akirby Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 I'm pretty sure the Focus RS require 93 octane gas. That's why I expect lower numbers in the Ranger. I agree, though, that it should be plenty of power for the Ranger. True so probably 300/310 hp but still the same torque. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) It depends if Ranger's EB 2.3 has PFDI or not, it may still have the 350 lb ft but not the 350 HP of the Focus RS, could well be 320 HP / 350 lb ft on 87.... which is as you'd expect down on torque compared to the EB 2.7 V6 We know the engine is getting a steel crank and forged connecting rods. Edited March 13, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pffan1990 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 2010 Ranger 4.0L - 207 hp, 238 lb/ft 2019 Ranger 2.3LEB - 350 hp, 350 lb/ft (in the Focus RS) While I understand the 2019 Ranger is heavier, you really can’t complain about the 2.3LEB power even for a FX4. The better question is why didn’t they put a cheaper, smaller engine on the lower models. Ford sure has gone a long way from ancient 4.0L V6 engine to the current 2.3L EB engine in terms of power and fuel efficiency. I have also wondered why Ford didn't offer a cheaper engine for at least the XL trim or fleets. I'm sure fleets would be thrilled to have the 2.5L I4 engine from the current Transit Connect, re-engineered for Ranger-usage, of course. The same engine can be had with compressed natural gas (CNG) for those fleets who use that alternative fuel. I'm sure some of the local exterminator companies would love to use the Ranger again as they had with the older Ranger. I seen lots of white Ranger standard cab/long bed for Terminix and Orkin companies here before they started using Toyota Tacoma and now Chevrolet Colorado. I guess Ford is waiting until the next generation T6 platform to arrive sometime in 2021 calendar year to offer the fleet-friendly engines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I guess Ford is waiting until the next generation T6 platform to arrive sometime in 2021 calendar year to offer the fleet-friendly engines. Thats the running theory. Selfishly, I dont like it. I would rather build more and have more people working than downsizing an entire shift worth of people for the sake of saving money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Thats the running theory. Selfishly, I dont like it. I would rather build more and have more people working than downsizing an entire shift worth of people for the sake of saving money. Don't count the Ranger out, it may surprise with how many take up the EB 2.3 and 10AT. Bronco will really shine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) Ford sure has gone a long way from ancient 4.0L V6 engine to the current 2.3L EB engine in terms of power and fuel efficiency. I have also wondered why Ford didn't offer a cheaper engine for at least the XL trim or fleets. I'm sure fleets would be thrilled to have the 2.5L I4 engine from the current Transit Connect, re-engineered for Ranger-usage, of course. Current Ranger in Mexico has 2.5 PFI, so I guess it was a case of one engine for development and federalization, the least numbe of variants for field evaluation / reliability costs - only one engine and one transmission. Remember, this is a late inclusion on the last MCE for this T6 product cycle. Edited March 13, 2018 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Don't count the Ranger out, it may surprise with how many take up the EB 2.3 and 10AT. Bronco will really shine... I think youre missing my point. The Ranger as is will do ok but I think theres something to be said for a supercab with the 2.5 and 10R. People looking for a smaller work truck would eat that up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Based on what Ford has told us so far about the Ranger, it sure seems odd that the off-road versions (FX2/4) will only be available with the same engine as the rest of the lineup. I suppose there could be varying outputs for the 2.3 EB but so far we haven't heard anything about that. Not sure I would be interested even if there was a higher output 2.3 EB for those trim levels. Now you would probably be looking at higher octane fuel requirements and I still expect a 4-door 4x4 Ranger to get lousy mileage with an engine that will be on the boost and more highly stressed most of its life. Why not just put a larger engine it in to big with? What the hell did you save other than a bunch of F-150 sales? I am not sure if I have asked you this before. But have you ever personally driven a 2.3L Eco or any Ecoboost powered Ford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 bottom line is that it probably wasn’t worth the time cost or effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I am not sure if I have asked you this before. But have you ever personally driven a 2.3L Eco or any Ecoboost powered Ford? Explorer 2.3EB gets 19/27 on the old 6 speed 6F. My 3.5EB F150 10 speed is rated 18/25 and I get 21-22 mixed without trying hard. I’ve also seen 28 mpg highway at 55 mph. There is no reason Ranger shouldn’t get at least 19/27 and 23 combined with the 10 speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Explorer 2.3EB gets 19/27 on the old 6 speed 6F. My 3.5EB F150 10 speed is rated 18/25 and I get 21-22 mixed without trying hard. Ive also seen 28 mpg highway at 55 mph. There is no reason Ranger shouldnt get at least 19/27 and 23 combined with the 10 speed. When I get mine Ill let you all know what I get. Do a decent mix of city and highway on my commute to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 bottom line is that it probably wasnt worth the time cost or effort. Or maybe they had $X to spend on the rollout, so they picked the powertrain, trim levels, and options that would get them the biggest bang for their buck, knowing if that was successful, they could add the fleet-darling options down the road. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Or maybe they had $X to spend on the rollout, so they picked the powertrain, trim levels, and options that would get them the biggest bang for their buck, knowing if that was successful, they could add the fleet-darling options down the road. looking at it pragmatically rather than the knee jerk reaction I had earlier, this is likely exactly what happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 It also gives a simpler supply chain and construction process. From November, there's at best two and a half years until the Next Gen Ranger is due. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 You also have to consider engine and transmission production capacity and what's happening with other vehicles using those engines. It's never as simple as "just put in this engine" especially for a brand new vehicle. My guess is year two will see more fleet options including a smaller engine and all the work truck accessories and options like F150. Year 1 is about maximizing ATPs and profit while getting MAP up to speed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I am not sure if I have asked you this before. But have you ever personally driven a 2.3L Eco or any Ecoboost powered Ford? I like the looks of the truck and will be interested to see real world test results and hopefully will have the opportunity to test drive one to get my own driving impressions. However, based on real world reports of other vehicles that use EB technology and common sense it only stands to reason that if any forced induction engine has to depend on boost to move a given amount of weight it will use more fuel. As I have said before, I don't live in an area with table-top flat terrain. A crewcab 4x4 midsize mostly steel bodied truck will be approaching 5k lbs unloaded. That tells me that a 2.3L engine will depend on boost to move that amount of weight on less than flat terrain or when loaded to its max capacity. I assume an engine that size can be tuned to move that kind of weight but it will require more boost and more fuel and depending on driving conditions it probably won't get very impressive fuel mileage. Probably no better than its competition with V6 power in similar use. I would also be surprised if it gets appreciably better mileage than 2.7L F-150 under those conditions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Have any of the variants of the 2.0 or 2.3 EB gone to dual injector setup? Seems that change in the V6's helped fuel mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I like the looks of the truck and will be interested to see real world test results and hopefully will have the opportunity to test drive one to get my own driving impressions. However, based on real world reports of other vehicles that use EB technology and common sense it only stands to reason that if any forced induction engine has to depend on boost to move a given amount of weight it will use more fuel. As I have said before, I don't live in an area with table-top flat terrain. A crewcab 4x4 midsize mostly steel bodied truck will be approaching 5k lbs unloaded. That tells me that a 2.3L engine will depend on boost to move that amount of weight on less than flat terrain or when loaded to its max capacity. I assume an engine that size can be tuned to move that kind of weight but it will require more boost and more fuel and depending on driving conditions it probably won't get very impressive fuel mileage. Probably no better than its competition with V6 power in similar use. I would also be surprised if it gets appreciably better mileage than 2.7L F-150 under those conditions. The Colorado 3.6L V6 has much less power and gets 17/24. Explorer 2.3EB gets 19/27 with the old 6 speed tranny. There is no reason the Ranger 2.3EB with the 10 speed and auto stop/start can't get at least 19/27 unloaded. And you'll get more torque at lower RPM and more overall power when you need it. Of course fuel economy will suffer when loaded but that's true for all engines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 still not sold on stop start, going to be REALLY curious how it effects the diesels coming....well documented Diesels dont like stop start......they do better left idling.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 still not sold on stop start, going to be REALLY curious how it effects the diesels coming....well documented Diesels dont like stop start......they do better left idling.... I had it on a rental Edge last year and hated it. But on my F150 3.5EB it works really well and I actually like it now. It helps that the engine is very quiet and smooth at idle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 diesels are a whole new ball game...they are known to prefer constant running...short trips and stop go not so much...if I was to buy a diesel with stop go, I would remove the fuse as such... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 13, 2018 Author Share Posted March 13, 2018 Where does it say the diesel engine has stop start on it? I haven't heard about that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) F150 3.0 has stop start...the 1.5 going in the T Connect also..per Ford releases....same for the Rangers 2.3....New Edges, Expeditions too,looks like its becoming std across the board... Edited March 13, 2018 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zgxtreme Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 So what were your in-person thoughts? Sadly I had to work that weekend and could not make it down. A coworker snapped the pics for me and only remarked that is Colorado sized, maybe a tad smaller in his opinion. Truck was locked but could still get close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Have any of the variants of the 2.0 or 2.3 EB gone to dual injector setup? Seems that change in the V6's helped fuel mileage. 2018 Mustang has PFDI, so I expect the next version of the 2.3 will have that upgrade plus steel crank and forged rods going into Ranger. The whole point of using the dual injection is to avoid issues with particulates and also allow more power and finer mixture control, all worthy benefits. 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.