Jump to content
  • Custom Search


silvrsvt

Offical 2019 Ranger thread

Recommended Posts

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...

 

Interesting....my Wife's Escape has it and it was slightly annoying at first but I'm used to know and barely notice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The 2.3 in the Mustang only has direct injection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2.3 in the Mustang only has direct injection.

 

Which is probably also why the aftermarket sells oil separator kits for the Mustang EB's PCV system. Oil mist in the intake tract is not a good thing when there is no raw fuel to wash it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is probably also why the aftermarket sells oil separator kits for the Mustang EB's PCV system. Oil mist in the intake tract is not a good thing when there is no raw fuel to wash it away.

The aftermarket sells catch cans because people want them. They sell them for the F-150's Coyote, although there's no real need or use for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aftermarket sells catch cans because people want them. They sell them for the F-150's Coyote, although there's no real need or use for one.

 

Adding one to the F-150 Coyote seems a bit odd considering that the Coyote has never been a DI only engine. Might have something to do with under piston cooling jets contaminating the combustion process and contributing to excessive blow-by? I could see a possible need on pre-2017 3.5L and pre-2018 2.7L EcoBoost F-150's since those were DI only engines, especially for owners who do a lot of towing.

 

The 2.3 EB makes more sense considering that it is DI only. Oil mist in the intake tract can and will contribute to carbon buildup on the back side of the intake valves, especially when there is no raw fuel in the intake tract to wash it away. It may be exaggerated under continuous high rpm or high load (high temp as a result of towing) operation which could explain why it is not offered from the factory but is available from the aftermarket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this at the Denver auto show today. Hadnt seen pics of this ranger yet. My impressions are it looks great in person. Im not a huge fan of chrome but the chrome package looked good on it. Was hoping to see the sport package but they didnt have it there. It definitely looks much better than the Colorado or canyon. It was much larger than I expected it to be. It seemed more substantial then the Colorado even though I think their measurements are pretty close.It sits pretty high but this was a 4x4 model. Curious as to what the ride Height will be on a 4x2. Doors were locked and it was on a stand so couldnt get any pics of the interior.

 

The edge st looks pretty good too. I liked it a lot more in person then in the photos. Nautilus and mkc both looked good too. Nautilus obviously had the more extensive refresh. The one they had on display was a brown color. That color didnt do it any favors but it still looked good. Mkc refresh seemed like it was only the front clip that changed. if there were any changes to the rear, I couldnt tell.

 

Non ford related, I liked the xc40 from Volvo. Being a 6 footer, I had plenty of leg room in the back seat with a 6 footer sitting in front. Seemed better than the escape, although it cost quite a bit more. New accord was nice as was the vw arteon, stinger also looked better in person too.

post-57999-0-47422100-1523240083_thumb.jpeg

post-57999-0-86809100-1523240095_thumb.jpeg

post-57999-0-20090600-1523240107_thumb.jpeg

post-57999-0-82841100-1523240119_thumb.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little off topic but thought some would be interested in power/torque curve of

Ranger Raptor's 2.0 Turbo diesel versus the 3.2 I-5 Puma diesel

 

9c9c489a560be0cc45b29b781354965f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little off topic but thought some would be interested in power/torque curve of

Ranger Raptor's 2.0 Turbo diesel versus the 3.2 I-5 Puma diesel

 

9c9c489a560be0cc45b29b781354965f.jpg

 

So the Ranger Raptor roughly matches the current 3.2 at low rpms but has more power in the upper revs (which you rarely need in a diesel).

 

I guess the concern you had earlier that the non-Raptors may end up being a little weak compare to the existing 3.2 is a valid concern... how will Ford tune the non-Raptor 2.0 EcoBlue? That's the big question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Ranger Raptor roughly matches the current 3.2 at low rpms but has more power in the upper revs (which you rarely need in a diesel).

 

I guess the concern you had earlier that the non-Raptors may end up being a little weak compare to the existing 3.2 is a valid concern... how will Ford tune the non-Raptor 2.0 EcoBlue? That's the big question.

The 3.2 is staying until the end of the current product cycle (2021)

So my guess is that the base 2.0 Panther was be around 180 HP and maybe 320-330 lbft

to get people used to how the new diesel performs without killing the many 3.2 sales Ford

currently has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×