New Ranger

[2002edgeplussupercab]

I haven't seen the fuel economy projections but I would imagine there is plenty of power there...it is the duratech 2.3 so it would have started out with 140 HP in the regular engine...probably closer to 200 with the turbo...haven't seen the numbers on that yet either.

280 HP, 320 TQ. Now there are 4.slow's LOL

 

[Mark_88]

No, it is not the same 2.3 as in the Mustang or Focus RS, but the same as you can get with the Explorer max tow package, 280 HP 320 TQ.

Ah, OK thanks for the clarification...I really don't know these engines and their history...other than I can't seem to find one in Canada for sale in my area...but that could be due to not really looking very hard.

280 HP, 320 TQ. Now there are 4.slow's LOL

Haha...yes, I'd imagine it changes the respect game a bit...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

FWIW when we were talking with the head of the Ranger project yesterday they wouldn't release any #'s for the engine. Hp, towing or MPG. They will all be released closer to launch.

Nothing concrete whether or not they were exploring other powertrains either. If they were not no would have been a pretty easy answer though...

 

[JoshT]

If we ever see the 3.5 in a Ranger it will be complete insanity. It's producing 375 in normal f150 configuration, 450 in the raptor.

Having a 4 cylinder base engine is fine, but IMO it needs a V6 and/or diesel option as well. Doesn't even have to be the 3.5L EB, they did just throw a 335 HP, 380 lb-ft 2.7L EB in the Edge for the 2019 model. That would be a good option while still giving the 3.5L F-150 an advantage.

Not sure why I care though, I won't be buying one. I've got my 99 and 86 Rangers and they are probably the last Rangers I'll ever own. When the 99 gets replaced it will be with a classic truck, most likely a 60s F series (maybe a Ranger trim package). If the 86 gets replaced it'll be with a older muscle car or some sort of sleeper build. If I ever buy a newer truck it will be many tears after it was new.

 

[fastpakr]

Having a 4 cylinder base engine is fine, but IMO it needs a V6 and/or diesel option as well. Doesn't even have to be the 3.5L EB, they did just throw a 335 HP, 380 lb-ft 2.7L EB in the Edge for the 2019 model. That would be a good option while still giving the 3.5L F-150 an advantage.

Not sure why I care though, I won't be buying one. I've got my 99 and 86 Rangers and they are probably the last Rangers I'll ever own. When the 99 gets replaced it will be with a classic truck, most likely a 60s F series (maybe a Ranger trim package). If the 86 gets replaced it'll be with a older muscle car or some sort of sleeper build. If I ever buy a newer truck it will be many tears after it was new.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see the larger options just for fun. But why does it -need- them when we're already so far above anything we've ever seen in the Ranger before? This thing dominates the 5.0 I'm throwing into my '99 right now. Lots of aftermarket support as well since it's shared with the Explorer and Mustang.

 

[fastpakr]

Here's an example...
4.0 SOHC Ranger on a dyno:

2.3 Ecoboost Mustang:

Somebody else may be able to find better charts, but that gives an idea of the dramatic improvement in output from the newer, smaller engine.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see the larger options just for fun. But why does it -need- them when we're already so far above anything we've ever seen in the Ranger before? This thing dominates the 5.0 I'm throwing into my '99 right now. Lots of aftermarket support as well since it's shared with the Explorer and Mustang.

The big kid on the block right now (Tacoma) has a very peaky 265hp NA V6 car engine... a 2.3EB should manhandle that.

Guys blow off a little 2.3EB, the 2.7EB in the F-150 will destroy many NA V8's. In Explorer trim they put out 280 hp @ 5600 rpm, 310 lb⋅ft @ 3000 rpm. That is pronominal. Makes the old 4.0 with 207 hp at 5250rpm and 238 @ 3000rpm look kind of pathetic.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a diesel at some point, Chevy is having good luck moving them.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

FWIW when we were talking with the head of the Ranger project yesterday they wouldn't release any #'s for the engine. Hp, towing or MPG. They will all be released closer to launch.

Nothing concrete whether or not they were exploring other powertrains either. If they were not no would have been a pretty easy answer though...

FWIW, ford.com lists the HP and torque specs.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

FWIW, ford.com lists the HP and torque specs.

Link?

The Ranger thing on Ford is mainly pictures that I can see.

 

[fastpakr]

I'm not seeing it either.

 

[bobbywalter]

No, it is not the same 2.3 as in the Mustang or Focus RS, but the same as you can get with the Explorer max tow package, 280 HP 320 TQ.

what do you mean not the same as the mustang?

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

Same block. Other differences between the 3. Mustang. Focus RS. Explorer/Ranger (and probably Bronco).

 

[bobbywalter]

well yeah....theres packaging differences.



the intakes are different....obviously the plumbing on the focus is east west vs north south...timing cover for fead ect....


makes for killer bolts ons to hop up a ranger.


I do not like listening to a 4 whizzer.....but its a whizzer, not a wheezer.



400 hp and 400 ft lb is attainable with this engine with bolt ons and tuning.

it comes with the 10 speed.


no other ranger has this level of insane potential built into it. and this is just the beginning.

there wont be any solid numbers till they feel like throwing some out. they are still in development.

 

[Jim Oaks]

I think Ford just wants to get this to market. I wouldn't be surprised if a diesel shows up later.

 

[blksn8k]

There are a couple of things that might restrict any larger engines from ever being offered in the Ranger. First and foremost is the fact that the 2.3L EB is not offered in the F-150. That distinguishes it from the F-150. If you want a larger engine or a diesel you can move on up to the bigger, more expensive truck. That will limit the number of buyers who would otherwise cross-shop the Ranger against the F-150.
Second, Ford has already stated that they had to modify the case of the 10-speed auto to fit in the Ranger. Whether that was because of a lack of space between the frame rails or in the transmission tunnel in the cab floor or both the point is that it is a different case than is used behind any of the larger engines used in the F-150. A smaller case may also mean smaller internals and that might mean a lower torque rating for the trans which in turn means it might not be suitable behind anything larger than the 2.3.
They could choose to modify the frame and floor of the next gen Ranger to fit a larger engine and trans if and when there ever is a next gen but then they would be violating the first point.
I am a little surprised that they didn't offer the 3.2L I-5 turbo diesel with the 6-speed auto since that combination has been used in the global Ranger for years and is currently used in the US version of the Transit full-size van. There is speculation that the global Ranger will be getting the 2.0L EcoBlue turbo diesel in place of the 3.2 so I suppose we could get that as well. It would also be different (smaller) than the 3.0L PS in the F-150.