MY93SHO Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 https://www.autoblog.com/2018/10/05/2019-ford-ranger-horsepower-torque-payload-towing/ Ford also announced payload and towing capacities for the new Ranger. The little truck has a maximum payload capacity of 1,860 pounds. Most trucks in this segment have maximum capacities around 1,500 pounds, with the Colorado taking the crown for best-of-the-rest at 1,574 pounds. The Ranger also boasts a maximum towing capacity of 7,500 pounds with the towing package and trailer brake controller. The gasoline powered Colorado comes up just shy with a towing rating of 7,000 pounds, but the diesel version can tow 7,700 pounds. Tacoma and Frontier both have maximum towing ratings of about 6,700 pounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 So they announce the HP/Torque on the same day the embargo is up on the 2019 Edge. This company has no F****** Clue on how to do PR. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) 270 eh? Apparently they had to derate it pretty significantly for truck duty cycle. I bet this thing has a gigantic intercooler in an effort to keep the aluminum in the combustion chambers in the solid phase while dragging that 7500 lbs up a mountain. Even then, those hp/turque numbers look like they still had to reduce boost a quite a bit relative to mustang and Focus RS. ^nothing above should be taken as intended to be derogatory towards Ford's choice of powertrain for the Ranger. The above is simply an engineering observation by a guy who's built a few turbo cars. I actually think these figures will compete very well against the naturally aspirated 3.5/3.6 in the toy/chevy competition. Edited October 5, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 270 eh? Apparently they had to derate it pretty significantly for truck duty cycle. I bet this thing has a gigantic intercooler in an effort to keep the aluminum in the combustion chambers in the solid phase while dragging that 7500 lbs up a mountain. Even then, those hp/turque numbers look like they still had to reduce boost a quite a bit relative to mustang and Focus RS. ^nothing above should be taken as intended to be derogatory towards Ford's choice of powertrain for the Ranger. The above is simply an engineering observation by a guy who's built a few turbo cars. I actually think these figures will compete very well against the naturally aspirated 3.5/3.6 in the toy/chevy competition. Detuning an engine for truck duty isn't uncommon at all. Ford does the same thing with the Coyote, and Mopar does the same thing with the Hemi engines. I, too, am curious as to how the engine will fare in a truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 It should fare about the same as a 3.5eb does in an f150. The ECU is sophisticated enough to keep the engine from melting itself under sustained boost. But there's still a reason F250 doesn't have an available ecoboost. This is the Ranger though, so my bet is the 2.3 works out great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 I bet that's understated....would be humorous if that's at the wheels...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Dang. 1860lbs of payload is more than several 12th Gen F-150 configurations. Of course, it's less than the current F150s, so it won't step on their toes, but that's a heck of a payload rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Meh. I put twice that in a 1990 rcsb 2.3L Ranger more than once. And lived to tell about it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Dang. 1860lbs of payload is more than several 12th Gen F-150 configurations. Of course, it's less than the current F150s, so it won't step on their toes, but that's a heck of a payload rating. My '08 F250 diesel only had 1999 lbs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) With my MKC in the body shop due to an errant Subaru, I have a Toyota Tacoma (2018, double cab, limited trim) for a loaner....I am completely underwhelmed with the truck and it is just plain uncomfortable. The bright spot is, it'll give me context when I test out a Ranger....sooooooo looking forward to it. Edited October 5, 2018 by twintornados 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) 270 eh? Apparently they had to derate it pretty significantly for truck duty cycle. I bet this thing has a gigantic intercooler in an effort to keep the aluminum in the combustion chambers in the solid phase while dragging that 7500 lbs up a mountain. Even then, those hp/turque numbers look like they still had to reduce boost a quite a bit relative to mustang and Focus RS. ^nothing above should be taken as intended to be derogatory towards Ford's choice of powertrain for the Ranger. The above is simply an engineering observation by a guy who's built a few turbo cars. I actually think these figures will compete very well against the naturally aspirated 3.5/3.6 in the toy/chevy competition. I'm thinking that the 270 Hp / 310 lb fy figures quoted by Ford is for regular gas (87) as competitor V6s use regular gas to make their rated power. As you would know, towing at maximum rating doesn't normally happen due to limitations imposed by gross combined vehicle weight and drawbar down force (10%). Towing at around 80-85% of maximum rating is more than acceptable, Edited October 5, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 With my MKC in the body shop due to an errant Subaru, I have a Toyota Tacoma (2018, double cab, limited trim) for a loaner....I am completely underwhelmed with the truck and it is just plain uncomfortable. The bright spot is, it'll give me context when I test out a Ranger....sooooooo looking forward to it. Ive heard it has a double whammy: Underpowered and a tranny that upshifts too soon for fuel economy reasons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarneyFord Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 I manually shift my Tacoma down and use the ECT power button to make it more fun to drive around town. It does shift to 6th as soon as it can on it’s own. Highway mpg is about 25 and in town 18. Power seems ok but I drove underpowered manuals for 16 years before this truck. The back seat is a temporary place to be in the double cab. The Ranger should do well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) Ive heard it has a double whammy: Underpowered and a tranny that upshifts too soon for fuel economy reasons. Toyota Tacoma V6 engine has ample power, but you are right about the tranny programming. Very annoying. Also, driver's seat in Tacoma still doesn't have a height adjustment and lacks support (for me at least). Tacoma came off my shopping list for trucks after only 10 minutes of test driving it. Payload rating for new 2019 Ranger is amazing. I'm looking forward to getting this truck sometime in spring or summer 2019. Edited October 5, 2018 by rperez817 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Coworker just got a new Tacoma and we took it to lunch one day. The backseat is horribly cramped. Not impressed with the rest of it either. I’ll take my F150 or a Ranger any day. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 I am still a little concerned about the rear seat space of the Ranger SuperCrew. I'm going to have to fit 2 car seats in there at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 (edited) Ranger (35.5") has nearly the same rear seat legroom as the Chevy Colorado (35.8"). That's quite a bit more than the Tacoma (32.6"). Edited October 6, 2018 by Assimilator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 I am still a little concerned about the rear seat space of the Ranger SuperCrew. I'm going to have to fit 2 car seats in there at some point. Where there's a will, there's a way. I've had two carseats in the back of my 2011 Ranger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 (edited) As kids, my sister and I would squeeze into the SuperCab of my Dad's 1990 Ranger (new at the time). Our heads would bang against the rear window when my Dad accelerated. I think that is my generation's version of the 3rd seat in a station wagon, all my friends thought it was the strangest thing in the world. Edited October 6, 2018 by Assimilator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Hell my brother and I rode in the bed (with camper shell) of my parents 82 F-150 single cab on 700 mile trips. My dad found some old van seats and mounted them to ply wood, placed them at the front of the bed. Imagine doing that today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Ranger (35.5") has nearly the same rear seat legroom as the Chevy Colorado (35.8"). That's quite a bit more than the Tacoma (32.6"). How does that compare to a Focus or Fusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 (edited) It's hard to compare just because the seat is taller, but Fusion (38.3) is quite a bit more roomy than Focus (33.2). Ranger is not a roomy vehicle either way, MUCH less spacious than an Edge (40.6) for example. This is normal for the segment, so much space is given up for the frame and bed. Anybody use to an F-150 or a modern Crossover will probably find the Ranger's cab a little surprising. Edited October 6, 2018 by Assimilator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Hell my brother and I rode in the bed (with camper shell) of my parents 82 F-150 single cab on 700 mile trips. My dad found some old van seats and mounted them to ply wood, placed them at the front of the bed. Imagine doing that today.Heck, when I was a kid, at Thanksgiving we'd all pile into the back of Grandpa's pickup and trek the ten miles from the house to the farm. For about six years, our main family vehicle was a Ford Econoline cargo van where my dad bolted an older van seat to a plywood subfloor, and behind that was a queen size bed on a wooden frame that he built (and where we rode on long trips). Imagine doing either of those things today. They'd probably toss the parents in the hoosegow... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 It's hard to compare just because the seat is taller, but Fusion (38.3) is quite a bit more roomy than Focus (33.2). Ranger is not a roomy vehicle either way, MUCH less spacious than an Edge (40.6) for example. This is normal for the segment, so much space is given up for the frame and bed. Anybody use to an F-150 or a modern Crossover will probably find the Ranger's cab a little surprising. So between a Focus and a Fusion for back seat space. Perfect, the oldest will be close to ready to be forward facing soon so he can sit behind me when that happens since I'm taller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 (edited) My Mother had a 1989 Merkur XR4Ti and we use to fold the rear seats flat so we could sleep during our road trips. Going back even earlier than that I remember my Dad's 1984 Thunderbird which only had lap belts in the backseat. We were pulled over for speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike and I distinctly remember waking up in the backseat to the sight of a police offer looking at me while my sister and I were laying lengthwise in the backseat unbelted...no big deal, ha. Today...even my Yorkies are belted in doggy carseats while I'm driving. I've learned safety and fear of what might happen is a state of mind and a VERY generational thing...and that I grew up with the most impractical family cars imaginable. Edited October 6, 2018 by Assimilator 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.