Jump to content

2019 Ranger Rumors


Recommended Posts

Just looking at the Aussie Ranger 4x4 XLS Double Cab (ie SuperCrew) 4x4, it comes in at 2111kg, or 4653 lbs. IMHO, you're not moving an almost 4700 lb vehicle with a 2.0 or 2.5 NA engine. It would be an absolute turd for acceleration. There is no way I'd buy that.

 

Compare that to the 4453 lb Ford Explorer. It has 3.5NA, 2.3EB, and 3.5EB for engines. In the US, I don't see anything under the new 3.3 V6 available torque sized engine going into the new Ranger. I'm betting 3.3NA with 6 speed, like the F150. 2.3EB and 2.7 EB with 10 speeds. That'll be the likely power trains. Maybe a 3.5 NA if the 3.3 is supply contained.

 

This isn't the Ranger of old. 2.0 and 2.5 NA engines isn't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can easily see a 2.5 in a 2wd reg cab (and possible even extended cab) with 6-spd manual trans or optional 6 spd auto trans.

 

Eliminating 4wd saves 300 lbs, going from crew to reg cab saves another 500 lbs. Now you're looking at a 3800 lb vehicle which would be just fine with a 2.5 for a fleet vehicle given a 4.10 or 4.30 rear.

 

My 2011 supercab ranger with the 145 hp non-vct 2.3 duratec is fine. It's not fast but has no trouble keeping up with traffic. A 180 hp 2.5 ti-vct engine will more than make up for the additional weight of the t6 size truck.

 

Beyond that I see the 3.3/5 as the cheap $750 upgrade available across the lineup and the 2.7 eco reserved for a sport package and the highest crew cab trims for another $750 over the 3.3/5. Alternatively they may just split the difference and make the 2.7 the only optional engine for an extra $1000 to simplify the configuration list. We might also see a diesel depending on how well Ford thinks GMs offering is selling.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2wd reg cab T6 isn't going to be 4300 lbs. It'll be more like 3750 lbs or less. The current 2.5 has an extra 40 horse and torque over the non-vct 2.3 used in the old Ranger. That'll be plenty to make up for the extra 400 lbs.

 

But you have to also consider - would Ford offer an additional engine option only for the regular cab models? Because if that engine isn't enough for the SuperCrew models, then they won't offer it in that configuration, so would it make sense for them to offer it for only the lighter weight models? Doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the low end of the fleet market is half the reason Ford decided to go ahead with the Ranger. They wanted something they could sell for less than a stripper 150. We've already seen reg cab mules. The engineering for the 2.5 already exists in r.o.w. There's no better way to save production cost than go with a simple 4 cylinder naturally aspirated, port injected engine. This will help them keep the product profitable while meeting their pricing targets.

 

Also don't discount the 2.5. It makes more power than the optional ranger engines did up to 2000 and nearly as much power as the 4.6 V8 did as the base engine in the 09 F150. It's perfectly capable of hauling around a 2wd T6 without being slow to the point of being annoying. It'll be just fine for a fleet truck or just a starter vehicle sold to 20 year old retail buyers.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you guys know what this unreleased truck is going to weigh? Heck, we've still got conflicting reports of whether it is Al or not, and you guys are throwing out expected curb weights.

 

I still say it will be Al, because if not, it's going to weigh almost as much as the F150, and that's not going to help fuel economy out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this: https://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/models/4x2-xl-single-cab-pick-up-2l/

 

Regular cab 4x2 is 1808 kg, or 3985 lbs. Still damn close to Explorer weight at 4400 lbs. If Ford sold this configuration in the US, it would be most likely fleet only.

 

Toyota sold a regular cab Tacoma with 2.7 I4 (159hp) before it was discontinued. It now only sells double cab V6.

 

And take a look at Colorado... base engine is 2.5 I4 (200hp), optional 3.6 V6 or 2.8 diesel. Extended cab or double cab. No single cab.

 

Or Frontier... based engine is 2.5 I4 (150hp), optional 4.0 V6. Extended cab or double cab. No single cab.

 

So it depends on what market Ford is really interested in the US with Ranger. Do they want to target only lifestyle/retail customers? Then they will only sell double cab like Toyota with 3.3 V6 and perhaps 2.0 EB and 2.7 EB. If they want to sell to fleet buyers, they'll have regular cab (or maybe extended cab) like GM and Nissan, with 2.5 I4 as base engine.

Edited by bzcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the base Colorado engine is a 2.5 I-4 with 200 hp. The 2.5 from the Fusion/Escape would seemingly make a good base motor but there has been conjecture that it will soon be discontinued which seems plausible given that Ford has done nothing to enhance it since it debuted in the 09 Escape. If it was bumped up to 200 hp it would be a great engine for Ranger, Fusion, and Escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the real question... whether 2.5 I4 survives beyond the current tour of duty with Fusion and Escape.

 

2.5 I4 is pretty much relegated to fleet order only at this point. The retail version of Fusion and Escape base engine is essentially 1.5 EB.

 

But if Ford really wants a non-turbo I4 as the base engine, 2.5 is the only logical choice from the current inventory of engines.

 

And just to refresh everyone's memories, Ford has these unofficial "EB replacement charts":

 

1.0 EB low output replaced 1.25 I4

1.0 EB high output replaced 1.5/1.6 I4

1.5 EB low output replaced 2.0 I4 (outside North America anyway)

1.5 EB high output replaced 2.5 I4 (but 2.5 still available just for kicks)

2.0 EB low output replaced 2.5 V6

2.0 EB high output replaced 3.0 V6

2.3 EB as an alternative to 3.5 V6 or 3.7 V6

2.7 EB in cars/CUVs as an alternative to 3.5 V6 or 3.7 V6

2.7 EB in F-150 as an alternative to 5.0 V8

3.5 EB in F-150 replaced 6.2 V8

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

 

But you have to also consider - would Ford offer an additional engine option only for the regular cab models? Because if that engine isn't enough for the SuperCrew models, then they won't offer it in that configuration, so would it make sense for them to offer it for only the lighter weight models? Doubtful.

it might be obvious to everyone but me

but

imho it'll depend on MPG

- seems I've seen articles/posts lately about minimum power -

think a 'bargain' regular-cab would definitely need more than 1/2/1 higher mileage

Edited by 2b2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the real question... whether 2.5 I4 survives beyond the current tour of duty with Fusion and Escape.

 

2.5 I4 is pretty much relegated to fleet order only at this point. The retail version of Fusion and Escape base engine is essentially 1.5 EB.

 

But if Ford really wants a non-turbo I4 as the base engine, 2.5 is the only logical choice from the current inventory of engines.

 

Gasoline sales in ROW markets are actually quite low as the diesel I-4 and I-5 are preferred for fuel efficiency and torque.

I wonder if Ford is considering whether to replace the 2.5 TiVCT with a 2.3 DI as an easy base engine improvement.

The 2.5 engine line could simply give way to the 2.3 EB and 2.3 DI, much the same way the 2.0 EB and 2.0 DI are paired.

 

In US applications, Ford may just go straight to the 3.3 V6 and 6AT as a base and just have the 2.7 EB as the top engine.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there's any advantage to DI on the base engine used in fleet trucks. It adds significantly to the cost of a truck theyre trying to keep cheap. It adds significantly to maintenance costs, which is bad for fleets. All it really gains you is a ~8% reduction in displacement. This might matter in countries with a displacement tax, but not in the US. It's also generally accepted that DI causes emissions issues so it's got that going against it too. As for fuel economy, I doubt a DI 2.3 is going to be significantly better than a port injected 2.5 in a 3500-4000 lb truck.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we actually think they'll offer a regular cab? I think part of Colorado's success has been because they're selling more crew cab, optioned models, and I think that's where much of Ford's success (and program profitability) will come from. Though Ford is obviously more fleet-oriented than GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've seen reg cab mules, so that points to a reg cab offering. Personally I think it's smart. There are a lot of fleet and "first car" buyers that would be interested in a cheap reg cab truck. If Ford can keep the low end trucks profitable, they'll add significant volume to the model and make the high end trucks that much more profitable. Ford is obviously ok with selling focuses for $16k; surely the same math works for a $20k reg cab Ranger. Obviously it's not the same profit as a $30k f150, but stripper ranger sales will be largely incremental to f150.

 

Back to injection strategies, port plus direct injection seems like the worst of both worlds from a cost standpoint. You're basically paying for two complete fuel systems. Yes it eliminates the emissions issues with straight direct injection, but I don't see the logic for a base fleet truck engine when they could just use a 8% larger port injected engine that will return essentially the same fuel economy. Turbos and direct injection parts are not cheap and add significantly to Ford's cost. They'll kill profitably of the low end trucks.

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

We've seen reg cab mules, so that points to a reg cab offering. Personally I think it's smart. There are a lot of fleet and "first car" buyers that would be interested in a cheap reg cab truck. If Ford can keep the low end trucks profitable, they'll add significant volume to the model and make the high end trucks that much more profitable. Ford is obviously ok with selling focuses for $16k; surely the same math works for a $20k reg cab Ranger. Obviously it's not the same profit as a $30k f150, but stripper ranger sales will be largely incremental to f150.

 

 

 

I think it is an open question if Ford will sell the regular cab Ranger in the US. there is no significant volume to be had... the market actually doesn't exist right now as we just saw Toyota stop selling the regular cab Tacoma (Toyota is not even selling an extended cab... crew cab only). No one is selling a $20k single cab truck like your described. If there is a pent up demand for one, I don't see any evidence of it. SWB trucks are also a big CAFE negative due to the smaller footprint so they are generally not worth the trouble. I think the US spec Ranger will be extended cab and crew cab. One of the irony of this midsize pickup truck renaissance is that they've basically morphed into what Explorer Sporttrac used to be... a BOF SUV with a bed. Ford really had the right idea.

 

But for the rest of the world, yes, there will be a regular cab Ranger.

Edited by bzcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I think the US spec Ranger will be extended cab and crew cab. One of the irony of this midsize pickup truck renaissance is that they've basically morphed into what Explorer Sporttrac used to be... a BOF SUV with a bed. Ford really had the right idea.

 

 

 

The problem with the Sport Trac was its bed was more or less too short to do anything useful with. It was what 4 foot long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to injection strategies, port plus direct injection seems like the worst of both worlds from a cost standpoint. You're basically paying for two complete fuel systems. Yes it eliminates the emissions issues with straight direct injection, but I don't see the logic for a base fleet truck engine when they could just use a 8% larger port injected engine that will return essentially the same fuel economy. Turbos and direct injection parts are not cheap and add significantly to Ford's cost. They'll kill profitably of the low end trucks.

You're looking with US eyes, think globally as a gasoline engine that needs efficiency but still much lower cost than the diesel.option.

That PFDI seems to be spreading across all of Ford NA and European engines - save for the 2.0 DI which is probably dead end now..

 

Production space for the 2.5 is key here and could be the determinor to whether the 2.5 TiVCT continues or not, it may suit Ford's

objectives to bundle EB and NA production under an easy non-EB version much like the 2.0 DI was for US Focus.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think it is an open question if Ford will sell the regular cab Ranger in the US. there is no significant volume to be had... the market actually doesn't exist right now as we just saw Toyota stop selling the regular cab Tacoma (Toyota is not even selling an extended cab... crew cab only). No one is selling a $20k single cab truck like your described. If there is a pent up demand for one, I don't see any evidence of it. SWB trucks are also a big CAFE negative due to the smaller footprint so they are generally not worth the trouble. I think the US spec Ranger will be extended cab and crew cab. One of the irony of this midsize pickup truck renaissance is that they've basically morphed into what Explorer Sporttrac used to be... a BOF SUV with a bed. Ford really had the right idea.

 

But for the rest of the world, yes, there will be a regular cab Ranger.

I was envisioning one chassis/wheelbase length with three body styles:

 

1. Crew cab with 60" bed

2. Supercab with 72" bed

3. Regular cab with 90" bed.

 

They'd all be the same from a cafe footprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're looking with US eyes, think globally as a gasoline engine that needs efficiency but still much lower cost than the diesel.option.

That PFDI seems to be spreading across all of Ford NA and European engines - save for the 2.0 DI which is probably dead end now..

 

Production space for the 2.5 is key here and could be the determinor to whether the 2.5 TiVCT continues or not, it may suit Ford's

objectives to bundle EB and NA production under an easy non-EB version much like the 2.0 DI was for US Focus.

There's really no reason they couldn't do 2.5 in the US and 2.3 DI everywhere else. They're the same block as far as I can tell. All the hard connections would be the same..... motor mounts, coolant hoses, exhaust, bellhousing, etc would just bolt up to either engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think it is an open question if Ford will sell the regular cab Ranger in the US. there is no significant volume to be had... the market actually doesn't exist right now as we just saw Toyota stop selling the regular cab Tacoma (Toyota is not even selling an extended cab... crew cab only). No one is selling a $20k single cab truck like your described. If there is a pent up demand for one, I don't see any evidence of it. SWB trucks are also a big CAFE negative due to the smaller footprint so they are generally not worth the trouble. I think the US spec Ranger will be extended cab and crew cab. One of the irony of this midsize pickup truck renaissance is that they've basically morphed into what Explorer Sporttrac used to be... a BOF SUV with a bed. Ford really had the right idea.

 

But for the rest of the world, yes, there will be a regular cab Ranger.

IMO you made the case for Ford to offer a regular cab. No competition! The auto parts houses of the world will snap them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was envisioning one chassis/wheelbase length with three body styles:

 

1. Crew cab with 60" bed

2. Supercab with 72" bed

3. Regular cab with 90" bed.

 

They'd all be the same from a cafe footprint.

 

I think CAFE is only a secondary consideration. Regular cab only accounted for a tiny fraction of Tacoma sales before it was discontinued. GM and Nissan both didn't bother. Demand for that body style basically doesn't exist.

 

So not only are you tooling up for 3 cabs, you are also tooling up for 3 beds to sell a few dozen regular cabs a month? I thought you wanted the regular cab to be cheap? That's not a recipe for low costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO you made the case for Ford to offer a regular cab. No competition! The auto parts houses of the world will snap them up.

 

There is no competition because there is no demand. There is also no fullsize wagon on the market. Maybe Ford should bring back Mercury Turnpike! The wagon nerds of the world will snap them up.

Edited by bzcat
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...