Would you opt for a diesel Ranger?
#46
03-07-2018, 12:17 PM
We seem to be lurking the same threads, with the same ideas lol. You looking more at the Ranger or thinking of going 3.3l F150? Im not too nervous about the Ecoboosts- but since I put roughly 35-40k miles per year (80% highway), Id rather N/A for the potential of turbo related issues later on.
#47
03-07-2018, 12:26 PM
We seem to be lurking the same threads, with the same ideas lol. You looking more at the Ranger or thinking of going 3.3l F150? Im not too nervous about the Ecoboosts- but since I put roughly 35-40k miles per year (80% highway), Id rather N/A for the potential of turbo related issues later on.
#48
03-07-2018, 02:15 PM
Cargo Master
Preach. Small, basic, trouble-free engines for small, basic, trouble-free trucks. I'd rather a truck that cost $16k and get's 20mpg but lasts 200k miles than some over-complicated EB or a diesel.
I don't need 280 horsepower and awesome 0-60s times.... it's a RANGER. 207HP moved a lot of weight in my 2002 without a turbo, and I only got the 4.0 because it was on the lot and a 3.0 wasn't. A Ranger isn't cool, it's not fancy, it's not a status symbol or a toy like the F-Series has grown into. It's a 47 year old swing-shift guy wearing a camo hat and sweatpants at Wal Mart at 11am on a Tuesday kind of truck. Knows what it is, doesn't pretend to be what it's not.
I don't need 280 horsepower and awesome 0-60s times.... it's a RANGER. 207HP moved a lot of weight in my 2002 without a turbo, and I only got the 4.0 because it was on the lot and a 3.0 wasn't. A Ranger isn't cool, it's not fancy, it's not a status symbol or a toy like the F-Series has grown into. It's a 47 year old swing-shift guy wearing a camo hat and sweatpants at Wal Mart at 11am on a Tuesday kind of truck. Knows what it is, doesn't pretend to be what it's not.
bruce...
#49
03-07-2018, 06:48 PM
#50
03-07-2018, 10:45 PM
Will be holding out for the 3.3 n/a 6-cylinder and hope it happens as rumored. My 2003 Ranger, 4x4, 4.0 V-6, 5-speed is still strong and could probably hang on for a lot longer. It only has 103,000 miles of very reliable use. Had really been looking forward to the new Ranger and better ride quality, a little bigger with more comfort, better highway mpg. Will be looking elsewhere if all that is available is turbo-4 cylinder or diesel.
Not sure what Ford is thinking here. Makes me think they have lost touch with their customers in this segment.
Not sure what Ford is thinking here. Makes me think they have lost touch with their customers in this segment.
#51
03-08-2018, 08:32 AM
Ford uses SUV's and trucks to make money these days.
What happened to the F series? Look at an F series truck from 1982, the year the Ranger was introduced, and look at one now.
F series trucks used to have rubber mats in the interior, 3 on the tree, 2 doors, and a bench seat. And when I bought an F100 brand new in 1978, a Chevette was $4k, my F100 was $5k, and a Ford Fairmont was $5k. Adjust for inflation and the F series has almost doubled in relation to the cars although it has a lot more "content".
Here's an article about F150 profits--as much as $13k per truck, or maybe as little as $10k per truck. Realize that the sticker price of a loaded ESCAPE is $39k these days. And Ford is moving the Focus production to China because they are making no money on them. And retooling the Wayne, MI Focus plant to make the HIGH PROFIT Ranger and Bronco. Follow the money....Ford does.
If you want a crude and cheap truck, you will have to wait until some Chinese or Indian 2nd rate company gets it together to bring their own name brand vehicles to the US in an attempt to undercut Ford and other established car companies.... (And note that the new Ford EcoSport comes from India, the Focus will come from China.)
https://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/30/...t-per-vehicle/
What happened to the F series? Look at an F series truck from 1982, the year the Ranger was introduced, and look at one now.
F series trucks used to have rubber mats in the interior, 3 on the tree, 2 doors, and a bench seat. And when I bought an F100 brand new in 1978, a Chevette was $4k, my F100 was $5k, and a Ford Fairmont was $5k. Adjust for inflation and the F series has almost doubled in relation to the cars although it has a lot more "content".
Here's an article about F150 profits--as much as $13k per truck, or maybe as little as $10k per truck. Realize that the sticker price of a loaded ESCAPE is $39k these days. And Ford is moving the Focus production to China because they are making no money on them. And retooling the Wayne, MI Focus plant to make the HIGH PROFIT Ranger and Bronco. Follow the money....Ford does.
If you want a crude and cheap truck, you will have to wait until some Chinese or Indian 2nd rate company gets it together to bring their own name brand vehicles to the US in an attempt to undercut Ford and other established car companies.... (And note that the new Ford EcoSport comes from India, the Focus will come from China.)
https://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/30/...t-per-vehicle/
#52
03-08-2018, 05:22 PM
Ford is going to use the EB fore CAFE requirements, that's a given. But an N/A gasser is still a perfectly viable option for a pickup.
#53
03-08-2018, 07:24 PM
Add in a 3000# single axle box trailer, what happens to the fuel economy on the EB? That's what's always killed them, if I'm going to get diesel-level MPG when pulling out of an engine that makes less power, why would I ever buy a 3.5EB and not a 6.7L? This is the part that I don't understand when people claim that a boosted 5.0 in a Super Duty would kill diesel sales, it would probably get V10 levels of single digit fuel economy pulling more than a bed of air. I'd expect the 2.3EB to follow the same curve; great that it gets 2mpg better in an SUV, but the second is does "truck stuff" we're back to 2002 level fuel economy. This point is why I don't want an EB in a truck: poor towing fuel economy because the gas engine still has stoichiometric limitations running forced that diesels don't have. To get better economy pulling you'd have to overbuild the EB so heavy to handle the heat from leaning out that you might as well make it run on diesel at that point.
The 2.3L EB is built off the same Mazda L-engine that my 2.0L is, and my Escape is the most efficient thing I've ever towed my boat with. 3,500 lbs of boat is right at the Escape's towing capacity, and it will chug down the interstate at 1,900 RPMs all day long getting 18 MPG at 6-8 PSI of boost. For comparison's sake, both V6-powered minivans we've towed this boat with would get 12-15 MPG with the same boat. My '13 and '15 EcoBoost F150s would do about 14-16. The 2.0L will remain stoichiometric below 3,500 RPMs, above that the mixture richens to keep EGTs in line for turbo survival. Keep the RPMs low and the boost high and the little 4-cylinder does quite well.
But an N/A gasser is still a perfectly viable option for a pickup.
#54
03-08-2018, 07:30 PM
You're wildly speculating at this point.
The 2.3L EB is built off the same Mazda L-engine that my 2.0L is, and my Escape is the most efficient thing I've ever towed my boat with. 3,500 lbs of boat is right at the Escape's towing capacity, and it will chug down the interstate at 1,900 RPMs all day long getting 18 MPG at 6-8 PSI of boost. For comparison's sake, both V6-powered minivans we've towed this boat with would get 12-15 MPG with the same boat. My '13 and '15 EcoBoost F150s would do about 14-16. The 2.0L will remain stoichiometric below 3,500 RPMs, above that the mixture richens to keep EGTs in line for turbo survival. Keep the RPMs low and the boost high and the little 4-cylinder does quite well.
Ford is going to use the EB fore CAFE requirements, that's a given. But an N/A gasser is still a perfectly viable option for a pickup.
The 2.3L EB is built off the same Mazda L-engine that my 2.0L is, and my Escape is the most efficient thing I've ever towed my boat with. 3,500 lbs of boat is right at the Escape's towing capacity, and it will chug down the interstate at 1,900 RPMs all day long getting 18 MPG at 6-8 PSI of boost. For comparison's sake, both V6-powered minivans we've towed this boat with would get 12-15 MPG with the same boat. My '13 and '15 EcoBoost F150s would do about 14-16. The 2.0L will remain stoichiometric below 3,500 RPMs, above that the mixture richens to keep EGTs in line for turbo survival. Keep the RPMs low and the boost high and the little 4-cylinder does quite well.
Ford is going to use the EB fore CAFE requirements, that's a given. But an N/A gasser is still a perfectly viable option for a pickup.
18mpg while pulling 3000lbs is impressive.
#56
03-12-2018, 06:13 PM
Fuel economy is wrong with N/A. We have a direct comparison available with the Explorer and Mustang, both are available with the 3.5/3.7L V6 and 2.3L EcoBoost engine.
Mustang V6 - 19/27
Mustang EB - 21/31
Explorer V6 AWD - 16/23
Explorer EB AWD - 18/25
In both cases the EB is a solid 2 MPG better in both city and highway drive cycles. In the modern regulatory landscape with CAFE rules and the myriad other sustainability programs and initiatives, 2 MPG is huge! Real-world data on the Fuelly site backs this up, with the average for 2.3L Explorers at 21 MPG, and 3.5L Explorers at 19 MPG. The boosted 4-cylinder is more efficient.
I like the V6 quite well, the 3.7L it does a fantastic job in our Transit. But there's nothing it does better than the smaller EcoBoost mill in my opinion.
Mustang V6 - 19/27
Mustang EB - 21/31
Explorer V6 AWD - 16/23
Explorer EB AWD - 18/25
In both cases the EB is a solid 2 MPG better in both city and highway drive cycles. In the modern regulatory landscape with CAFE rules and the myriad other sustainability programs and initiatives, 2 MPG is huge! Real-world data on the Fuelly site backs this up, with the average for 2.3L Explorers at 21 MPG, and 3.5L Explorers at 19 MPG. The boosted 4-cylinder is more efficient.
I like the V6 quite well, the 3.7L it does a fantastic job in our Transit. But there's nothing it does better than the smaller EcoBoost mill in my opinion.
put a small diesel in a Ranger and you'd be looking at something like 24/30... now that would help ford meet its cafe standards....
and as we all know that no one gets the mileage quoted in these Ecoboost engines while many people driving these small diesels (like my Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel) routinely exced the EPA mileage numbers.
#57
03-12-2018, 07:24 PM
funny you should quote those paltry differences in this thread!!
put a small diesel in a Ranger and you'd be looking at something like 24/30... now that would help ford meet its cafe standards....
and as we all know that no one gets the mileage quoted in these Ecoboost engines while many people driving these small diesels (like my Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel) routinely exced the EPA mileage numbers.
#58
03-12-2018, 08:57 PM
I don't disagree with smlford's comments but will note that the Grand Cherokee diesel sold so few that it no longer exists (unless this is FCA backing away from potential emissions problems) and I might be concerned with parts availability in the long run. In Mopars, the 3.6 Pentastar V6 is a really well engineered engine. And then there is the Hemi V8 option for people who really want torque, so the options are different than they would be in the Ranger.
#59
03-13-2018, 05:08 AM
I don't disagree with smlford's comments but will note that the Grand Cherokee diesel sold so few that it no longer exists (unless this is FCA backing away from potential emissions problems) and I might be concerned with parts availability in the long run. In Mopars, the 3.6 Pentastar V6 is a really well engineered engine. And then there is the Hemi V8 option for people who really want torque, so the options are different than they would be in the Ranger.
i think both GM and Ford decided to wait and see how sales were in The Rams before deciding that they were loosing market share by not offering small diesels and are now coming out with their own versions so there must have been enough sales to make them get off their corporate asses!
it is fair to believe that a diesel option will never be the predominant choice for most buyers but Ford has always offered a ridiculous number of engine choices so why not a diesel as well?
#60
03-13-2018, 06:50 AM
Cargo Master
The reason small diesel 4x4s sell so few in America is because manufacturers package them all wrong. Want a Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel? Chevy Colorado Duramax? I hope you've got deep pockets! You have to select high trim levels to even get the option for a diesel. Ford is about to do the same thing with the 3.0L Powerjoke that is debuting in the F-150 this year. They will only sell it to you in high trim levels. STUPID! The very people who want diesels are the ones looking for an economical choice! They are guys who want great fuel efficiency and better towing/working power. Yet, those are the very people these idiotic bean counters are pricing out of the market! Then they say, "Well, looks like diesel isn't popular in this country afterall." No, it's just that you're terrible at marketing!
Ram is the only brand who gets it. They'll let you order the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel in a work truck trim level. It's possible to get a 4-door, 4x4, turbo diesel truck for under $40,000 sticker with Ram. Hence, I see them on the roads all the time.
The problem with Ranger is that they will be competing directly with Colorado again, and a crew cab 4x4 Colorado STARTS at around $33,000 before tacking on items. Which means that this new Ranger will probably be in that same ballpark in XL trim. So a lot of guys are going to do exactly what I'm doing right now...they're going to close their eyes and think about all the lightly used and fully loaded full size trucks they could buy for $33,000 instead.
And as far as MPGs go, the EcoBoost trucks earned the nickname "EcoBust" for a very good reason. Remember that.
Ram is the only brand who gets it. They'll let you order the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel in a work truck trim level. It's possible to get a 4-door, 4x4, turbo diesel truck for under $40,000 sticker with Ram. Hence, I see them on the roads all the time.
The problem with Ranger is that they will be competing directly with Colorado again, and a crew cab 4x4 Colorado STARTS at around $33,000 before tacking on items. Which means that this new Ranger will probably be in that same ballpark in XL trim. So a lot of guys are going to do exactly what I'm doing right now...they're going to close their eyes and think about all the lightly used and fully loaded full size trucks they could buy for $33,000 instead.
And as far as MPGs go, the EcoBoost trucks earned the nickname "EcoBust" for a very good reason. Remember that.