2.3 MPG Predictions/expectations?? - Page 4 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Go Back  Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Small Chassis Trucks > 2019 Ranger
Reload this Page >

2.3 MPG Predictions/expectations??

Notices
2019 Ranger Everything about the new 2019 Ford Ranger.

2.3 MPG Predictions/expectations??

 
  #46  
Old 11-30-2018, 06:11 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 28,893
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by YoGeorge View Post
I think they put one chain on the front of the engine and the other on the rear, and the cylinder heads were identical to each other. Just looked it up on wiki and they drove the cams off a jackshaft that ran in the old camshaft spot, which strikes me as complexity for the sake of complexity...and yes, one chain on the front of the engine and the other on the rear...with cam tensioners that were prone to failure.

Ford's program to put overhead cams in all their engines was, IMO, not worthwhile for the results it produced. The mod motors ended up huge in size and although they were good performers, probably cost a LOT more money to build than Chrysler's Hemi--the hemi is cheaper to build than the old Chrysler OHC 4.7 liter V8 which was comparable to the Ford 4.6.

The older, simpler versions of the Cologne engine (2.6, 2.8, 2.9 in particular) were really nice, smooth, and powerful engines in their day. And the Duratec and its descendents are great motors that were properly designed with dual overhead cams from the start.
Yes!! I had a 1979 Mustang with the 2.8L and manual 4 speed, what a scream to drive!!! Ford didn't offer this combo for long, so sad. And I've owned a 1999 Taurus Wagon with the HO 3.0. This was perhaps the happiest that I've ever been with a Ford sedan.
 
  #47  
Old 11-30-2018, 12:16 PM
AlaskanEx's Avatar
AlaskanEx
AlaskanEx is online now
Bleed Ford Blue
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 13,349
AlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by tseekins View Post
Sadly the 4.0 had some serious timing chain issues. These chains IIRC are on the back of the engine and practically require an engine pull to replace or repair them. One of many Ford engines to prematurely plague the unsuspecting owner.
97-01 SOHC were ticking time bombs (along with the 5 speed auto behind them) if you ask me, they did run well through! We have an '04 Ranger with the SOHC 4.0 as a shop truck at work (with snow plow, sander and ladder rack), it's been run hard, overloaded and put away wet and keeps coming back for more. We do keep up on oil changes and basic maintenance but that's all the love it gets. It seems the 03-04 and up to 2010 in the mustang 4.0's were pretty good, I'm not sure what all upgrades they came up with during the years.
 
  #48  
Old 12-16-2018, 09:28 PM
Watson300's Avatar
Watson300
Watson300 is offline
New User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Woodlawn, TN
Posts: 14
Watson300 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Ranger MPG

Ford has the Rangerís MPG rating on their website now. 21 city, 26 highway for 4x2. And 20 city, 24 highway for 4x4. Not bad but not much better than a 2.7 ecoboost F-150.
 
  #49  
Old 12-17-2018, 05:47 AM
smlford's Avatar
smlford
smlford is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SML / Hatteras
Posts: 1,219
smlford has a good reputation on FTE.smlford has a good reputation on FTE.
If I'm not mistaken those are the best numbers in any gas powered mid size truck...
 
  #50  
Old 12-17-2018, 06:00 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 28,893
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by smlford View Post
If I'm not mistaken those are the best numbers in any gas powered mid size truck...

I just visited Nissan and Toyota's websites. Ford's numbers are the best advertised numbers and most likely the most powerful midsized truck to boot.
 
  #51  
Old 12-18-2018, 12:05 PM
2.7EcoBoost
2.7EcoBoost is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 145
2.7EcoBoost is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by 2.7EcoBoost View Post
With Chevy releasing the very disappointing EPA numbers for the Silverado 2.7 4cyl (20/23 for a 2wd), it's really making me wonder what the Ranger will come in at. While we don't know the curb weight of the truck, somewhere around 4,500lbs for a SuperCrew 4x4 should be close. I personally think anything less than a +2 city/hwy compared to a 2.7 F-150 4x4 (19/24) will be a huge letdown. In other words 21/26 for a 4x4 Ranger. I really could see this truck getting the same 19/24 as the F-150 or like 20/24, just because of the little 2.3 having to work harder. I know 2 mpg isn't much, but the 2.7 would make this truck change the rules, so if the 2.3 doesn't beat the 2.7 numbers handily, I for one will be a bit disappointed.


I guess I was spot on. I will retract my comment on being disappointed however. This truck will be nice and likely lead the class in performance and we know the 2.3 is capable and should be more than adequate. I won't retract that the 2.7 could have changed the rules. Maybe it was a production, profit or marketing based decision to go with the 2.3? I don't see the 2.7 being an option now ( unless Raptor gets a green light ) even in the future because the mpg numbers would have to be at least as good as the 2.3 based off the 2.7 in the heavier F-150 getting the same 24 mpg hwy in 4x4. GM will likely flop with it's 2.7 4cyl in the Silverado and it will make it's way to the Colorado/Canyon and probably up the ante. If nothing else Ford likely turned the mid sized segment into a torquey 4 cyl turbo class in the long run. Maybe we'll see history repeat itself and the Ranger get bumped to a 2.5 down the road......My biggest disappointments are the fact that you have to add on a trailer brake controller and keyless entry keypad is a stick on. Both of which look like cheesy after thoughts in a truck capable of costing $45,000.
 
  #52  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:03 AM
joedOH
joedOH is offline
New User
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 8
joedOH is starting off with a positive reputation.
I still have one truck to replace. After all comparisons it will be the F150 with the 2.7 EB. I'm not to impressed with the power of the 2.3 in the Ranger.
 
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us About Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: