I want a diesel !!!!!!

[98v70dad]

I've been patiently waiting for Ford to bring back the Ranger (I have a 96) - hopefully with a diesel engine. I don't care how nice the new Ranger is, if it doesn't come with a diesel option I'm not a buyer. Also, in the near future if a diesel only comes packaged 10,000 dollars worth of "coolness" I'm not a buyer. The Colorado diesel is exactly what I want but its horrible reliability is what has stopped me from buying it. I've never owned a reliable GM product and I've owned a few.

I need a basic, simple SMALLER work type truck with good gas mileage and plenty of grunt. As a design engineer with 40 years of experience I've learned that simple is best. Twin turbos on an otherwise too small engine violates the keep it simple rule. Check out the price of the replacement turbo part (no labor).

Ford if you're out there please take note. I'm only one opinion but I've put off buying a new truck for 10 years - waiting. I want a Ford but will buy a Chevy or a Nissan (still waiting there also) if I have to wait much longer.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

You want simple, have you not done any looking at a modern diesel engine lately?

 

[98v70dad]

You want simple, have you not done any looking at a modern diesel engine lately?

Aware of that my friend. It's unfortunate.

 

[stmitch]

Diesel pays my bills. I have a better than average understanding of how a modern diesel work, and what they struggle with. I can say with confidence that the truck you want is not a modern truck. Modern diesels are expensive to make, so they cost a bunch more. They're more expensive to maintain too. They're significantly more complex than diesels from a decade ago, and they make the 12 valve Cummins and 7.3 Internationals look like stone age relics. Most people don't understand that a modern diesel needs to be worked regularly. These people that complain about frequent issues are the ones that use their trucks as grocery getters. If you're not going to be working your truck hard, then you're far more likely to see issues.

When it comes to fuel economy and power, the gap between diesel and gasoline has narrowed a ton. Frequent regens will kill the economy of a diesel, and turbocharging has allowed gasoline engines to have very impressive torque curves. The grunt that you want is available in a turbocharged gasoline engine, that will no doubt cost you far less money, and the best part is that Ford will sell you one of those.

If you want a basic diesel in a basic truck, Cummins will sell you a 2.8L crate engine that you can swap into the older Ranger of your choice assuming you don't have emissions testing where you live.

 

[98v70dad]

Diesel pays my bills. I have a better than average understanding of how a modern diesel work, and what they struggle with. I can say with confidence that the truck you want is not a modern truck. Modern diesels are expensive to make, so they cost a bunch more. They're more expensive to maintain too. They're significantly more complex than diesels from a decade ago, and they make the 12 valve Cummins and 7.3 Internationals look like stone age relics. Most people don't understand that a modern diesel needs to be worked regularly. These people that complain about frequent issues are the ones that use their trucks as grocery getters. If you're not going to be working your truck hard, then you're far more likely to see issues.

When it comes to fuel economy and power, the gap between diesel and gasoline has narrowed a ton. Frequent regens will kill the economy of a diesel, and turbocharging has allowed gasoline engines to have very impressive torque curves. The grunt that you want is available in a turbocharged gasoline engine, that will no doubt cost you far less money, and the best part is that Ford will sell you one of those.

If you want a basic diesel in a basic truck, Cummins will sell you a 2.8L crate engine that you can swap into the older Ranger of your choice assuming you don't have emissions testing where you live.

Thanks, I'm aware of the facts. I do run my truck regularly - I drive about 100 miles each day. I'm aware that a diesel requires a lot of attention. My experience with turbos is that they create a large number of reliability and maintenance issues - I really don't want one much less two of them. An engine swap would be nice but I DO live in an area with emissions testing so that limits my options..

 

[rusty ol ranger]

If youre that dead set on a simple diesel, you might as well forget anything built since 07. Id go find an old IDI or 12valve cummins, yes, its a fullsize, but those are about as simple as simple can be.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Thanks, I'm aware of the facts. I do run my truck regularly - I drive about 100 miles each day. I'm aware that a diesel requires a lot of attention. My experience with turbos is that they create a large number of reliability and maintenance issues - I really don't want one much less two of them. An engine swap would be nice but I DO live in an area with emissions testing so that limits my options..

The 2.3EB has a twin scroll single turbo, not twin turbos. (sorry, my camera battery was starting to get weak, when it does that it doesn't focus the best)



Not sure what your rules are but for what you want it would almost be better to try to go old enough on the vehicle to dodge them and build what you want. Or just get an older fullsize diesel.

I don't think you have been able to get the truck you want new for almost 20 years. That ship sailed a long time ago

 

[2000sport]

I've been patiently waiting for Ford to bring back the Ranger (I have a 96) - hopefully with a diesel engine. I don't care how nice the new Ranger is, if it doesn't come with a diesel option I'm not a buyer. Also, in the near future if a diesel only comes packaged 10,000 dollars worth of "coolness" I'm not a buyer. The Colorado diesel is exactly what I want but its horrible reliability is what has stopped me from buying it. I've never owned a reliable GM product and I've owned a few.

I need a basic, simple SMALLER work type truck with good gas mileage and plenty of grunt. As a design engineer with 40 years of experience I've learned that simple is best. Twin turbos on an otherwise too small engine violates the keep it simple rule. Check out the price of the replacement turbo part (no labor).

Ford if you're out there please take note. I'm only one opinion but I've put off buying a new truck for 10 years - waiting. I want a Ford but will buy a Chevy or a Nissan (still waiting there also) if I have to wait much longer.

Have had a shed full of turbo's engines around the farm for over 40 years. Never once had to replace a turbo on anything. Most have gone up to 10,000 hours when they were traded in.

 

[don4331]

So, is the twin turbo technology which Ford is talking for the 2.0:

Small turbo for low speed, shifting to larger turbo for higher rpms?
Or large turbo feeding into small turbo for insane boost levels?

105hp/liter from diesel is pretty incredible number!

RAM 3.0 diesel gets no better fuel economy under CAFE testing than 2.7 EB. Emissions, etc has destroyed the diesel advantage.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

I've been patiently waiting for Ford to bring back the Ranger (I have a 96) - hopefully with a diesel engine. I don't care how nice the new Ranger is, if it doesn't come with a diesel option I'm not a buyer. Also, in the near future if a diesel only comes packaged 10,000 dollars worth of "coolness" I'm not a buyer. The Colorado diesel is exactly what I want but its horrible reliability is what has stopped me from buying it. I've never owned a reliable GM product and I've owned a few.

I need a basic, simple SMALLER work type truck with good gas mileage and plenty of grunt. As a design engineer with 40 years of experience I've learned that simple is best. Twin turbos on an otherwise too small engine violates the keep it simple rule. Check out the price of the replacement turbo part (no labor).

Ford if you're out there please take note. I'm only one opinion but I've put off buying a new truck for 10 years - waiting. I want a Ford but will buy a Chevy or a Nissan (still waiting there also) if I have to wait much longer.

Seriously ? It's 2018. There are no known turbo failures with any of the EcoBoost engines. The new Ranger is not designed as a "work truck". It is a kid hauler and a grocery getter that will probably do good as a mediocre off-roader. The 2.3 Ecoboost has ~280 HP and ~310 lb-ft of torque. Why do you think you need a weaker diesel ?

BTW, Engineering and science have come a long way in 40 years.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Seriously ? It's 2018. There are no known turbo failures with any of the EcoBoost engines. The new Ranger is not designed as a "work truck". It is a kid hauler and a grocery getter that will probably do good as a mediocre off-roader. The 2.3 Ecoboost has ~280 HP and ~310 lb-ft of torque. Why do you think you need a weaker diesel ?

BTW, Engineering and science have come a long way in 40 years.

Because, theres still a good many of us that have fallen through the cracks because johnnys mom needs a truck to get through the 2 inches of snow to make it to starbucks before work.

I for one would rather have a truck with a 2bbl carb and a 4speed manual. Why? Because simplicity is a thing. Everyone nowadays thinks you need 250-300hp in order to move the same loads, drive the same roads, and climb the same hills that were handled just fine 20 years ago by paltry little 88hp 2.3 limas.

Tech is great, untill it fails. Which it will fail. Everything does.

 

[98v70dad]

Because, theres still a good many of us that have fallen through the cracks because johnnys mom needs a truck to get through the 2 inches of snow to make it to starbucks before work.

I for one would rather have a truck with a 2bbl carb and a 4speed manual. Why? Because simplicity is a thing. Everyone nowadays thinks you need 250-300hp in order to move the same loads, drive the same roads, and climb the same hills that were handled just fine 20 years ago by paltry little 88hp 2.3 limas.

Tech is great, untill it fails. Which it will fail. Everything does.

The new engines are awesome. But when they have a problem they are extremely expensive to fix. I agree with this guy - simplicity beats complex every time in reliability and cost. The reason engines have become so complex is that they have to be to meet emissions stds and still have good gas mileage. Anyhow, I want what I want. I would rather have a complicated diesel than a complicated gas engine. It's been dangled in front of us for 5 years - they're all over Europe and the rest of the world.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

Because, theres still a good many of us that have fallen through the cracks because johnnys mom needs a truck to get through the 2 inches of snow to make it to starbucks before work.

I for one would rather have a truck with a 2bbl carb and a 4speed manual. Why? Because simplicity is a thing. Everyone nowadays thinks you need 250-300hp in order to move the same loads, drive the same roads, and climb the same hills that were handled just fine 20 years ago by paltry little 88hp 2.3 limas.

Tech is great, untill it fails. Which it will fail. Everything does.

I do not understand your point.
We all need to drive thru whatever weather to get to work. Why does it matter if we stop and get coffee ? Do you have issues with Moms ? Starbucks ?
We are not going back to carburetors and manual transmissions.
What the heck ?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I do not understand your point.
We all need to drive thru whatever weather to get to work. Why does it matter if we stop and get coffee ? Do you have issues with Moms ? Starbucks ?
We are not going back to carburetors and manual transmissions.
What the heck ?

You obviously dont understand metaphors either.

What i was saying is that trucks are now catered to the people who really should be driving a sedan or minivan. They want a smooth ride and carlike handling, automatic/electronic this and that, etc. All this stuff are things most traditional truck buyers would rather just do without.

I also understand carbs and manuals are gone, doesnt mean i have to be happy about it.

I want a truck that is more at home slogging down a muddy farm path then driving a surburban street. That doesnt jive with johnnys mom.

The new engines are awesome. But when they have a problem they are extremely expensive to fix. I agree with this guy - simplicity beats complex every time in reliability and cost. The reason engines have become so complex is that they have to be to meet emissions stds and still have good gas mileage. Anyhow, I want what I want. I would rather have a complicated diesel than a complicated gas engine. It's been dangled in front of us for 5 years - they're all over Europe and the rest of the world.

I have no interest in complicated anything. Like i said, everything is going to break at some point. Ive found the more simple something is, the more durable, and way eaiser/cheaper to fix.

This is why my newest truck turns 21 this year. I dont care if i get passed by some jackass in his 6.7L PSD pulling 2 excavators while my 460 is sucking enough fuel to feed the saudis for a year yanking my 32 ft travel trailer up the same hill, ill be the one laughing when he has 3x the money into injectors and a turbo as i will have in a total rebuild.

I never will understand the modern reasoning of "NOTHING can slow me down, if i cant tow a house 25mph over the expressway limit then its worthless".

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I want a truck that is more at home slogging down a muddy farm path then driving a surburban street. That doesnt jive with johnnys mom.

The new generation of trucks seem to handle slogging around a farm just fine... pretty much every farmer has one and they do more with their trucks than they did way back when.