Ranger Revealed!
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 336
Likes: 2
Agreed, the 3.3L n/a in the 2018+ F150 lineup would be a great fleet motor but alas, more Ecoboost Kool-aid or bust from Ford.
Except the Super Duty still for some reason. Where's that 5.0 EB people have been pining for? For some reason Ford still seems worried the EB can't hack it for real commercial use?
Except the Super Duty still for some reason. Where's that 5.0 EB people have been pining for? For some reason Ford still seems worried the EB can't hack it for real commercial use?
The EcoBoost thing is meant to say "fuel economy". I don't see a point in a V8 Ecoboost.
Token Redneck
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,337
Likes: 346
From: Breckenridge, TX
I know what they're trying to say, but all I keep hearing is "four banger meteor", it's just nuts to me to consider towing with a turbocharged inline 4 cylinder, even with these power numbers. But somehow Ford is selling a 1.0L EB engine to US buyers, so displacement is officially dead in my book, people will now buy anything that drives remotely comparable to an N/A engine.
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 336
Likes: 2
I know what they're trying to say, but all I keep hearing is "four banger meteor", it's just nuts to me to consider towing with an inline 4 cylinder, even with it's power numbers. But somehow Ford is selling a 1.0L EB engine to US buyers, so displacement is officially dead in my book, people will now buy anything that drives remotely comparable to an N/A engine.
who da what?
Thread Starter
|
Bleed Ford Blue
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,578
Likes: 157
From: Anchorage Alaska
I would have laughed at the 2.3 Eco if it had not been for renting a 2016 Mustang convertible an spending a week with it. It REALLY surprised me and the mpg was fantastic even with the fact I was flogging it hard. It pulled pretty hard for being a stock rental and a buddy with one tuned lightly love his. I think it has potential...
This coming from a guy with nothing but multiple V8's and a V10 in the driveway.
This coming from a guy with nothing but multiple V8's and a V10 in the driveway.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 103
From: North Idaho
I like what I see so far. Not 100% sure on the styling, but so often you just have to see the vehicle in person.
An EcoBoost four cylinder is the PROPER engine for this truck - base model at least. I really wish it would have been 2.5 to 2.7 liters, but oh well.
An EcoBoost four cylinder is the PROPER engine for this truck - base model at least. I really wish it would have been 2.5 to 2.7 liters, but oh well.
Tuned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 297
Likes: 6
Would like to thank Ford for saving me money. Without a good option, still driving a 2003 Ranger 4x4 manual and it only has about 105,000 miles. Definition of reliability, still looks OK. Had been waiting to buy a new 2019 Ranger. Guess I'll just keep driving the little old truck if I wait on Ford. The idea of replacing that strong 4.0 V-6/manual 5-speed with such a small high revving turbo engine - not going to happen. I'll buy a V-6 Frontier first - don't mind old tech when I see what we get with new tech. Would have considered the 2.7 ECO V-6.
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,512
Likes: 18
From: Detroit
ck--buy what you want but you seem to be poor at understanding engine specifications and RPM's.
The 2.3 Ecoboost puts out 280 horsepower at 5600 RPM and 300 lb ft of torque at 3000 RPM.
The Nissan 4.0 V6 puts out 261 horsepower at 5600 RPM and 281 lb ft of torque at 4000 RPM.
Your "strong" 4.0 Cologne engine puts out 210 HP and 254 lb ft of torque with the torque peak at 3000 RPM.
So any statement about the "high revving" 4 cylinder engine are simply not true. It puts out way more power and torque than either of the 4.0 V6's you mention at equal or lower RPM.
Consider that the 3.5 Ecoboost in the Raptor is smaller in displacement than your old Ranger and also the Nissan, and is rated at 450(!) HP and 510(!) lb ft of torque. Turbos make a huge difference.
The 2.3 Ecoboost puts out 280 horsepower at 5600 RPM and 300 lb ft of torque at 3000 RPM.
The Nissan 4.0 V6 puts out 261 horsepower at 5600 RPM and 281 lb ft of torque at 4000 RPM.
Your "strong" 4.0 Cologne engine puts out 210 HP and 254 lb ft of torque with the torque peak at 3000 RPM.
So any statement about the "high revving" 4 cylinder engine are simply not true. It puts out way more power and torque than either of the 4.0 V6's you mention at equal or lower RPM.
Consider that the 3.5 Ecoboost in the Raptor is smaller in displacement than your old Ranger and also the Nissan, and is rated at 450(!) HP and 510(!) lb ft of torque. Turbos make a huge difference.
Tuned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 297
Likes: 6
Believe me, I understand the numbers. Have watched all this evolve for a while. Really disappointed in Ford with their offering at this point with 2019 Ranger. Guess it is obvious that I am not a big ECO fan. Would have considered the 2.7 but want a N/A engine irregardless of the number comparison.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,512
Likes: 18
From: Detroit
I remember the world freaking out when the F150 moved from V8 power to primarily V6's and it seems the Ecoboosts are doing quite well. 450 HP in the Raptor is particularly impressive, out of 3.5 liters which is 214 cubic inches.
The Cologne V6 in your Ranger dates back to 1965, which is 53 years ago. I had the V4 version in a 1972 SAAB Sonett. Welcome to the 21st century
George
The Cologne V6 in your Ranger dates back to 1965, which is 53 years ago. I had the V4 version in a 1972 SAAB Sonett. Welcome to the 21st century
George
Tuned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 297
Likes: 6
OK - well tell me how it will hit a steep hill in 3rd gear at 6,500 foot elevation and outrun most everything with little effort? Turbos have lag. I don't think you know how good that old 4.0 is with the manual tranny. Doesn't matter though, like a lot of things - we'll never see a manual transmission again in a Ford truck.
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,512
Likes: 18
From: Detroit
The new Ranger will have a 10 speed transmission and will eat your antique Ranger's lunch in any performance metric. Modern twin-scroll turbos have virtually no lag. A turbo is better yet at altitude.
The new Mustang with the 2.3 Ecoboost will run 13.9 second quarter miles and weighs 3650 lbs. The older Mustang with the Cologne 4.0 ran mid 15-second quarter miles and it was 200 lbs lighter.
I'm an old guy who owned numerous muscle and performance cars including two 426 Hemi Mopars, two Corvettes, and five other cars that were 390 cubic inches or more (most with sticks) so I know what real performance cars will do. But this is 50 years down the road and we need to revise our paradigms.
Take care of your old Ranger if you like it, but buyer expectations have changed. It's good that you like it. But don't try to race a new Ranger with it unless you're prepared to be embarrassed.
The new Mustang with the 2.3 Ecoboost will run 13.9 second quarter miles and weighs 3650 lbs. The older Mustang with the Cologne 4.0 ran mid 15-second quarter miles and it was 200 lbs lighter.
I'm an old guy who owned numerous muscle and performance cars including two 426 Hemi Mopars, two Corvettes, and five other cars that were 390 cubic inches or more (most with sticks) so I know what real performance cars will do. But this is 50 years down the road and we need to revise our paradigms.
Take care of your old Ranger if you like it, but buyer expectations have changed. It's good that you like it. But don't try to race a new Ranger with it unless you're prepared to be embarrassed.
Tuned
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 335
Likes: 2
From: USA
OK - well tell me how it will hit a steep hill in 3rd gear at 6,500 foot elevation and outrun most everything with little effort? Turbos have lag. I don't think you know how good that old 4.0 is with the manual tranny. Doesn't matter though, like a lot of things - we'll never see a manual transmission again in a Ford truck.
The old Rangers are still great, no question. But in the test you are describing the new truck would dominate. Twin scroll turbos have virtually no lag and work better than NA engines at altitude. And the transmission has so many gears it would just shift switch to whichever one allowed it to maintain peak torque.Turbo charged inline four and six cylinder engines have been around for a long time in industrial vehicles.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,024
Likes: 1,519
From: Maine, Virginia
Since Ford did disappoint us a bit with only one engine choice, the 2.3L was the right choice to make. It's serving in the Lincolns, Explorers and the Mustangs very reliably and economically all with extremely robust power numbers.
Since we don't have any vehicle numbers yet, we have no clue as to what Ford is going to rate this truck at. With half the engine and less than half the transmission, it'll out pull my Expedition for sure.
Since we don't have any vehicle numbers yet, we have no clue as to what Ford is going to rate this truck at. With half the engine and less than half the transmission, it'll out pull my Expedition for sure.
Token Redneck
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,337
Likes: 346
From: Breckenridge, TX
I had this in an '02 with 4.10s. That was a great truck.
Well goddam I hope they managed to make things better over the intervening 15 years, wouldn't be much reason to buy new if they didn't eh?
A 3.3L N/A V6 is also a PROPER engine.
A 3.3L N/A V6 is also a PROPER engine.
