I'm a bicyclist and have bikes with between 18 and 27 speeds so I understand the concept of max efficiency. Ideal leg speed is 90-110 rpm or so for me. But with automatics in vehicles, torque converters can certainly let an engine rev more when the trans is in a higher gear. A CVT is the ideal transmission and a 10 speed is certainly approaching CVT versatility. I think it's more about optimum fuel efficiency--the 6 speed in the current Fords has a pretty wide ratio spread as it is.

But they still use 2 speed Powerglides in drag racing, probably using a lot of fuel to run against a torque converter.

Only time will tell what the long term durability and repair costs of all these new gen transmissions will be.

You are right about the cost of bodywork, and I have concerns about Ford getting paint to stick to aluminum over the long haul--they have not done well with Explorer and Expedition hoods and tailgates. (The silver paint on the roof and hood of my '78 F100, which I bought new, came off in sheets when the truck was 7-8 years old. Pre-clearcoat days...)

Let's hope the new manufacturing technologies can work as we'd all like them to.

George

 

The hood on my '98 F150 was aluminum and never had any paint or materials issue.

 

I am reading of continuing accounts that experience mileage for the 2.7 in the 16.5 to 17 range. These numbers are not outliers - they're starting to become a trend.

Simply put, if these numbers hold true with the EPA release next month:

THAT GAS MILEAGE SUCKS!!!

 

side thought...

I wonder if/how much fuel economy will improve with mileage on these new motors?


Every new (naturally aspirated) vehicle I've owned sucks on fuel economy for the first 2k-3k on the odo.

I think if they can get 17ish combined (real world driving), it'll be a victory compared to the GM twins.

 

With the numbers on output and fuel economy between the 5.0L and 2.7L or even the 3.5L EB engines, I think I would choose the relative simplicity of the NA 5.0L over either boosted engine.

 

The whole point of the aluminum truck and the 2.7 IS MPG. This is why they are not going with the a
ranger anymore. They decided that if the invest in getting good MPG in full size truck there would be no need for the Ranger line.

 

Also these vehicles are being driven by multiple drivers with different driving styles, so all of the adaptive learning processes in the various computers are wonky. There is not a single controlled, proper test discussed anywhere in this thread. Remember - the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

Let us not forget that the 3.5L EB took at least 10,000 miles to break in and it's MPG's continued to rise incrementally over time and mileage. Could the same be true for the 2.7L?

And I ask again, how were these test mules geared? No one knows except the folks doing the testing and they ain't sayin'.

 

For what it's worth, I saw an article yesterday in which Ford was reconsidering the US Ranger, but having to design a new version that is smaller than the "world" Ranger (which is only a few inches smaller than the F150).

Maybe Ford has finally realized they will never get 40 mpg out of a 10 foot tall truck with the huge frontal area that requires...

edit: found the article... https://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-re...lkA1NNRTcxNl8x

George

 

Agreed and well said!

 

I know this isn't the right forum but the demand for used Rangers is insane. The value of my little truck is only $3000 less than what I paid for it 7 years and 100,000 miles ago...
Ford is missing a golden opportunity if it doesn't develop a smaller PU...

 

Agreed. Ford used to sell 200k Rangers per year and even at the end they were selling 75k per year, probably more than all of Lincoln's sales.

The millennials are not so much into cars, and I'm thinking that a genuine small and simpler pickup would really appeal to them and city dwellers alike. There is a new gen of smaller SUV's like the Buick Encore sprouting up; Honda is building one on the Fit chassis.

Very simply, the new full size trucks are huge and make no sense for many city dwellers or sports-oriented folks who don't need a heavy work vehicle.

George

 

My non-towing everyday driving average mpg for my truck is 17.2 with the 5.0. So what is the point of a six cylinder?

 

A Ranger with that excellent little 3.0L engine would be getting in the low to mid 20's mpg in mixed city/highway driving. I owned an '86 2.9L 4WD 5 Spd. longbed regular cab that got 19 city and 26 highway mpg with regularity. It was as easy to park as a car and I could haul sheets of paneling or plywood. Ford really messed up when they sold so many Rangers with the 4.0L engine. That combination didn't get any better fuel economy than a 4.6L F150. I would buy another 3.0L E/C Ranger for a commuter if Ford made them. I would even buy a used one if I could find one that wasn't used up and wasn't over-priced. That's about the only way a person can get the simplicity of rear wheel drive any more.

 

I think the 4.0L Cologne was a pretty good engine. In our 1998 Explorer we had a few years ago at best and this was a 4x4 got 24mpg. That engine was able to pull our 1974 StarCraft 17' boat with really no issues. Yeah you could feel the boat but it would still pull it.

Sounds as though Ford may bring back the Ranger after a 3 year hiatus and leveling out Twin City Assembly to make room for Section 8 housing. https://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-re...221407188.html