The 2019 Ford Ranger is yesterdays F-150

[fastpakr]

Compared to the board flat curve of the new engines, yes - high.

I'm not suggesting you go spend 50k to buy one. Just acknowledge the reality that most of the 'facts' you've posted in this thread about weak frames, suspension, engines, ride height, etc. have no basis whatsoever in the real world that we live in.

 

[bobbywalter]

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.

RUSTY....the top chart is the car 2.3 4 cylinder at the wheels



dude.....


doooooooooooodddd!!!!

it has a fuking 10 SPEED transmission with possible hill hold features....


you can tune it to do whatever you want.

that 1st chart i listed is lower then the ranger at the wheels....i threw the older...well not too much older ecoboost in there for comparison....theres real charts with all of the engines from toy-chevy-dodge-vissan out there too...


the only thing that can make a stock 351 ho tow better....is THIS transmission with its ridiculous 1st gear.

or a 6r80 transmission. you know...the small block transmission that is good for 1000 horsepower with just tuning? no opening it up... great thing...you can put a 6r behind your 351...it would be awesome.

the case is so strong...like i said earlier if you put them back to back with a c6...the c6 would twist off in failed pieces.


but i know your just trolling to troll....i got a big bag of troll chow...cause i love ya mang....


.

 

[bobbywalter]

this is the 4 cyl 2.3 in the car.....stock and just tune.


at the wheels. the 2.3 has more power then the 351 ho at any point on the curve....


with a 10 speed...fords not too worried about towing another ranger behind it...not even a little bit.


go to cobbs sight...theres a bunch of information there.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Bobby.....the graph is not showing up lol.


The only graph i saw in the last post was the one with the V8s.

Besides all that, the 10 speed is cool and all, but an awful lotta gears to not be shifted by a big long stick with eaton fuller marked on it.

QUOTE=fastpakr;1642011]Compared to the board flat curve of the new engines, yes - high.

I'm not suggesting you go spend 50k to buy one. Just acknowledge the reality that most of the 'facts' you've posted in this thread about weak frames, suspension, engines, ride height, etc. have no basis whatsoever in the real world that we live in.[/QUOTE]

We shall see in time. You guys know me. You can show me all the paperwork ya want, untill i see it with my own two eyes, im overly skeptical.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

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.

It could be that.

It could also be that the EPA doesn't care what they get for mpg.

 

[bobbywalter]

its not paper...


where is this its still a theory shit coming from?

its whats happened on the proving grounds. this engine is a known...the trans is a known.



the 10 spd powertrain. its in the biggest fullsize bruisers gm and ford have to offer...it started there. thats some serious confidence. theres an article for the zl1 camaro where its going into 8th gear at 180 mph...

it is not some slushbox like a c6 or hydro aod. its somewhat an evolution of the 6r...which is a clutch to clutch brute with a bad ass diode....

the 10 r trans...

600 hp floggins no sweat with the raptors...even if it is weaker then the 6r this application is going to be pretty easy for it....out of the box its rated for 590 ft pounds nominal. yeah 600 ft pounds...and tuning makes it what you want.

again....its a proven design.


this page should have the specs...

http://www.f150hub.com/trans/10r80.html





the 2.3 engine is proven as well...and it has had teething issues for sure..

whether or not it is ready for truck duty...well that is an unknown so half of this powertrain is potential theory in that light. you may be right...

based on what is actually known...i only have small concerns.



these rangers have been mercilessly pummeled in the desert as well. and come out of it ready for more..so...




the 2.3 graph shows up for me....maybe its copy issue. i am pretty bad with pics.







link for camaro baseline... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFsK4qgeg70



this is funny as fawk... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMNifBdm_o4
they are manuals but its just insane.

 

[Bird76Mojo]

I knew that Ford collaborated with GM for the Ranger's transmission but I didn't know the rest of the info in the previous post. Thanks man.

It sounds like the Ranger just got it's first bulletproof trans. She's come a long way since the A4LD...




GB

 

[sgtsandman]

the 2.3 graph shows up for me....maybe its copy issue. i am pretty bad with pics.

I don see it either. Not on my computer or my iPhone. Not sure what the deal is on that.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I'm enjoying the petty bickering ::scarcasm

The comparison between the early 80's F150 and the new Ranger is interesting. It looks like the new Ranger is specked better than the 80's F150.

What I really want to know is how it compares to my 1990 Ranger. Or to the '85 I used to drive. I'm going to guess that my '85 with a 2.8 and 5 speed will be pretty similar to my '91 with a 3.0 and a 5 speed (same transmission?), and close to the '90 with a 2.9 and 4 speed auto.

The pictures I've seen of the new Ranger, I really like the looks of it.

 

[sgtsandman]

I'm enjoying the petty bickering ::scarcasm

The comparison between the early 80's F150 and the new Ranger is interesting. It looks like the new Ranger is specked better than the 80's F150.

What I really want to know is how it compares to my 1990 Ranger. Or to the '85 I used to drive. I'm going to guess that my '85 with a 2.8 and 5 speed will be pretty similar to my '91 with a 3.0 and a 5 speed (same transmission?), and close to the '90 with a 2.9 and 4 speed auto.

The pictures I've seen of the new Ranger, I really like the looks of it.

There is a thread on the new Ranger and what specs are known at the moment. Ford is keeping pretty tight lipped on the details at the moment. All we know right now is a general range on the horsepower (depending on who you talk to), the transmission, Dana Advantek axles, and at least the hood and tailgate are aluminum (possibly some body panels). It’s roughly the same size as the other mid-size trucks out there and it supposed to have a 1850 payload and 7,500 towing capability. I’m drawing this from memory, so others may come along and correct it. In any course, there is a thread or two dedicated to the new Ranger specifically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

They said at the press release that the fenders were aluminum, I assume just the fronts.

https://www.therangerstation.com/ford-celebrates-the-start-of-ranger-production/

 

[adsm08]

They said at the press release that the fenders were aluminum, I assume just the fronts.

https://www.therangerstation.com/ford-celebrates-the-start-of-ranger-production/

Of course it is. If the rears were aluminum you couldn't have them rot out right away, and then it wouldn't be a Ford.

 

[Shran]

Of course it is. If the rears were aluminum you couldn't have them rot out right away, and then it would be just like a Chrysler product.

Fixed it for ya

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Of course it is. If the rears were aluminum you couldn't have them rot out right away, and then it wouldn't be a Ford.

The farm i pickup milk on has a 2015 F150 XL, just a base model, 4wd reg cab. That thing has rotted worse in 3 years then even the worst cared for older trucks. The rockers, cab corners, wheel arches, back corner panels, its horrendous. And it gets washed once or twice a week.

 

[sgtsandman]

Fords are notorious for rust. The powertrain will last forever, it’s just the body work that is the challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk