blwnsmoke Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 2.3 for base engine and 2.7 optional?? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 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... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Yes - 2.3 RWD is ready to go thanks to Mustang. So is the 2.7LEB from F150. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 (edited) Don't expect the "Mini-trucking" fad to come back, though. And no "Splash" models in Teal Green or Purple. And certainly no sub $15,000 MSRP's. The 90's are long gone. Edited May 9, 2017 by 630land 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 What we really need is for someone to be brave enough to pop the hood on one those mules and snap a few pics. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) 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 May 10, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 2.5 I4 is a good guess assuming it sticks around. It's in the Fusion, Escape and Transit Connect. I don't think it's going anywhere any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted May 11, 2017 Author Share Posted May 11, 2017 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pffan1990 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 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 May 13, 2017 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted May 14, 2017 Author Share Posted May 14, 2017 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'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 ^which is why I don't see the Ranger getting anything bigger than the 2.7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 ^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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 (edited) 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 May 15, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 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. 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.