Jump to content

New Ranger Mule Pics


Recommended Posts

The case for 3.3 & 2.7 EB over the 2.3 EB would stem form their use in F150 and the development of AWD engine trans package.

With the 2.3 EB, the 2WD Manual and autos exist courtesy of Mustang.... interesting to see how Ford stitches this up...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we really need is for someone to be brave enough to pop the hood on one those mules and snap a few pics. :camera:

 

Seriously though, does anyone know the overall width of the 2.7 EB (including turbos) and how that compares to the frame width of the T6? It may not be a drop in and if not, how much expense is Ford willing to go to make it fit? My guess is not enough to build a combination that would be guaranteed to steal sales from the F-150.

 

If that's the case I guess I will be keeping my ten plus year old Sport Trac.

 

On another subject, did I hear someone mention AWD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though, does anyone know the overall width of the 2.7 EB (including turbos) and how that compares to the frame width of the T6? It may not be a drop in and if not, how much expense is Ford willing to go to make it fit? My guess is not enough to build a combination that would be guaranteed to steal sales from the F-150.

 

It fits sideways in a Ford Edge, so I don't think it would be a problem to fit it into a Ranger.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too. Except 2.5L four with the MT-82 standard, with the auto being optional at a small ($500?) premium. I say this because all the engineering is complete for 2.5/MT-82 powertrain in the global T6 Ranger.

 

I also think we'll see the 2.3eb/MT-82 combo since that powertrain already exists with current US EPA certification curtesy of the Mustang.

 

This is all predicated on the assumption that Ford offers the MT-82 at all. However, I think this is a strong possibility because 1) engineering and parts are already complete curtesy of global T6, 2) ROW markets still demand the manual trans option going forward, 3) same powertrain(s) are already EPA certified in mustang, 4) MT still made up a significant percentage of sales of the old Ranger when it was last sold in 2011, 5) Ford seems serious about Bronco's off-road chops, which is hard to take seriously without a MT option, and 6) While not exactly large, there is a portion of the truck market who prefer manual transmissions who Ford has left hanging for the last decade. I believe Ford would like to satisfy these buyers if the business case allows (see reasons 1-4 above).

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure you will see something "naturally aspirated" in the base model. Usually, fleets don't care for added doo-dads like turbos and such. I was thinking the 2.5L four with a six speed auto for baseline truck duty.

 

2.5 I4 is a good guess assuming it sticks around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any international displacement taxation/registration laws that would be reason to favor the 2.3eb vs. the 2.7eb? In the U.S. market I think higher hp/performance would be a driving force for the decision, but in the rest of the world, a lower boost, more efficient 2.3eb could be more desirable.

 

Also, what the weight ends up at (aluminum intensive or not?) will likely make difference in the engine selections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So today there was a 4 door SUV slightly bigger than a wrangler in full camo on Oakwood. Either FCA is trolling Ford with the new Wrangler or there is a very early build of the bronco out.

I highly doubt it's a Bronco with a production body this far out. It has to be a Wrangler.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about the current Ranger T6 frame as of 2011-present. Is it fully-boxed frame or partial boxed/open C-channel? I been trying to find info on this but just couldn't unless I used wrong terms in Google search to find out. I'm guessing it's doubtful the upcoming American Ranger will use aluminum for the cab and bed since it's likely an evolutionary update to the current global T6 platform. Unless of course aluminum materials is part of the update that would impact global platform; not sure. But I'm wondering if the T6 frame is fully-boxed or not because it's likely that it would be carried over with lots of updates unless all-new for America. I would hope it's fully-boxed so it would be consistent with Ford's usage of that with the F-Series. Any one knows?

 

Also lastly, anyone knows when it's likely the 2019 (or 2020 if not postponed) Ranger would be revealed or announced with info? I'm guessing Detroit Auto Show in January 2018. Or possibly Texas State Fair this coming September?

Not sure if anyone saw this. Ford has announced at the shareholders meeting that the upcoming Ranger would be on the current global Ranger platform. Which leaves me wondering: is the current T6 platform constructed of fully-boxed or partial-boxed framing? I can't find anything of that info online. Just wondering. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More mule pics here, this time from Australia. The accompanying article IMO is just more speculation, not facts. They are even throwing the 3.5EB and 3.0 V6 diesel into the mix. At least the comments section is entertaining.

 

 

http://www.caradvice.com.au/528868/2019-ford-ranger-v6-spied-in-australia/

This is an example of internet feedback loop, rumors from America are repeated in Aussie articles

which by location near Ranger development are then used as corroboration the original rumors.

 

What we do know is that the 2.2 I-4 diesel is being replaced by the new Ecoblue 2.0 TDI.

The Puma 2.2 TDI and 3.2 I-5 TDI are both built on the same production line. So if one

of them changes, there's a good chance that the other will too, Ford may choose to do

a low cost 3.0 I-5 for ROW markets or they may choose to use the 3.0 V6 Powerstroke

that's made in Dagenham, the V6 is ultra smooth and suits a lot of premium applications.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the Ranger being BOF would dictate that the drivetrain and suspension would be assembled to the frame and then the body lowered onto the frame later. That process also probably means the engine and trans would be lowered onto the frame as opposed to a typical uni-body where the body is lowered over the drivetrain/front suspension sub-assembly. The point being that engine width should be less of an issue with BOF construction. With a V6 twin-turbo engine (either gas or diesel) the major constraint should be routing the exhaust plumbing between the engine block and frame rails since the exhaust manifolds and turbos should be located above the frame rails.

 

On my Sport Trac with its 4.6L 3V V8, the tops of the frame rails are indeed below the exhaust manifolds. However, the front suspension upper control arm mounts are located on top of the frame rails and beside the exhaust manifolds. On the driver side the steering shaft is also a tight fit between the engine and frame rail. Depending on the front suspension design of the T6 there could also be a clearance issue, especially with the location of the turbos relative to the suspension mounting points. This would obviously be less of an issue with an in-line engine and all of the current T6 engines are, you guessed it, in-line. Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^which is why I don't see the Ranger getting anything bigger than the 2.7

 

Given the performance and weight of the Ranger, do you really need anything else? I can see a NA 3.3L V6 being a possible option, but at the same time, not really...if you have the Ecoboost 2.7 as an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Given the performance and weight of the Ranger, do you really need anything else? I can see a NA 3.3L V6 being a possible option, but at the same time, not really...if you have the Ecoboost 2.7 as an option.

The 3.3 wouldn't be a bad option (if it fits) for those who for whatever reason don't want a turbocharged engine but still want a V-6, otherwise sticking with the 2.5 I-4 should be just fine.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 3.3 wouldn't be a bad option (if it fits) for those who for whatever reason don't want a turbocharged engine but still want a V-6, otherwise sticking with the 2.5 I-4 should be just fine.

Once you go from single cab 2WD to crew cab and 4WD, the 2.5 is not really up to that, you need enough capacity

in those bigger, heavier Rangers. Experience in ROW markets is that the 2.5 get very thirsty in those heavier models

and no advantage over a larger capacity gasoline engine.

 

I wonder if the new 3.3 PFDI V6 has been developed for that needed NA V6 role in Ford's trucks and SUVs.

Looking at Colorado, the overwhelming majority of sales are V6 engined trucks.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your point about the 3.3 JP. Bzcat may be right about the volume engine being an eco boost but if so, I bet its either the 2.0 or 2.3. I will be surprised if the 2.7 is anything other than very limited availability if it is offered all. This is the Ranger not the F150 and Ford will be careful not to step on the 150's toes for obvious reasons. The 2.5 would make a good base engine especially if it is upgraded (it hasn't been changed since it was introduced in 2009 or 20100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the Ranger not the F150 and Ford will be careful not to step on the 150's toes for obvious reasons.

 

But F150 has the 3.5LEB, so I don't see the 2.7L stepping on any toes. But I agree it will be a top of the line Lightning/Raptor limited availability version of some kind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your point about the 3.3 JP. Bzcat may be right about the volume engine being an eco boost but if so, I bet its either the 2.0 or 2.3. I will be surprised if the 2.7 is anything other than very limited availability if it is offered all. This is the Ranger not the F150 and Ford will be careful not to step on the 150's toes for obvious reasons. The 2.5 would make a good base engine especially if it is upgraded (it hasn't been changed since it was introduced in 2009 or 20100.

 

I don't think the Ranger is going to step on toes at all..one of the biggest impetus for the Ranger is the rapidly climbing price of the F-150 when you start getting into the family friendly models like the SuperCab. There is a strong demand for a smaller pickup..check out the prices on the older Rangers...they still hold their value well.

 

Ford should be able to move Rangers no problem from the 25-45K price point without severely impacting F-150 sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...