Jump to content

Custom Search





2019 Lincoln Aviator Introduced Here !


Welcome to Blue Oval Forums


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to Blue Oval Forums.  You must first register to create topics and post replies. Registration is a quick and easy process and only takes a minute.  Be apart of Blue Oval Forums by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo album and post images
  • Use the Shout feature and more. . .
Click here to create an account now.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Offical 2019 Ranger thread


  • Please log in to reply
486 replies to this topic

#481 OFFLINE   blksn8k2

blksn8k2

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined 22-March 06

Posted 18 March 2018 - 08:30 AM

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.


My current rides:
07 Sport Trac Limited 4x4 V8
99 Mustang Cobra (Roush Body Kit)
75 Bronco (393 Windsor, NV3550 5-speed)
70 Mustang Mach 1 (428 CJ, 4-speed)
68 Cougar (390 GT, C6)
67 Ranchero (460, C6, Pro Street)


"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

- Ronald Reagan







Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.


#482 OFFLINE   T-dubz

T-dubz

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined 03-January 18
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Here
  • Current Vehicle:None

Posted 08 April 2018 - 09:39 PM

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.

Attached Files


  • Moosetang likes this

#483 OFFLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,369 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 10 April 2018 - 02:59 AM

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



#484 ONLINE   akirby

akirby

    fordmantpw's alter ego

  • Moderator
  • 28,958 posts
  • Joined 18-April 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Canton, GA
  • Current Vehicle:2018 F150 Supercab XLT Magnetic Grey 3.5LEB

Posted 10 April 2018 - 07:48 AM

Max torque at 1750 rpm. Gotta love those quick spooling turbos.

2018 F150 Supercab XLT Sport (Magnetic) - 3.5LEB
2016 Lincoln MKX Reserve (Luxe/Cappucino)


#485 OFFLINE   bzcat

bzcat

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,058 posts
  • Joined 13-October 09

Posted 10 April 2018 - 01:12 PM



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.



#486 OFFLINE   wildosvt

wildosvt

    Fo.Mo.Co

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined 30-May 02
  • Region:U.S. Great Lakes
  • Location:Michigan
  • Current Vehicle:2007 GT500

Posted 10 April 2018 - 05:51 PM

Colors for Ranger.

 

Saber

Oxford White

Ingot Silver

Magnetic

Shadow Black

Blue Lightning

Hot Pepper Red

White Platinum.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#487 OFFLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,369 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 10 April 2018 - 07:52 PM

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.








Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service | DMCA ·