I have experience with the EcoBoost engines. I also have seen the nightmare they are from a reliability standpoint.

So what? So my diesel held top gear stock or tuned either way, meaning that it was keeping the trans. cool, meaning that it was consuming minimal fuel, meaning that it's a more useful power plant. This isn't rocket surgery. The ability to hold gear is a BIG deal.

Can't get out of it's own way? I have a Mach 1 in my driveway that runs like a scalded dog. I have a F150 with a Coyote V8 that is tuned and will eat the tires. I've owned dozens of high horsepower vehicles. My diesel was one of the most enjoyable vehicles to drive I've ever been in. When you dip into the throttle, it sets you back in the seat. The low end torque is very fun to play with.

Ultra expensive fuel? Dude, there's like a $.30 cent difference between gas and diesel right now, and if you're getting a real world 26 MPG in a diesel vs. a real world 16 MPG in an EcoBust...you're saving cash.

Apparently you have never owned a small diesel 4x4.

 

I've driven enough Diesels to know they don't get all that great a fuel economy and even more so I know what a nightmare they are for reliability and cost of ownership. The 3.5L Ecoboost in the F150 has proven pretty decent and the mountain of torque it serves up, dwarfes the 3.0 Powerstroke. Even the 2.3L ecoboost is serving up 350lb/ft of torque in the Mustang...the GM 2.8 is 369? Not worth the trouble in my mind. It's a novel engine....

 

I'm not saying I don't want them to offer a diesel, I'm saying it will probably make little sense competing against the 2.3 EB. Compare the 2.7EB to the Ram 3.0ED. With a 7,000lb trailer the EB goes 0-60 in 16.5 seconds. The Ram in 23.9 seconds. Passing 45-65 mph the 2.7 does it in 9.4 seconds, the Ram 21.2 seconds!! That is an eternity!! I expect the 2.3EB will out perform the 2.8 GM the same. The only clear benefit of the diesel is towing mpg. Not many people are buying mid size trucks to do coast to coast towing. An occasional weekend with the travel trailer is about it. I think the 2.0 Ford is gonna be a little more high strung, probably faster, but maybe splitting the difference in performance/mpg compared to the 2.3EB. I get that people like diesels and the competition has them so I think Ford should offer it.

 

We don't need to get into a pissing contest here...

We're talking about Ford possibly offering the diesel as an option not cramming it down everyone's throat...

As far as The Ford rep saying the diesel is not coming to the US...do you remember Ford saying that the Ranger was never coming back to the US?? Of course you do. Pure BS...

IMHO Ford corporate was late to the game in Getting the Ranger to the market which is red hot right now. It really surprises me that with such a good platform in the global Ranger they didn't bring it here sooner.

I have had and currently have several diesels (I own a construction company). Among my collection is the 3.0 EcoDiesel Grand Cherokee that has about 50k on it. I specifically sought out that SUV and it has been a fantastic vehicle, particularly on trips. Getting close to 30 mpg on the highway is the real deal...almost 700 miles on a tank of fuel. As far as pickup goes it readily outperforms the 6 cylinder Jeep and is on par with the V8 but gets twice the real world mileage....

As far as cost goes, yes it costs more and if you don't want to buy one don't..simple as that, but I will tell you that you get most of that back when you sell it on the back side.

I had the opportunity of driving the diesel Ranger in Costa Rica last year and it was a fantastic vehicle. I was talking to some of the locals down there and they preferred over the Toyota Hilux and that's saying something..

 

I would NOT buy a diesel only because of the emissions stuff. I would not buy a 2.3eco only because I don't like the I4 family. I would buy a 2.7eco for all the extra capability. People do buy smaller trucks for other reasons than economy.

 

Agree with the possible purchase of a 2.7T but it will be a hard sell. Have no need for a diesel in a smaller truck and Ford is still struggling to get a good one in the F-Series. All the manufacturers are struggling with the EPA diesel restrictions.

How hard would it be to offer a decent - not earth-shattering performance, good mpg - V-6 n/a engine? I do wonder if they are restricted to in-line engines based on the frame of the ROW Ranger. That has been brought up before.

May have to wait even longer for the re-design.

 

As I said earlier, there is supposedly a 1.5 EcoBlue diesel that will be offered in the Transit Connect and the 2.0 liter version of this engine appears in the Ranger in other markets. But the emissions hurdles may be huge.

And I mentioned the possibility that a V engine may not fit into the Ranger/Bronco--every iteration of this vehicle elsewhere in the world has an inline engine. But it should not be a big problem to fit in a narrow V6...

I would look for more improvements in the 4 cylinder Ecoboosts (maybe even a 2.5 liter version) and they may move into the 2nd generation like their V6 EB engines. Higher compression ratios, and dual port/direct injection.

If the largest engine in the Raptor, Expedition, and Lincoln Navigator is a 3.5 EB (rated up to 450 hp), the corporate strategy may be to stick with 4 cylinders in the Ranger/Bronco and develop them for more power if needed for performance applications.

In Edge and Explorer applications, the NA V6's get notably lower mileage than the 2.0 and 2.3 EB's used in those vehicles respectively.

 

It's kind of interesting reading some of the comments, particularly from WXboy.

You must not have driven an EcoBoost-powered anything to say that.

Really? I've been asking you for examples and data to back this up for quite awhile now, so I gave up and looked up some of my own. This is from Consumer Reports, which currently rates the F150 overall at 2/5. Here's their engine verdict:



5/5 for major and minor...tell me some more about why you think they are a reliability nightmare?

It's not even that relevant to this particular discussion, as the 2.3L engine is a variant of the 2.0L version that's been used in the Escape, Explorer, and a few others for about the last five years. There's less data on those, but on the Escape forums the 2.0L is generally regarded to as bulletproof. Very different from the 1.6L that's had constant issues...I'm glad the 2.3L going in the Ranger has nothing to do with that engine.

I'm a proponent of a diesel option, and I'd seriously consider one. But the mindless bashing of the EcoBoost engines does little to forward the discussion.

 

Holding any grade in top gear is irrelevant given that the Ranger will have a TEN speed automatic transmission. Why would you have all those gears if they were not meant to be used? It might have meant something in the old days of C4/C6 automatics with 3 speeds and a 3.55 axle.

I guess a car with a CVT is always in "top gear"...

I see no evidence that EcoBoosts are blowing apart in real life usage.

 

With the diesel option costing a $4k premium in the Colorado, and even more in the Ram 1500; not to mention all of the regulatory and legal garbage that FCA is going through right now with the EPA I'm not interested in the diesel engine at this time. Right now the US federal government seems to on a diesel emissions witch hunt, and I don't feel like fighting that battle. If I was buying a Superduty for serious towing, on a frequent basis; then I might think differently. But my truck is a DD and hardly ever sees a heavy load any more. I can't help but wish Ford would offer more than one choice for powertrain, but the gas engine is fine for what I need.

 

It's not a witch hunt if they are polluting beyound the maximum allowable and lieing about it.

 

I've had experience with both diesels and the 2.0 Ecoboost in a Titanium Escape Awd.
While the diesels were excellent for the torque needed for towing, maintenance costs were higher than a comparable gas engine. Fuel mileage was roughly the same, but driving experience was much better with the diesel engines and their acceleration advantage.
The 2.0 liter Ecoboost was very fun to drive, but fuel economy was horrible. Even with my wife driving extremely conservative, we rarely crested 22 mpg driving the roads in our area. Meanwhile, the Edge Awd w/3.5 V6 that the Escape replaced would routinely get 22mpg or higher. Temperature greatly affected mileage as well. The Escape would struggle to get 18 mpg in the winter and with the Edge we'd be angry if it was below 20 mpg. This is where my concerns lie with the smaller Ecoboosted engines. Just like their naturally aspirated cousins, I don't think the smaller engines can hold in enough heat during the winter. Plus the vehicle's HVAC systems tax them greater than a V6 would.

 

The wife had a 2014 Escape with a 2.0L and averaged 22.5 miles per gallon. My wife drives like a grandma. Last summer we moved on to a Honda CRV and she gets 30mpg. 100% city driving. The Escape was great fun to drive and a very nice car but not great with gas. Had a small tank too and that's not fun when you use a lot a gas. The Honda seems just as fast and never stopping to re-fuel is fun too.

Bruce...

 

Yep, I'd agree that the 2.0L EB never lived up to the fuel economy hype that we all wanted to believe. Mine will barely get the EPA-rated 28 on the highway in the summer time, but drops to 21-22 in the winter. Something about Ford's tuning or setup I think, we see complaints about that in the F150 forum as well. Neither of my 3.5L EB trucks did very well in cold weather, and would struggle to get the EPA rating in the summer.

I wouldn't expect this to be much different, as the 2.3L is based off of the 2.0L. I WILL expect it to be a torque monster for its size, and do a great job with the tasks asked of a compact truck. My Escape will pull my 3,500 lb boat down the interstate chugging at 1,900 RPMs in 6th gear, most V6es would struggle to do that. I expect outstanding towing performance, and somewhat mediocre fuel economy. Probably better than the V6-powered competition, though,.

 

Wanted to comment on the diesel option too. I drive a 6.7L SD and love it. Crazy speed and power. Love the diesel and have no issue with the EPA/DEF stuff. It works and is no hassle at all.

I wouldn't order a Ranger with a diesel though. If I want to work with my truck, I will purchase another Super Duty. If I purchase a Ranger, I'm no longer looking for things that the diesel does best. It's great that Ford would offer a diesel for those that have to own one but it wouldn't be for me. If I ever purchased a Ranger, I want a simple, inexpensive truck to bring mulch home from Home Depot. Take trash to the dump. Different trucks have different jobs. Not a huge believer in owning a diesel for the better mileage either. In my state, Diesel is way more expensive than gas. I have trouble with the math of better fuel mileage but the fuel costs more and it's an $8,0000 option in the SD line.

I send time on an RV forum that is populated with owners of the Ram with the 3.0L. Plenty of threads from people using the heck out of the little 3.0L Cummins. I never understand why they didn't purchase the really nice 6.7L Cummins. You can tow a house with it. Kind of the right tool for the right job thinking on my part.

If we are creating a list, I would not want a solar powered Ranger, electric, or electric hybrid Ranger either. Just a simple truck that last a very very very long time and doesn't cost $65,000. Hopefully, it can tow a small utility trailer to the dump a few times a year and help with mulch.


Bruce...