Gentlemen, I return to the fold.

[85_Ranger4x4]

The V6 options are basically modern 3.0’s. Look decent on paper but need wound tight to accomplish anything. Really not suited to truck usage.

Bean counters 1 - truck people 0.

If not Ecoboost Coyote me please.

 

[Josh B]

The way they cram engines in vehicles these days is sadistic. Even with a redesign, I’m sure maintenance will not be fun. I’m pretty sure they do that on purpose so owners will bring their vehicles to the dealer instead of doing the work themselves. Not that it makes the work any better for the tech doing the maintenance. They are just getting paid to deal with the misery instead of doing it for free.

Amen Sgt! That has been my believe for a very long time.

I have cussed parts, I have cussed parts stores, I have cussed tools, I have cussed almost everything imaginable when bumping my head and scarring my knuckles while under a hood or a vehicle, but I have cussed nothing more often there than the engineers who designed it

Maybe it is not their primary objective, but I am sure they can't help but snicker sometimes, maybe gloat, possibly even get a bonus

 

[HenryMac]

Oh I know what it is... I said I owned an Ecoboost. I apparently just blew over the part where you said without turbo. My fault. I'm seriously not trying to start an argument here but you still answered my basic question.... if given a choice... you would opt for larger displacement. I also believe the V6 Ecoboost doesn't have a turbo... it has two.

I really ask this because I'm gonna be in the market for a new Bronco in a couple years. If they offer a naturally aspirated V6 option... It will be my choice over anything turbo.

This is our first turbocharged vehicle. I do most of my own maintenance so I like the "Keep It Simple" approach. But as we all know that term no longer applies to any modern production vehicle. Nothing is simple anymore it seems.

I'd be fine with a NA inline 4-banger and a manual transmission. Our '97 Tacoma had that and it was a great set-up with the 5 speed manual transmission. But that too is nearly impossible to find anymore.

If we end up having issues with our Ford Ranger, I'll probably go back to buying Tacoma's.

 

[Josh B]

This is our first turbocharged vehicle. I do most of my own maintenance so I like the "Keep It Simple" approach. But as we all know that term no longer applies to any modern production vehicle. Nothing is simple anymore it seems.

I'd be fine with a NA inline 4-banger and a manual transmission. Our '97 Tacoma had that and it was a great set-up with the 5 speed manual transmission. But that too is nearly impossible to find anymore.

If we end up having issues with our Ford Ranger, I'll probably go back to buying Tacoma's.

Hate to say it but I've seen some sharp little Tacoma's around, reaching 300,000 miles and more. Even tho one I recall talking to was on his second(or maybe 3rd) motor, while I Was still on the 1st. And his was almost entirely highway, where my Ranger had spent the last 10-12 years on dirt roads and river bottoms. They're still some tough little trucks

 

[8thTon]

These little turbo engines are impressive. They're not high rpm screamers at all, they use a small turbo to boost the low end power. This allows them to tune for decent higher end hp without sacrificing the bottom end like you would with a normally aspirated engine - you get the best of both worlds. The little 1.4L turbo in my car pulls like a tractor engine from 2000rpm.

It doesn't what the displacement is or how many cylinders, it's just an air pump and how much air you get through it is all that matters. A turbo will allow you to do that, even better than displacement.

 

[Uncle Gump]

The V6 options are basically modern 3.0’s. Look decent on paper but need wound tight to accomplish anything. Really not suited to truck usage.

Bean counters 1 - truck people 0.

If not Ecoboost Coyote me please.

Our Edge with a 3.5 was like 285 horse... but it was all upstairs. If they could move that number down the RPM scale considerably... I could be totally happy. I'm satisfied with the 4.0L in my 06. It does everything I ask it to do and lives 99% of it's run time below 3000 rpms. While a Coyote would be the deal sealer... I could live with just 300 horse out of NA V6 truck engine.

This is our first turbocharged vehicle. I do most of my own maintenance so I like the "Keep It Simple" approach. But as we all know that term no longer applies to any modern production vehicle. Nothing is simple anymore it seems.

I'd be fine with a NA inline 4-banger and a manual transmission. Our '97 Tacoma had that and it was a great set-up with the 5 speed manual transmission. But that too is nearly impossible to find anymore.

If we end up having issues with our Ford Ranger, I'll probably go back to buying Tacoma's.

I haven't driven a 2019 Ranger... but I think I'm going to because I just need to experience what it's about. To bad they launched it "one way"... sounds like if given a choice you probably wouldn't have chose the powertrain you have. It makes me wonder how much choice your Gen Ranger will get before they launch the next Gen. I know the more I see them around... the more I like them.

These little turbo engines are impressive. They're not high rpm screamers at all, they use a small turbo to boost the low end power. This allows them to tune for decent higher end hp without sacrificing the bottom end like you would with a normally aspirated engine - you get the best of both worlds. The little 1.4L turbo in my car pulls like a tractor engine from 2000rpm.

It doesn't what the displacement is or how many cylinders, it's just an air pump and how much air you get through it is all that matters. A turbo will allow you to do that, even better than displacement.

While I totally agree... they come with some added complexity and serviceability issues. I would rather leave that stuff behind... I'm getting old. I will just have to see what options come along when I'm buying.

 

[8thTon]

While I totally agree... they come with some added complexity and serviceability issues. I would rather leave that stuff behind... I'm getting old. I will just have to see what options come along when I'm buying.

They do, but they also come with fuel economy that larger displacement NA engines cannot match. That matters to me, both because of present fuel costs (still very high), and because I think the present shale oil boom is a bubble that will soon pop.

 

[Uncle Gump]

I'm not sure that the 2.3 ecoboost averages much better mileage then my 14 year old 4.0L.

 

[sgtsandman]

So far, I’ve been getting about 20 mpg since I put the winter tires and cap on. We’ll see how much that changes once the stock tires get put on. It was getting the 22 mpg it was supposed to get before both got put on. My 2011 40L is averaging 18.5. I see 19- 20 regularly on highway trips.

 

[Uncle Gump]

I'm right there also...

 

[Jim Oaks]

Welcome back!

 

[Jim Oaks]

I think the picture above says it all. Why won’t anyone build a modern”small truck”? I mean the new ranger is nice and all, but it is huge! I guess that is why I am forced to rebuild an old one...........

Speaking of smaller trucks:

Return of The Ford Courier?

Since 2018, there has been talk about Ford bringing back the Ford Courier as a smaller pickup under the Ranger. This pickup would be based off of the Ford Fusion. You can find more details and photos in my article at: https://www.blueovaltrucks.com/ford_articles/return-of-the-ford-courier/...

www.therangerstation.com

 

[r1ch999999]

In about 30 minutes I’ll join you. It’s been a long 7 years but I’m glad to be back

 

[heptofite]

Speaking of smaller trucks:

Return of The Ford Courier?

Since 2018, there has been talk about Ford bringing back the Ford Courier as a smaller pickup under the Ranger. This pickup would be based off of the Ford Fusion. You can find more details and photos in my article at: https://www.blueovaltrucks.com/ford_articles/return-of-the-ford-courier/...

www.therangerstation.com

heck my body is ready.