The 2019 Ford Ranger is yesterdays F-150

[rusty ol ranger]

My dream truck is a 70s series crew cab Highboy but I sure as heck wouldn’t depend on it being my only form of transportation. Not without a LOT of work being done to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I DDed my 77 F250 for 3 or4 years, 4seasons. Rain, snow, didnt matter. Other then losing an alternator in the gas station parking lot (45 bucks and 20 min to change), it never let me down.

All i did besides normal stuff was a new fuel tank, radiator, and rebuilt the carb.

 

[sgtsandman]

I DDed my 77 F250 for 3 or4 years, 4seasons. Rain, snow, didnt matter. Other then losing an alternator in the gas station parking lot (45 bucks and 20 min to change), it never let me down.

All i did besides normal stuff was a new fuel tank, radiator, and rebuilt the carb.

I think you misunderstand me and that may be my fault. Since the vehicle would be an unknown until you can go over it, you have no idea what kind of condition it is in and what maintenance/preventative maintenance has been done to it. Not that the vehicle is inherently unreliable. Some people only fix items only when the vehicle is dead in the water and ignore problems that they can still drive with and are a big believer in the philosophy of "all I've ever had to do was change the oil".

 

[pjtoledo]

everybody hold off for a while, I going out for more popcorn and don't want to miss anything.

 

[BlackBII]

I've been waiting for this.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I think you misunderstand me and that may be my fault. Since the vehicle would be an unknown until you can go over it, you have no idea what kind of condition it is in and what maintenance/preventative maintenance has been done to it. Not that the vehicle is inherently unreliable. Some people only fix items only when the vehicle is dead in the water and ignore problems that they can still drive with and are a big believer in the philosophy of "all I've ever had to do was change the oil".

Thats understandable. I drove my 77 90 or 100 miles home as soon as i gave the dude the cash, talk about trial by fire, lol.

Good thing about the 70s trucks is things usually give lots of advance warning before they die, parts are cheap, and they are easy to wrench on.

 

[bobbywalter]

did you read any of my blithering drivel? i dont think you did.

Diesels are overrated atleast IMO unless you start talking about "modern" era diesels. A good 460/454 will out snort a 6.9/7.3Idi/early stroker/6.5/6.2 anyday. And as a bonus start on a -10* morning.

define a good 460/454 and out snort....


theres no stock anything of the obd1 era gonna out snort a psd gen 1. not even the cummins of the same yr... its the first 1 ton to crack 0-60 10 sec barrier.

as to the n/a 6.2-6.5 and 6.9-7.3....who ever bragged about those being great????...never seen anyone over rate a n/a anything...of course the 350 old base diesel really put diesel in the shitter...but these didnt help..its why diesels had such a bad name.

my n/a 660 hodge podge is down right embarrassing....if it didnt run on alternate fuels i would have thrown it away many moons ago.


is out snort how many trips to the gas station in 1500 miles?

when i say 6.5, i mean gep 6.5.

a duramax or cummins i assume are self explanatory.




The reason i say these things about the new trucks is this...
1- They sit stupid low to the ground.

earlier colorados? yeah those were ghey....but they are awesome now. i like them.


2- Way to many electronics to get wet/fry.

under what conditions are you referring?? this engine will run under water with a snorkel....none of the shit you listed will.


3- No manual hubs, no manual 4wd, no manual trans....you know...stuff i know is going to function when i need it to.

well well well....lucky for me.......i have a cure for that shit.


4-Fancy touch screens and other BS that is way to easy to screw up with muddy gloves, whatever....

Need i go on?






okay...now your just raw trolling







Plus, yes, 7500lbs is great. But lets look at this...

My 32Ft TT weighs 7200 lbs. So im gonna go buy a new ranger to tow it.

if it is a bumper pull...no dealer will let you do this if your going in there and arm them with that data with the expected tongue weight...depending on actual tongue weight...they will first try to sell you the right vehicle to do this if the ranger wont handle it... so the rest is moot...

First time out realize that i dont have nearly enough truck (b...bb....but the dealer said its rated for 7500), and whind up sideways on my side on. I75 because i thought i had enough truck (on paper, i did)

Now, behind the 85, it may be a little hairy. But i towed it with my 77 3/4 ton and other then the killer 3.07 gears it was pretty stable. So while the 85 is rated the same, the extra stability makes a better tow vehicle.

the 85 is a 1/2 ton?? for sure this ranger will be more stable then any 80's half ton...the difference between a slab of cement and a bowl of jello difference in stability.. did you look at any of the pictures???....you know the braking is insane right??


Power isnt everything. And like i said, at 185hp that old 351 can accomplish just as much (prolly more TBH) then thwt EB at 260. Why? Because torque is just that other number that doesnt matter.



ohhhhh really?....the whole point here is torque use ..or rather usable torque.


i hope you read this. you definitely missed it earlier.

eco boost is not some cutesy name.

its very idea is

LOW END TORQUE ON ACROSS THE BOARD

and then...

OVER THE FAWKING HILLS AND THROUGH THE WOODS.

AND BACK!!!

it is now possible to make 351 ho power with a 2.3 l yeah yeah....pisses me off too.


the typical 351 ho, especially with its comparative parasitic losses...has less tq anywhere on the curve.

lets observe an application...this is a car setup... the rangers low end is better. and again...with just a tune it gets stupid.

lets look at the last gen v8 for comparison...of which the 351 ho cant even look at...the new stuff is even better.....

again....note the ecoboost is not a high winder...

your amazing. off the hook amazing.

 

[BlackBII]

The only thing better than a woman with curves is a boosted engine with curves.

My Ranger will have forced induction one day.

 

[Shran]

I'd love to see the 460 and 351w on that chart, it'd be funny to see how they fall flat on their faces when the newer engines are just waking up.

I just did a 6 hour road trip with my buddy to a race in MT, towing our race truck behind his '14 F150 that has a 5.0. I didn't drive but I'm impressed - pulled that sucker just about as well as my F250 would have and got better gas mileage.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I just did a 6 hour road trip with my buddy to a race in MT, towing our race truck behind his '14 F150 that has a 5.0. I didn't drive but I'm impressed - pulled that sucker just about as well as my F250 would have and got better gas mileage.

And a 3.5EB would pull that 5.0 inside out.

 

[fastpakr]

Bobby - which EB is on the chart you posted? I'm guessing 2.7.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Bobby - which EB is on the chart you posted? I'm guessing 2.7.

3.5.

2.7 wouldn't be that close to the 6.2. The 6.2 isn't supposed to have a whole lot on the 3.5 in a F-150 aside from a drinking problem.

 

[fastpakr]

You're right, it's the older 3.5. I was confused because the current 2.7 is 400 and the 3.5 is 470. The older 3.5 was rated at 420, so it matches right up to the chart.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

did you read any of my blithering drivel? i dont think you di

lets look at the last gen v8 for comparison...of which the 351 ho cant even look at...the new stuff is even better.....

again....note the ecoboost is not a high winder...

your amazing. off the hook amazing.

Ok. I can admit i was wrong about the ecoboost. If that chart is right. However im assuming thats the 3.5L ecoboost. But either way its mildly impressive but i think ill stick to my big block.

However, untill you show me a curve chart for a 2.3EB or whatevers in the ranger, im still gonna bet youd be in for a rather rude awakening if you pulled against a 351. By out snort i mean heavy load, dead stop, steep hill.

However, that chart also shows me i do not wanna replace my 460 with a 6.2.

But either way, as far as the 1st gen strokes....dude they made a whole 5ftlbs more then a 95-97 460 (410 vs 415) at 200 less rpm. I shoulda said there about even. Thanks for catching it.

Physics are physics, you said it yourself. Please explain to me how a shorter, taller, narrower ranger is going to be more stable towing then a shorter, wider, longer, bullnose?

All i said is i would never attempt to tow my camper witb a new ranger. Although i might in a pinch with a bullnose 150.

 

[fastpakr]

So a current 3.5 eco makes 375hp/470 foot pounds with a board flat torque curve, yet you'll stick with 260hp/410lb-ft at a narrow and relatively high rpm? Sheer brilliance.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

So a current 3.5 eco makes 375hp/470 foot pounds with a board flat torque curve, yet you'll stick with 260hp/410lb-ft at a narrow and relatively high rpm? Sheer brilliance.

High RPM? 460 peaks at 2200 and i aint dishing out 50k for some nicer seats and more cupholders.

Plus, my 460 will do anything an ecoboost will as far as loads go, just not as fast. Also, theres a reason they arnt in the superduty. They couldnt handle the work day in and day out like a 6.2, a 460 can work day in and outnas its proven itself time and time again.