Ford answers your questions

[zukirider21]

if its the same v6 ecoboost as in the SHO, well then that would just be plain retarded! (in a good way)

 

[zukirider21]

365hp/~365tq in a ranger with good mileage to boot. YOU KIDDIN ME!? haha that would be too awesome...

 

[HardcoreKeith]

But the drivetrains have got to go. The 4.0 and 2.3 need to be updated to the Escape's 2.5 and 3.0, and an Ecoboost would help.

I was uninformed about these motors until you mentioned them.
Duratec 25: 171 hp
Duratec 30: 240 hp

As much as I love the Duratec 23, I wish I had that 2.5 in my Ranger

PS: The Duratec 30 is way different than the old Taurus Vulcan 30.

 

[adsm08]

I was uninformed about these motors until you
PS: The Duratec 30 is way different than the old Taurus Vulcan 30.

Yes, and the Duratech never made it into the ranger at the factory. The Ranger has always used the Vulcan model.

 

[HardcoreKeith]

Yes, and the Duratech never made it into the ranger at the factory. The Ranger has always used the Vulcan model.

From my quote it was clear that I was in fact referring to the Escape's 3.0.

 

[WNY964x4]

I was uninformed about these motors until you mentioned them.
Duratec 25: 171 hp
Duratec 30: 240 hp

As much as I love the Duratec 23, I wish I had that 2.5 in my Ranger

PS: The Duratec 30 is way different than the old Taurus Vulcan 30.

the tauras came with both the Vulcan 3.0 ( OHV ) and the Duratec 3.0 ( DOHC ) the two engines have nothing in common , they do not even share the same block , my mom had a 2001 Mercury Sable LS with the Duratec 3.0 , 201 HP , the car is a screamer , don't get me wrong , but it has a high power band. With a truck i want a low power band , that is what makes the 4.0 so great , you get 200 ft#'s right off idle , and peak at 220 ft#'s at 2400 , show me a duratec that does that !

 

[HardcoreKeith]

the tauras came with both the Vulcan 3.0 ( OHV ) and the Duratec 3.0 ( DOHC ) the two engines have nothing in common , they do not even share the same block , my mom had a 2001 Mercury Sable LS with the Duratec 3.0 , 201 HP , the car is a screamer , don't get me wrong , but it has a high power band. With a truck i want a low power band , that is what makes the 4.0 so great , you get 200 ft#'s right off idle , and peak at 220 ft#'s at 2400 , show me a duratec that does that !

Fair enough.

 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I agree with keeping the 4.0 SOHC. It's a great WORK engine. Tons of low-down torque.

However, the 4.0 is a bit (actually a lot) of a gas hog. It's pretty much as bad as the new V8s Ford is putting into the F-150. I actually think it gets worse mileage than the 4.7 V8.

Having the Duratec 3.0 would be a nice option. So it doesn't have as much low RPM torque. Ultimately it has more peak power, and waaay better fuel economy than the 4.0. It would make a nice compromise, IMO.

 

[LearjetMinako]

I would love to see a v-6 ecoboost in the ranger. That will shut you both up! Good power, good economy, everyone is happy.

And they are turbo charged too.

Really to say about the Diesel Ranger. Ford got that answer wrong. Using powertrains that is needed to the customer. Guess again Ford. A diesel powertrain will out power, out pull, and get better MPG than the current powertrain. Most people who buy into the compact truck wanted it for the few times they need it to hual something. And for better MPG than its bigger brothers. But with the F-150 so close to MPG and price of a Ranger, people just give in and buy bigger.

 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

But with the F-150 so close to MPG and price of a Ranger, people just give in and buy bigger.

I disagree with you about the price. New Rangers here in Canada are so heavily discounted that you can pick up a sport 4x4 for about $10 000 less than a base 4x4 F-150.

I do agree with you about the MPGs though. I look at the MPGs in my truck, and the MPGs in the F-150, and I ask myself why I even bothered getting a small truck! I really have no advantage, other than being able to easier park my truck!!

 

[akalogan]

The ranger is dying ford is keeping all their cards close to there chest. they won't even say what the horsepower is on the new 6.2 going into the SD. At best the ranger is going to be a fleet vehicle. This is just my thought, but little by little the ranger is going away.

 

[Hopman]

The ranger is dying ford is keeping all their cards close to there chest. they won't even say what the horsepower is on the new 6.2 going into the SD. At best the ranger is going to be a fleet vehicle. This is just my thought, but little by little the ranger is going away.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(at Ford!)

 

[The Luigiian]

The ranger is dying ford is keeping all their cards close to there chest. they won't even say what the horsepower is on the new 6.2 going into the SD. At best the ranger is going to be a fleet vehicle. This is just my thought, but little by little the ranger is going away.

I think you're right. This is probably what Ford means when they keep referring to the Ranger as a "commuter vehicle." As in, "It's a vehicle that is sold to companies to get its commuters back and forth."

In which case my next truck will be a Tacoma. It'll be hard forcing that one through my family, I guarantee you they will fight me tooth and nail to try to force me to buy an F-150.

Or far, far worse, if I mention I want good mileage they'll direct me to a Fiesta or Focus.

That's what you get when your uncle manages the local union, though.

 

[bcost882]

they already made a pretty much brand new ranger in the UK. how hard would it be to e-mail some plans come on

 

[GoodOld85BlueBalls]

I like the pictures of the reborn bronco. Would love to see that hit production, I had a 68 bronco and would love to have that as a new vehicle.
It would kick the @ss off a Hummer.