akirby Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 Unless they're planning to do a stripped down single cab short bed like the old Ranger. But I doubt that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 Expedition, Navigator, Edge, MKZ, MKC I wasn't counting Lincolns. They want to separate themselves from Ford so they shouldn't be used in this discussion Can't count Expedition since it's only engine is the 3.5EB. I'll concede Edge, I thought the base engine was still the 3.5 V6 NA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 I wasn't counting Lincolns. Can't count Expedition since it's only engine is the 3.5EB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 How the heck is a single engine a base engine? That implies there's a choice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 How the heck is a single engine a base engine? That implies there's a choice! Base to me means standard. Every vehicle has a standard engine, most have optional engines. But even if I give you that one, you didn't exclude Lincoln. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 Base to me means standard. Every vehicle has a standard engine, most have optional engines. But even if I give you that one, you didn't exclude Lincoln. I'll give you that, I should have been more clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 I thought the newest three cyl ecoboost (cant remember if it's 1.5 or 1.6) is being used in applications where the old 2.5 NA duratec 4 cylinder was. The idea was that the cost of the extra turbo hardware was offset but the lack of a 4th cyl worth of parts. In any case, I don't think a 2.0 NA will be enough engine. Doesn't the current T6 ranger already use the 2.5 NA as it's base engine? I can't imagine Ford going with less engine for the American version... If they do use the 2.0 NA, it better come with a manual trans. That engine combined with a slushbox in a 4000 lb truck is going to make for one sssssllllloooowwww ride! 1.5 Ecoboost is the replacement for 2.0 NA not 2.5 NA. I'm pretty sure the base engine on the Ranger will be an I4. Either 2.5 NA or 2.0 Ecoboost. The 2.0 NA is on its way out. I don't think we'll see it again after US-spec Focus is gone. I don't think the 3.3 V6 will see the light of day in Ranger. The small V6 in F-150 is just there for fleet sales and it is strictly volume controlled. Ford steers retail buyers towards 2.7 Ecoboost, and for good reasons. It doesn't make any sense then to put that engine in the Ranger as a retail-friendly volume optional engine. It underminds the CAFE strategy. It's going to be 2.0 Ecoboost (or 2.5 NA) and 2.7 Ecoboost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 It's going to be 2.0 Ecoboost (or 2.5 NA) and 2.7 Ecoboost. I'd like to see the possibility of a 2.3EB in the mix. Something with the updates the bigger 2.7EB has like dual injectors, cast in exhaust manifolds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 I'd like to see the possibility of a 2.3EB in the mix. Something with the updates the bigger 2.7EB has like dual injectors, cast in exhaust manifolds. Maybe 2.0EB for 2WD, 2.3EB for 4WD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted May 8, 2017 Author Share Posted May 8, 2017 I'm still not convinced that the top of the line gas engine won't be the 2.3L EB. All of the engines in the current T6 are in-lines and the 2.3 EB in Mustang tune is already more powerful than any gas engine currently offered in the GM mid-sizers. The 2.3 EB is rated at 310 hp and 320 lb ft. in the 2017 Mustang whereas the 3.6L V6 in the 2017 Colorado is rated at 308 hp and 275 lb ft. I really hope the Ranger gets the 2nd gen 2.7 EB but I'm not holding my breath. Packaging of the twin turbos could be an issue and even the 1st gen 2.7 puts out 100 lb ft more torque than the best gas engine from GM. My guess is that if the 2.7 is ever offered in the Ranger it will be in a "Raptor" version and probably not the first year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 My guess is that if the 2.7 is ever offered in the Ranger it will be in a "Raptor" version and probably not the first year. That's my expectation, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) The good thing about Ecoboost engine is you can turn up the output (or down) with simple software changes. There is no reason why Ford can't offer 2 different version of 2.7 Ecoboost in the Ranger: one for regular Rangers around 300hp/325lb-ft, and one for Raptor around 350hp/400lb-ft As for 2.3 Ecoboost, I think Ford probably has internal targets for MPG that is more easily achieved with 2.0 Ecoboost. The 2.0 Ecoboost is already in Everest so there is not a lot of new engineering resources that have to be devoted to this. Also think about what the Bronco will require... I think 2.7 Ecoboost is all but a guarantee in the Bronco, which means it will be in Ranger too. Putting the 2.3 Ecoboost in the mix seems redundant with existing 2.0 Ecoboost already turn key solution, and 2.7 being almost required for Bronco. If Ford is going to invest a bunch of money to put a new engine type in Ranger, does it make sense to do 2.3 Ecoboost or 2.7 Ecoboost? I think they will go V6. Edited May 8, 2017 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 The 2.0 NA is on its way out. I don't think we'll see it again after US-spec Focus is gone. Not what I'm hearing. The plant that produces it is planning on volume for the engine going up after the Focus is out of production and the engine is revised. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 In my opinion what doesn't make sense would be Ford bringing out the new 3.3 and then limiting it to just a few F150's. Ford has already stated that it will have the same power output as the 3.5 NA V-6. It sounds like the 3.3 will eventually replace the 3.5 and I expect it to be a big volume powerplant (with the 10 speed auto) for both the Ranger and Bronco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Will the new Ranger have the new 10-speed auto? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted May 9, 2017 Author Share Posted May 9, 2017 Will the new Ranger have the new 10-speed auto? At this point its all speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnm Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 It won't be the 2.0 ecoboost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Unless they're planning to do a stripped down single cab short bed like the old Ranger. But I doubt that. There IS a market for that ! Fleets !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 There IS a market for that ! Fleets !! Yes, that's what I was implying, but the question is whether Ford wants that fleet business with Ranger. I think it comes down to plant capacity. If they have extra capacity then they'll probably do it. If not they'll stick more to retail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Yes, that's what I was implying, but the question is whether Ford wants that fleet business with Ranger. I think it comes down to plant capacity. If they have extra capacity then they'll probably do it. If not they'll stick more to retail. They're talking about one shift for the first year of Ranger production until Bronco launches. They will have the capacity. The question is if they want to invest in such a comparatively small segment of an already relatively small midsize pickup market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 (edited) This time in Colorado. This appears to be a different truck than the one seen in Michigan back in Feb. It has a rear bumper and the camo wrap has been applied differently although it also has the Everest looking grille. Check out the road sign in the first pic. Someone either has a good sense of humor or they didn't realize the irony. http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/05/2019-ford-ranger-spied-testing-high-in-the-mountains.html Lake Dillon Dam Road - The Ranger looks like it is in the left turn lane to head East on I-70 up the 7 mile climb From Dillon/Silverthorne to the west portal of the Eisenhower Tunnel (The Ike Gauntlet) http://www.summitdaily.com/explore-summit/summit-360-video-views-of-lake-dillon-from-dillon-dam-road/ Edited May 9, 2017 by Kev-Mo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 They're talking about one shift for the first year of Ranger production until Bronco launches. They will have the capacity. The question is if they want to invest in such a comparatively small segment of an already relatively small midsize pickup market. True, and it depends on what happens with retail sales. If they take off then they may not have the extra capacity without adding another shift. You'd have to do a ton of fleet sales to justify that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Fwiw projections are about 100-110k units a year for Ranger. I imagine one or 2 major fleet orders the first year or two could change plans. Expect the worst and hope for the best. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 In my opinion what doesn't make sense would be Ford bringing out the new 3.3 and then limiting it to just a few F150's. Ford has already stated that it will have the same power output as the 3.5 NA V-6. It sounds like the 3.3 will eventually replace the 3.5 and I expect it to be a big volume powerplant (with the 10 speed auto) for both the Ranger and Bronco. The new 3.5 is already limited availability on the F-150 so why would 3.3 be any different? The volume engine in the Ranger will be an Ecoboost, not a NA V6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 (edited) Fwiw projections are about 100-110k units a year for Ranger. I imagine one or 2 major fleet orders the first year or two could change plans. Expect the worst and hope for the best. If those projections are right, it would support the idea of fewer engine options than more. While the V6 options may be tempting for Ford, the 2.3 EB packs more nicely into the engine bay and also generally gives better official fuel economy numbers than the NA V6. Maybe the uniqueness of the Bronco justifies different engines and those in turn are shared with the Ranger? In isolation, certain engine choices don't seem logical but perhaps when combined, the case is made.. Edited May 9, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.