So I saw the other day that Ford has developed a new 3.5 liter V6 to replace most of its current 3.0s in the next 5 years. Apparently it is the same size and weight, but will be 7-12% more fuel efficient and will have 47 more hp. anyway, does anyone know if this new engine will make its way into the Ranger? I currently have a 2.3l but my next purchase in a couple years would most likely be the 4.0 unless this 3.5 is put in the Rangers, in which case I would hold off further on my purchase until they offer it.

 

I would bet it will go into the Rangers, though I haven't heard anything. It's about time. I think they outta kick the 4.0L up a little too then.

The good thing is if they upgrade the 3.slow you can get it in the base model without paying 10Gs extra for the stupid 4.0L.

If it doesn't get a new 3.5L, I'll be getting a Chevy, I've decided that. I'm not paying 10 grand for a 4.0L to get stupid options I don't want. I can get the big Chevy engine on the base model. (big being an I-5 on the Colorado or V-8 on the Silverado)

 

I'm puzzled...isn't the 4.0L like a $1200 option? Where did the $10k come from??

I tried pricing out a 4.0L several ways and never came up with that much of a price hike. The only time Ford forces you into picking an option with the 4.0L is if you try to get one in an XL, then you're forced to get A/C.

If you're talking about what's available on a dealer's lot, then I can't help ya there. Dealers pile on the options because that's what most people want. If you don't want all the extra stuff just sit down with them and order a truck they way you want it.

 

Ranger you changed your avatar?

 

Back to the subject... :-)

The 3.5 to which you're referring is not a "truck" engine, really. It's actually a larger version of the 3.0L DOHC Duratec motor (not to be confused with the 3.0L "Vulcan" used in the Ranger). It's currently used in most Ford cars, and dates back to 1996 when it was introduced in the Taurus as a replacement for the problematic 3.8. The 3.0 as it sits is somewhere around 200 hp/ 200 ft-lbs. of torque. It's really inadequate in their current applications in terms of both output and "refinement" when compared to the offerings of other manufacturers. They bumped the Duratec's numbers up a bit when they added variable valve timing and made it the base engine in the Lincoln LS.

I don't *think* it's been used in a RWD application, unless the LS is RWD. As stated above, it's in the Taurus, as well as the Freestyle, Five Hundred, and Futura. It's also an option on the Escape.

I had a Duratec in a Taurus, and it was fine in that application. It's not torquey, however, and you really have to wind it up to make much horsepower.

I'm not sure what dimension they're changing to up the displacement to 3.5. If it's stroke, then the engine may well have enough torque for a Ranger application. If it's bore, or a combination of bore and stroke, I'm not sure. Of course, with variable valve timing and computer controls, engineers today can do a lot of different things with the same engine. Even so, it seems that Ford would avoid costly engine controls on a Ranger engine to keep costs down.

 

The 3.5L is a new design, not really based on the Duratec, although it's about the same size in terms of physical dimensions.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...d.php?t=428629

IMO, it has plenty of torque for a small chassis RWD truck such as a Ranger or Explorer (240 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm estimated).

 

And my big long post is obliterated by two sentences... :-)

Actually, I really don't think I'm wrong about the origin of the 3.5. Look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_engine

About halfway down the page, you read this:
So we see that the 3.5 is indeed a modified 3.0 Duratec. Also, I'm right that in order to get the type of torque numbers we'd want, they're using expensive VVT and engine managment techniques. Coupled with the fact that the Ranger is essentially a 22 year old design, I wonder how many people are going to want to pay the price this engine will cost?

Lastly, I'm also right that you're still going to have to wind this baby up pretty tight to get the HP and Torque numbers they're spec'ing. I'm not opposed to high revs, but that's not what you usually see in a truck application, and it's certainly not what you want if you are trying to pull or haul anything.

 

The source you cited does seem to contradict the Ford Media article that I cited. But I'm sticking by the proposition that it's a new design. (..."all-new 3.5-liter V-6 architecture...")

Interesting that the wikipedia.org site mentions the Mustang as one of the potential recipients of the 3.5L. I hadn't heard that before anywhere. It seems possible I suppose, but I haven't heard or read about any plans by Ford to put that engine in the new Mustang.

It also says that the "Duratec 35 will replace the Duratec 30 in some applications (notably the Ford Five Hundred) by the end of that year [2006]", but that's not going to happen regarding the 500.

Inasmuch as the 3.5L redlines at 6700, I don't necessarily consider 4500 rpm to be winding it out when it comes to attaining peak torque. And although I haven't yet seen any torque curves to make a comparison with, I'd be willing to bet that the 3.5L puts out as good or better torque than does the 4.0L SOHC over the entire rpm range, even at the lower rpms. My thinking is that, if the SOHC is good enough for the Explorer and Ranger, than the Duratec 35 should be too.

 

If you look at the sheer volume of technology that Ford is installing on this engine, it's a bit startling. There's very little beyond what they've listed that could be added, save the aforementioned direct fuel injection or a turbo/supercharger.

If they use that totally optioned form of the engine, then you're absolutely right. With the right engine management, they definitely can make it produce torque over a very broad curve.

I don't think they can make an engine this technically advanced, and complicated, cheaply. Operating from that premise, there are two different issues here that are of concern to me. First, if they put in the Ranger a version of that engine that is more mainstream, less loaded with high tech, and less expensive, then it's going to be similar to putting a 3.0 Duratec in there. In such a case, the torque curve is not going to be so broad, because the technology won't be there to make it that way. You'll recall that when Ford started to phase out the 3.8, they wouldn't put the Duratec even in the Windstar because there wasn't enough low-end torque.

Secondly, if they do put a fully decked out version of that engine in the Ranger, it's going to add significantly to the cost. Again, I wonder if a truck that at that point will be essentially a 24 or 25 year old design will command the dollars that they'll have to charge to pay for that engine.

I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps they'll make the 3.5 Duratec the new 3.0 Duratec. By that I mean, maybe they'll install it in everything they have. If so, then the economy of scale may make the engine more inexpensive.

That brings me to the applications in which this engine would be useful. Much sooner than in the Ranger, I can see this as being a good base engine for the Mustang, where high revving technology would be easier to sell. In looking on the internet, I did see a number of places where people were speculating that this engine would eventually replace the 4.2 as the V-6 in the Mustang.

Lastly, you mentioned that the engine is not as yet slated for installation in the Five Hundred. Considering that Ford seems to be phasing out the Crown Vic, at least in its current iteration, the Five Hundred is their new "big car." It's not small. I'm pretty sure it's even listed as a "large sedan" by the EPA. It surely could use this engine. For that matter, having owned a 3.0 Duratec in a Taurus wagon, I can tell you that all the new cars that have the 3.0 Duratec, except maybe the Fusion, really need a 3.5 to even be competitive with other cars in the same categories. I really believe that they'll be forced by competition to use the 3.5 in basically every application in which they're currently using the 3.0.

Lastly, I think it's time to recognize that we're moving into a new era, mechanically. Because of the ever increasing demands on oil, it's price is not coming back down. Couple that with the ever increasing environmental regulation, and we're going to have to admit that the engines we're using now are not going to fit into the template of future design. We're going to have ever increasing complexity in engine design. Engines are going to be shorter stroke, bigger bore, higher compression, higher revving designs. That's where you find efficiency, but not where you find torque. Notice Ford is talking about using a 6 speed transmission with the 3.5. Perhaps adding granny gears and short spacing the gearing is the replacement for actual torque.

 

You raise some interesting points, particularly the one about the 6-speed transmission possibly being necessary, in a sense, to better distribute torque along the rpm range where it's most needed. But then again, that tranny is for FWD applications, whereas the Ranger and Ex are of course RWD.

Speaking of RWD, if indeed Ford decides use the 3.5L in the Mustang, then IMO that would make it all the more likely that it could end up in the Explorer, as well. They already share the 4.0L SOHC, so why not the 3.5L?

After giving it some thought though, there are IMO several reasons why (you touched upon a few already) the 35 will not be a candidate for the Ranger, the biggest one being that it currently appears that the Ranger isn't even in Ford's long range plans to begin with.

I agree that the Five Hundred will eventually get the Duratec 35. Just not in '06 and probably not even in '07.

I don't share your belief that the Duratec 30 is so outclassed right now @ 200 hp/ 200 ft-lbs that Ford might as well substitute the 35 for it in everything across the board. The DOHC 3.0L has been around for a decade now and during that time it has proven to be both versatile and reliable. IMO it will continue to make a fine base model choice in a lot of applications for many years to come

 

You're right, and I might not have clearly stated my point. It will, indeed, be a good "base model" choice. But it isn't as powerful or smooth as, for example, the GM 3800 that's been in many comperable GM cars. When you look at the upper level powerplants that are available from the Japanese, you see the comparison is even worse. I'm not saying the 3.0 Duratec is a bad engine; I actually like it. But it is not powerful or quiet enough to compare to many of the offerings of the competition, especially on more premium models like Ford has introduced and is introducing.

 

I was speaking of how many options you did have to get to get the 4.0L and yes, dealers around here I meant, sorry for not clarifying. I have a couple of options if I go to a new Ranger, either order from Jeff on here or order directly from Ford. I can't find anything around here I like. Basically, I want the totally stripped down Ranger, plus A/C, all the gauges (is that even an option or is a tach standard now?), manual tranny, manual everything for that matter, except maybe windows this time around. And the 4.0L. And that's it nothing else, nothing to deal with other than that stuff. JMHO.
Yes I changed my avatar to something more suitable, plus someone else on this forum had my old one...
Sorry for hijacking, back on thread!!!

 

thank goodness. if guys were paying 10 grand for a 4.0 i'd say your all nuts! you could by a jet engine for that kind of dough. well maybe not.

 

Naw, you didn't hijack the thread. It's just when people start talking about chebby, I start foaming at the corners of my mouth...

:-)

 

Ford Still Has Room To Play With The 4.0 Hp. They Still Couid Go To The Three Valve Head And Varible Timming. Or Better Heads And Cams, The Possobilities Are Endless. Maybe Not Double Overhead Cams, Because Truck Engines Need To Make Tork Down Low,but The 4.0 Is A Good Power Plant. So Don"t Write It Off Just Yet. Ford Is Just Slow When It Comes Too The Hp Wars Unless It Has An Svt Badge.