Ha good one! Hard to argue with proven reliability.

Probably won't see the 5.0 but I have no plans on buying another Ranger anyway.

"Ecoboost" name is deceiving, you can't get economical and have boost. It's either one or the other.

 

Not sure what ya mean...the 5.0L was released the same year as the EcoBoost engine. Both seem to have great reliability records...where's the proof otherwise?

 

Seemed like you were comparing 30+ year old engine design reliability vs Ecoboost reliability.

 

The current-gen 5.0L engine is a clean-sheet redesign for 2011. It shares not a single specification, dimension, or part. The only similarity is that it's also rounded to 5.0L.

 

Yes, you are saying the current 5.0 is an old design because it isn't direct injected or twin turbo which in general is a poor comparison imho.

 

We have the ability to make incredible power with small engines now. Why ever would we need to shoehorn a wide shouldered modular V-8 into a smaller vehicle? Other than the throaty V-8 that cannot be duplicated by a V-6, I see no reason.

 

*sigh*

No I'm not. Can you point out exactly where I said that? Twenty years ago you needed a 5.0L+ V8 to get 200 horsepower in just about any application. The current 3.5L V6 makes more power than the 5.4L V8 did in 2003. Current little bitty 2.7L EcoBoost makes more power than the 3V 5.4L ever did.

For that matter, the 5.0L V8 makes substantially more power than the 6.8L V10 ever did, and the current-gen 3.5L EcoBoost makes substantially more torque. There is a replacement for displacement...it's called technology. The current 5.0L V8 has it in spades, but it's no more a tried and proven workhorse than any of the other engines currently in production.

I loved my 5.0L Mustang, and would happily own another. But outside of a Mustang, you're unlikely to see that engine in anything smaller than an F150 because of the trend towards greater fuel economy. Models that used to have an optional V6 ten years ago now have the turbo 4 as the optional engine. I find it unlikely that Ford would shoehorn a large engine in a small truck when the 2.7L EB makes equivalent torque and nearly the power, with even greater efficiency.

 

I wish the manufacturer's would put more into extending the truck's longevity rather than short-term rush. After 100K miles those twin-turbo units start becoming very problematic with HIGH expense bills...... I guess we'll never see vehicles again that the owner would be able to do some of his own wrenchin'.... (sigh)..Ah, yes, the trucks of the good ol' days....

BarnieTrk

 

Do they? There have been a couple of threads recently on 2011 EcoBoosts with more than 200,000 miles. None of them had any engine or turbo problems. You can buy a turbo from your local dealer for around $400...hardly what I'd call a "HIGH" expense bill.

 

You're right and I'm not arguing it makes great power and it probably would be a great fit in the Ranger. My point being there isn't anything special about an Ecoboost engine. It's just a dinky engine with twin turbos. I just don't believe there is much for improvement power wise. You don't need a big engine to do everything. It doesn't matter and it never will if a twin turbo 2.7 can beat a 5.0. I would still want a 5.0.

Wow, I guess you have proven everyone wrong about Ecoboost reliability by that milestone. Should I go ahead and claim it as Fords most reliable motor?

 

Don't disagree with any of that. There's something special about the sound of a V8 as well, which is perhaps my biggest draw.


Sarcasm much? I could show you two 300K threads without any engine work, but you can find those on just about any modern engine. Except, perhaps, the later Navistar PSDs.

 

I agree, gotta love the sound of v8'a. For the majority of people an Ecoboost is perfect for there needs. Can't imagine having 300hp in a stock Ranger. But no doubt they can go 200k miles. I'm more concerned about the when they start aging and what abuse/neglect they can take.

I'm wondering if the Ranger will be aluminum bodied?

 

well I honestly think the engines will follow what is seen in the units available in mexico...2.5 duratec, 3.2 duratorq 5 cyl (since the emissions work have already been done with the transit) and I think/hope the tweaked 2.3 Ecoboost like the unit in the new 2018 Mustang. The 2.0 EB in our Escape is wonderful and I can only imagine how the 2.3 would be in a pick up like the Ranger.

 

I wonder what the 0-60 time of a 2.7 EB'd Aluminum-bodied Ranger would be? A 2.7 in an F150 is 7 seconds, it's gotta be MUCH faster in a Ranger, not to mention increased fuel economy...

 

I'm not sure the Ranger would be Aluminum, simply for cost. However Car and Driver tested a 2015 Supercab 4x4 F-150 with the 2.7 and claimed a CrewCab Colorado was 300 lbs lighter than it. The same article claimed a Supercab was 700 lbs lighter than a Supercrew. I saw actual scale weights somewhere that supports this. Either way, 300 lbs lighter for a Ranger would be enough to notice. Heck, even if it weighed the same as the F-150 SuperCab, C&D tested it at 5.7 seconds 0-60...... They did note that this was in 4WD, but no matter... I saw a Motor Trend test that was 6.5 0-60 fora 2.7 Super cab. They literally haul azz......
2015 Ford F-150 2.7 EcoBoost 4x4 Test ? Review ? Car and Driver