Jump to content

2019 Ranger Configurator & Pricing


Recommended Posts

Tacoma has personality?...if personality means dated, nosy, rough riding and fuel inefficient, with a cheap interior...then I guess youre right...the ranger makes it look exactly what it is....extremely dated.

 

Yes sir Deanh, the Toyota Tacoma owners I know all say their "Taco" (as they call it) has character and personality. The truck is crude, but also very durable. The TRD Off Road version is very capable for off roading and mudding, too.

 

Just as Assimilator said, Tacoma is sort of Toyota's Jeep Wrangler.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Tacoma has charm that comes with reputation and fandom. Personally I much prefer the Ford Ranger approach, the right balance of capability and modern sophistication...even if it has zero design personality. I think Bronco will strike the same balance but with much more style.

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

The 3.5 at least has been proven to be super durable.

 

I know the internals are durable. However I am not sure about the turbos after 100,000 miles or so. Totally anecdotal but I hear a good number of the SHOs have leaking turbos or intercoolers filled with oil as they approach higher mileage. Maybe those issues have been solved in later models.

 

As far as I know the 2.3 engines are bullet proof and have no issues with the turbo. While it might not be many, I still think some buyers are leery of a smaller turbo engine compared to a larger naturally aspirated one due the the perception of greater longevity and durability with more lightly stressed NA engine. My dealer tells me that most people who get the 5.0 rather than the ecoboost in an F150 do so for that reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know the internals are durable. However I am not sure about the turbos after 100,000 miles or so. Totally anecdotal but I hear a good number of the SHOs have leaking turbos or intercoolers filled with oil as they approach higher mileage. Maybe those issues have been solved in later models.

I forgot about that. Maybe fordtech1 can comment further on it, but I havent heard anything about that particular issue in the F-150 version.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the 2.3 is being upgraded with steel crank and forged con rods so it looks like a good rework of the foundation,

I just hope they have solved the block cracking issue around the base of the cylinder head bolts.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot about that. Maybe fordtech1 can comment further on it, but I havent heard anything about that particular issue in the F-150 version.

There are some significant differences between the longitudinal and transverse EB35s (notably, the truck version doesn’t have the timing chain-driven water pump). There are a few complaints that pop up (and a few “usual suspects” who like to bitch and moan about the EB35), but its reputation is generally good for longevity, and I’d imagine that a lot of that comes from the system design not being compromised by the transverse packaging requirements.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know the internals are durable. However I am not sure about the turbos after 100,000 miles or so. Totally anecdotal but I hear a good number of the SHOs have leaking turbos or intercoolers filled with oil as they approach higher mileage. Maybe those issues have been solved in later models.

 

As far as I know the 2.3 engines are bullet proof and have no issues with the turbo. While it might not be many, I still think some buyers are leery of a smaller turbo engine compared to a larger naturally aspirated one due the the perception of greater longevity and durability with more lightly stressed NA engine. My dealer tells me that most people who get the 5.0 rather than the ecoboost in an F150 do so for that reason.

I know its completely anecdotal, but I have two EB 3.5s in my family, one with 117k and the other with 176k. So far so good with those turbos.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford's absence certainly let Toyota Tacoma thrive. It's a little like Toyota's Wrangler more than F-150, it's a truly rugged and distinctive product with lots of customization and rugged amenities. The Ranger is a more sophisticated truck like the F-Series, but it doesn't quite have the same culture and personality as Tacoma...at least when you're talking about certain configs. It helps that Toyota Tacoma/4-Runner have a well earned reputation for being indestructible. In many ways, I'm sure Ford has drawn inspiration from Land Rover, Toyota, Jeep, and Subaru on their new rugged lineup. I think Ford has long been more interested in building a reputation for performance and technological sophistication over just simple and rugged, especially since they've been trying to overcome that old stigma of aging and primitive Detroit engineering.

I wouldnt underestimate the durability of the T6 platform. Remember the origin of the Ranger has served in some pretty inhospitable places around the world and competes competently against the Hilux. Ive been to a few of those places and the Ranger is well represented.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wait, do you have 117k on your Raptor? Or did you just not mention it?

Oh no, it doesnt get used that much, lol. I was referencing my two brother-in-laws work trucks but my nephew also has a first gen EB that is well over a 100k as well, which I failed to mention.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the 2.3 is being upgraded with steel crank and forged con rods so it looks like a good rework of the foundation,

I just hope they have solved the block cracking issue around the base of the cylinder head bolts.

 

My biggest concerns are potential fuel mileage, or lack thereof, and long term reliability related to the fact that it will supposedly be direct injection only. IMO both of those issues will be a potential problem when you are using an engine with such small displacement in a 4x4 crewcab that could weigh close to 5000 lbs. Under certain conditions such as hilly terrain or heavy loads/towing the engine will be under boost for long periods of time which not only hurts fuel mileage but can also lead to increased engine heat, cylinder ring compression blow-by, etc. The PCV system could be recirculating higher levels of crankcase fumes into the intake tract which could increase the likelihood of oil deposits and carbon buildup. The lack of fuel in the intake tract means there will be nothing there to help wash away those deposits which could lead to reduced performance due to blocked air flow as well as damaged intake valves. I suspect that better performance is not the only reason why Ford and other manufacturers have gone to dual injection on many of their engines. Unless I missed something recently, I'm a bit surprised that Ford has not stated that the 2.3 EB will have dual injection.

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...