!!! Would LOVE one of these !!!

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

IRS ? ST ? Sorry, not understanding these acromyms.

There will be no Ranger with a 3.5 TT.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

IRS ? ST ? Sorry, not understanding these acromyms.

The second gen Sport Trac that was referenced prior has Independent Rear Suspension.

 

[bobbywalter]

Most farmers don't really go cross country either. Shuttling anhydrous tanks around, hauling hay/livestock to the and from the sale barn, totes full of seed from the seed vender and chasing the combine from field to field with combine heads would catch most of what they do in my area.

And there are guys that get by doing all that with a half ton, not really heavy enough to do all of that safely though. Stuff like anhydrous tanks and combine heads are pretty heavy and being on four wheel running gears have no tongue weight and surge brakes at best (not all even have brakes) Guys with 6.2's seem happy with them.

that is my definition of general use.

 

[blksn8k]

You know a stock 2.3 Ecoboost (in Explorer trim) makes about the same power as your 3V but at a lower RPM right?

A plug and play tuner would make life really really hard for the 3V against the little Ecoboost...

I would be more worried about the IRS than a lack of power for towing with an ST.

I tow a loaded 18 foot Covered Wagon brand enclosed trailer now and then. With Rancho QuickLift coil-over shocks the IRS actually tows that trailer pretty well. The only problem is that on some of the longer grades here in western PA the 4.6 starts to run out of steam. An extra 42 cubic inches wouldn't hurt and it sure as hell won't sound like a freakin' lawn mower.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I tow a loaded 18 foot Covered Wagon brand enclosed trailer now and then. With Rancho QuickLift coil-over shocks the IRS actually tows that trailer pretty well. The only problem is that on some of the longer grades here in western PA the 4.6 starts to run out of steam. An extra 42 cubic inches wouldn't hurt and it sure as hell won't sound like a freakin' lawn mower.

My parents had an Explorer with the same suspension... it wasn't much to write home about.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

I tow a loaded 18 foot Covered Wagon brand enclosed trailer now and then. With Rancho QuickLift coil-over shocks the IRS actually tows that trailer pretty well. The only problem is that on some of the longer grades here in western PA the 4.6 starts to run out of steam. An extra 42 cubic inches wouldn't hurt and it sure as hell won't sound like a freakin' lawn mower.

Then get a SuperDuty.

 

[blksn8k]

Then get a SuperDuty.

Don't tow that weight often enough to justify the cost of an SD. The Sport Trac handles it just fine. The trailer brakes can stop the truck by themselves from 60 mph. Believe me, I've done it just to prove it can.

 

[blksn8k]

Here's a crazy thought. Since there seems to be some issue with using V-type engines in the T6 (it has never had one during it's entire lifespan dating all the way back to 2011) why not design a small 4-valve DOHC inline gas six of somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 liters for use in the Ranger and Bronco? It would need to have small pistons and bore spacing so it will fit longitudinally in the T6 engine bay. Give it a longer stroke if you need more displacement. Make it in both NA and EcoBoost versions with the EB being reserved for the higher trim levels and Raptor. An inline six is a more naturally balanced design than an line four or five cylinder and produces good torque at lower rpm's which is perfect for truck use (and it wouldn't step on big brother F-150's toes).