2019 Ranger Powertrain

[wildbill23c]

If fuel economy on a budget is what you're after, a Duratec 2.3/manual truck can get you 25 City/ 30 hwy and have none of the drawbacks of the diesel. I can find them for under $5k near me pretty easily. Obviously, it's not going to have the torque of the larger turbo diesel but it sounds like you don't really need that.

Is the 2.3L Duratec the engine that Ford thought needed 2 spark plugs for each cylinder, or was the 2.5L? Got one of those dual spark plug trucks sitting around because it won't start, nobody seems to know why LOL. Seeing a lot of them in the scrap yards wondering if there's a common problem with this condition?

I have my 88 Bronco 2 which does fine, but yeah if I were to get another run around town truck a little 4 cylinder 2WD ranger would be great...usually by the time people sell them here though they're pretty beat up LOL. We had a 98 Ranger as a work truck when I was installing garage doors, 4 cylinder manual windows, etc. dang thing had 420k on it and was still going...it lasted longer than the business did LOL.

As for the diesel stuff, yeah if I were driving long distances every day it might be fine, but a lot of stuff I do anymore is just in town so a few miles a day totally a bad thing for a diesel engine.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Is the 2.3L Duratec the engine that Ford thought needed 2 spark plugs for each cylinder, or was the 2.5L? Got one of those dual spark plug trucks sitting around because it won't start, nobody seems to know why LOL. Seeing a lot of them in the scrap yards wondering if there's a common problem with this condition?

That would be the Lima not the Duratec. I think dual plugs kinda and went over the years, no expert on them. It did go 2.3L>2.5L>2.3D

 

[wildbill23c]

That would be the Lima not the Duratec. I think dual plugs kinda and went over the years, no expert on them. It did go 2.3L>2.5L>2.3D

Thanks for the clarification. Its a nice little truck if we could figure out why the heck it doesn't start. Keep thinking its timing related but owner doesn't want to mess with it so its like then stop bothering me about it and get rid of it LOL.

 

[stmitch]

Is the 2.3L Duratec the engine that Ford thought needed 2 spark plugs for each cylinder, or was the 2.5L?

Neither one actually. The dual plug was a 2.3L Lima engine. It's iron block with SOHC and 2 valves per cylinder. It dates back to the Ford Pinto days. From 98-01 Ford eliminated one of the spark plugs on each cylinder and stroked the Lime 2.3L out to 2.5L. It's still the same basic architecture.

The Duratec 2.3L began being used in Rangers in mid 2001. It's a joint effort with Mazda. All aluminum, DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder. Gets better fuel economy and more power than the Lima engines did. They also represent the base for the current 2.0L and 2.3L EcoBoost engines.

 

[Rangerx2]

I don't want or need a diesel engine. I'm too cheap to pay for the maintenance on them; and way too cheap to pay the $4000+ up front to get the diesel option. I'll take the largest of whatever gas engines they offer. I'd like to see a non-turbo V6 of the Duratec family. I have the 3.7 in my F-150 and it keeps up pretty well, even with the added weight of 4x4. I also want to see the Ranger come with an aluminum body to reduce weight and free up a few mpg's.
As much as I would like to see a manual transmission in the Ranger, I doubt we'll see it. The market as a whole is going towards automatics. I know GM still offers a manual in the Colorado, but only in the basic 4-cylinder and 2wd. Consumer demand just isn't there for a manual transmission pick-up anymore

 

[wildbill23c]

I don't want or need a diesel engine. I'm too cheap to pay for the maintenance on them; and way too cheap to pay the $4000+ up front to get the diesel option. I'll take the largest of whatever gas engines they offer. I'd like to see a non-turbo V6 of the Duratec family. I have the 3.7 in my F-150 and it keeps up pretty well, even with the added weight of 4x4. I also want to see the Ranger come with an aluminum body to reduce weight and free up a few mpg's.
As much as I would like to see a manual transmission in the Ranger, I doubt we'll see it. The market as a whole is going towards automatics. I know GM still offers a manual in the Colorado, but only in the basic 4-cylinder and 2wd. Consumer demand just isn't there for a manual transmission pick-up anymore

I don't have a use for a diesel really either, wouldn't mind having one but it wouldn't be a small truck, I'd be getting a 3/4 ton if I wanted something with a diesel.

Manual transmissions aren't wanted anymore because fewer and fewer people know how to drive them, plus it would interfere with them playing on their damn phone while driving. We have 2 high school kids at work, neither can drive a manual transmission vehicle, I was like what good are they, they can't drive the service truck meaning there's a long list of stuff they could be doing but can't because someone has to drive them around to do those tasks. I think it should be mandatory in driver's training for people to learn to drive a manual if you can drive a manual you can drive a damn automatic, doesn't work the other way though .

Its nice to jump in my truck and throw it in drive and go, but its just not as much fun as a manual transmission.

 

[priceman142]

I think one of the bigger reasons for the decline of the manual trans. is that automatic transmissions have improved so much over the decades. When many autos were three speeds with a non-lockup torque converter, the manual trans. had the advantage.

But now, most automatics have six speeds or more, and some even have a mode that lets you shift them like a manual. The shift points can also be changed simply by selecting a shift 'mode' while you're going down the road.

I think some other reasons OEMS are getting away from manuals are that they don't have to engineer or find space for a clutch linkage or mechanical shift linkage.

 

[pjtoledo]

the lack of manuals has a LOT to do with the EPAs thinking that the emissions B. S. should decide the how to drive & shift, not you.

 

[stmitch]

It's also easier to pass tougher and tougher US crash tests if there's one less pedal that can take off the driver's foot in a crash. You'll find that in more than one case, European models will be offered with a manual trans while the same vehicle in America has no 3 pedal option. Crash tests are pretty different depending on the market where a vehicle is sold.

 

[fastpakr]

the lack of manuals has a LOT to do with the EPAs thinking that the emissions B. S. should decide the how to drive & shift, not you.

I'm pretty sure the EPA doesn't care one iota what transmission is on the vehicle, only about the numbers during the test. The transmission selection is entirely up to the manufacturer based on sales estimates and what works best to generate the needed test numbers.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm pretty sure the EPA doesn't care one iota what transmission is on the vehicle, only about the numbers during the test. The transmission selection is entirely up to the manufacturer based on sales estimates and what works best to generate the needed test numbers.

Kinda sorta.

For the most part automatics are more consistent and have gotten much more efficient. If you are chasing EPA #'s it becomes an uphill fight if you are not using the most efficient powertrain you can.

And now the big push is for transmissions with more gears to keep the engine in its sweet spot. 9-10 speed automatics are becoming the norm... which is another strike against a 5-6 speed manual. Twice the gears, shifts instantly, more consistant mpg, no clutch for noobs to burn up and one less major option.

So they don't have an edict against manuals... but it makes it harder than it has to be from the manufacturer's standpoint.

 

[wildbill23c]

Kinda sorta.

For the most part automatics are more consistent and have gotten much more efficient. If you are chasing EPA #'s it becomes an uphill fight if you are not using the most efficient powertrain you can.

And now the big push is for transmissions with more gears to keep the engine in its sweet spot. 9-10 speed automatics are becoming the norm... which is another strike against a 5-6 speed manual. Twice the gears, shifts instantly, more consistant mpg, no clutch for noobs to burn up and one less major option.

So they don't have an edict against manuals... but it makes it harder than it has to be from the manufacturer's standpoint.

They keep adding more gears to offset all the electronic crap and the emissions crap which is why vehicles can't get descent fuel economy. If they would stop choking the engine with a bunch of nonsense electronics, sensors, and emissions shit, the engine wouldn't have to work so hard and therefore would get better fuel economy.

All you get with adding more gears is a transmission hunting for gears all the time, always shifting, and creating more and more heat....they make the transmissions shift smoother so many don't notice it shifting all the time but with more and more gears that's exactly what's going to happen, add to that many who just drive around town only use maybe 3-4 of those gears, the vehicle never warms up completely, and many times is continually in a "warm up" cycle.

Manual transmissions are going away simply because people are lazy and/or don't have a clue how to operate them...it has nothing to do with fuel economy in many cases, just laziness and lack of driving skills...any idiot can get an in automatic and drive it there's no skill in that at all...it should be an insurance discount as an anti-theft device if your car has a manual transmission, manual windows, and manual door locks because people are too lazy to do anything manually anymore...look they're even making cars that practically drive themselves...by the time the new Ranger and Bronco come out you won't be driving anyhow, they will be driving for you.

 

[BlackBII]

They keep adding more gears to offset all the electronic crap and the emissions crap which is why vehicles can't get descent fuel economy. If they would stop choking the engine with a bunch of nonsense electronics, sensors, and emissions shit, the engine wouldn't have to work so hard and therefore would get better fuel economy

I would love to hear an actual explanation apart from "emissions crap" and "electronic shit".

The reality is, engines have never been more efficient than they are now. You can thank "electronic shit" like variable valve timing, electronic fuel injection, cylinder deactivation, variable length intake runners, transmissions with more than 4 gears which keep the engine at the most efficient RPM, etc.

The 2.0 liter 4 cylinder in the 2017 Ford Focus makes 160hp and 146ftlb of torque while getting 34mpg. Compare that to a 1971 Pinto 2.0 which made 100hp and averaged 20mpg.

 

[wildbill23c]

I would love to hear an actual explanation apart from "emissions crap" and "electronic shit".

The reality is, engines have never been more efficient than they are now. You can thank "electronic shit" like variable valve timing, electronic fuel injection, cylinder deactivation, variable length intake runners, transmissions with more than 4 gears which keep the engine at the most efficient RPM, etc.

The 2.0 liter 4 cylinder in the 2017 Ford Focus makes 160hp and 146ftlb of torque while getting 34mpg. Compare that to a 1971 Pinto 2.0 which made 100hp and averaged 20mpg.

The more crap you add to an engine the more you choke it down...all the emissions stuff does is choke your engine down, you loose a lot of power. Even removing the cats will gain you quite a bit of power as you aren't restricting the engine's ability to breathe.

Electronics hasn't done anything other than provide a false sense of more power as it does nothing more than compensate for all the power robbed due to the emissions stuff. Not to mention all that crap just adds a bunch of weight to an already heavy vehicle.

Wish they would come up with a way to take care of the emissions issues without having so many sensors and electronics having to be present.

 

[stmitch]

The more crap you add to an engine the more you choke it down...all the emissions stuff does is choke your engine down, you loose a lot of power. Even removing the cats will gain you quite a bit of power as you aren't restricting the engine's ability to breathe.

Electronics hasn't done anything other than provide a false sense of more power as it does nothing more than compensate for all the power robbed due to the emissions stuff. Not to mention all that crap just adds a bunch of weight to an already heavy vehicle.

Wish they would come up with a way to take care of the emissions issues without having so many sensors and electronics having to be present.

I understand you don't like anything new and different, but everything about this post is nonsense. They tried to control emissions without a bunch of electronics in the 70s, and the result was a bunch of massive v8s with 150hp that got crap fuel economy and broke constantly. It's because of the "electronic shit" that we're no longer living in the doldrums of the Malaise Era of cars. There is nothing about old engines that is better than new ones. Modern engines are more reliable, they last longer, more powerful, and get the same, or better fuel economy all while emitting far less harmful stuff that we all have to breathe. What is there to complain about?

I don't know about you, but I've got far better things to do with my time than adjust a carb or set ignition points on my daily driver. It gets gas and oil changes as needed, and that's it. It starts every time. It's never flooded. It works the same in sub zero temps as it does in triple digit temps. My time is one of the few things that I can't buy or make more of and I'd hate to waste such a valuable resource on making sure I can get to work on time in some low-tech beater because I didn't like electronics.

You've now come into pretty much any thread about the new Ranger and done little more than complain, because it's not going to be the way you want it to be. Don't be that old guy that complains about stuff just because it's different than the stuff he's used to, because nobody likes that old guy. Your complaints aren't going to change anything. You might as well complain about the weather. You're wasting your time and your breath.