Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register
for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.
Yeah, probably. But I do like the torque curve of the eco.
I was referring to the torque curve. I'm not sure you can do it with a 4 cyl.You could accomplish the same thing from a turbo 4 too. And be lighter than the ecoboost.![]()
You could accomplish the same thing from a turbo 4 too. And be lighter than the ecoboost.![]()
Yeah, probably. But I do like the torque curve of the eco.
A 2.3 or 2.5 turbo can easily do over 300hp, is much lighter than a v8 or the ecoboost, would likely get better fuel economy than either option, and requires much less work or money to install. It's been done in several rangers, so you wouldn't have to be the guinea pig either.
I'm not saying the ecoboost v6 wouldnt' be a cool swap, just that you can get 90% of the power/ torque, in a less expensive, more proven platform that fits easily into a Ranger. Just depends on what the builder's priorities are.
stmitch
Do you have a link or info in this swap?
A 2.3 or 2.5 turbo can easily do over 300hp,
It won't have the power curve or the durability of the factory V6 setup though.
They get over 20mpg in a 5500lb fullsize, I think 30mpg would be pretty doable in a Ranger.
Possibly. But the ecoboost would be much more work, would cost more money, and would require you to be a guinea pig. For my money, I'd go with the cheaper, easier, more proven option.