2019 Ranger Powertrain

Why? It costs billions of dollars to design and manufacture an all new engine, and it takes years to go through all of the design and development work. Once it's done, you have to put it in as many vehicles as possible to keep prices low and spread the investment around.

Not sure why you're so against the 2.3. It's capable of a lot of power and torque, and it should have a way flatter and broader torque curve than the 6 cylinders from this truck's competition.

The 2.3 in Explorer trim puts out 310 lb ft at 3k rpm. My '02 F-150 with a 5.4 is rated at 350lb-ft at 2500rpm.

I don't know if the 2.3 would quite hang with my 5.4 for towing... but that is getting darn close. My F-150 would have more beef in the brakes, axle and I suspect suspension for an all out towing brawl. No doubt the Ranger would be quicker unladen.

For its size the 2.3 spits out really good #'s. Especially when the competition all peaks over 4k with NA V6's.

A small I6 of your spec is a lot of R&D and $$ for one (or two) platform(s?) to gain .2 liters. If the competition can't do it with a bigger NA V6 you probably won't fare any better with a smaller NA I6. The F-150's 3.3 is only 265lb-ft at 4k RPM.

The magic of a small displacement direct injected boosted engine is you get a lot of power where you want it. Which is why it is going to school the 3.X liter NA V6's it is going to compete with. They are car engines with high RPM power.

I think the 2.3 is going to struggle as a truck engine. When installed in a nearly 5000 lb 4x4 crewcab it will be in the boost constantly on anything other than flat land not to mention when loaded or pulling at it's rating towing capacity. Fuel mileage under those conditions will not be any better than the competition.
An inline six is better suited for truck use, even one of similar displacement to the four banger simply by design. If an existing 60° V6 cannot be made to fit, an inline six would be a better choice than an inline four, IMO.

blksn8k said:

An inline six is better suited for truck use, even one of similar displacement to the four banger simply by design. If an existing 60° V6 cannot be made to fit, an inline six would be a better choice than an inline four, IMO.

Click to expand...

While a V6 .4 liters bigger will OWN any Triton V8 in a much bigger/heavier truck in fuel economy, power and towing?

Cube for cube a 4 will have more torque than a 6. More stroke will win the day. It wsn't until they started building I6's with I4 bore and stroke that they really became something. Same rule as to why a 300 is known for having more torque than a 302. An inch more stroke went a long ways even with fewer cylinders.

And I think 5k is probably lighter than the Explorer it is already in.

Cube for cube a 4 will have identical torque as 6, as would an 8. (Ignoring boost/compression ratio differences) More cylinders will allow opportunity for more power as it will rev higher.

Example:
'88 300 I-6 - 265 ft lb @ 2,000 rpm 8.8:1 CR 145 hp @ 3,400
'88 302 V-8 - 270 ft lb @ 2,400 rpm 8.8:1 CR 185hp @ 3,800

Actually, a very good comparison as both have 4" piston. Difference: 3" stroke on the V-8; 3.98" on the I-6. One could do the exact same comparison with the Duratec 2.5 V-6 and I-4 and see identical power (170hp) and torque (165 ft lbs) numbers.

That torque difference at 2k rpm is what everyone feels; the V-8 only has about ~85% of torque all the way up to that point. So in the normal driving range, the I-6 has more torque. V-8 needs 4.11s to have same output at same speed (in same gear) as I-6 with 3.55s up to 2k rpm. But past 2k rpms, the V-8 kicks. And with its shorter stroke, it will rev higher making more power (it just burns more fuel doing so).

Here is where things get tough: Do you shift from 10th down to 9th (like my brother's Grand Cherokee does) when the road is anything but flat/wind is anything but calm. Or do you let the turbo spin a couple pounds of boost? Which is better for gas mileage? Which is better for comfort?

A NA engine (gas) is going to get better fuel economy under heavy load as a turbo is going to have to over fueled to keep temperatures down.

I don't think the 2.7 EcoBoost "owns" the 5.4 Triton for fuel economy when towing a load. My 5.0 does better than 2.7 EB under load - e.g pulling a 7,500lb TT. On other hand, I will decline a fuel economy match empty, nor will I accept a max load contest with a 3.5EB. (I've learned to pick my battles)

So, blksn8k is probably correct - if he tows a lot, the 5.3 in his ST is still probably better.

I will be better off with EB2.3 in Ranger: 90% of my driving is empty or nearly so, and that extra mpg for majority, would cover the 2 less when loaded.

Own was probably a little strong. Ford did a comparision between the 2.7 and their 5.3 and Ecodiesel a few years ago, it had a pretty strong showing. It is no slouch.



7k is about what my '02 5.4 is rated.

FIL is single digits pulling his camper with his '13 5.0.

In 1994 (where I last compared) the #'s are a little different. 302 is 275lb-ft @ 3k, 300 is 260 at 2k. Clearly they wound the 302 a lot tighter to get 5 more lb-ft.

When I tractor pulled, the two and four cylinders hung in there a lot better than the comparable displacement 6 cylinders.

blksn8k said:

I think the 2.3 is going to struggle as a truck engine. When installed in a nearly 5000 lb 4x4 crewcab it will be in the boost constantly on anything other than flat land not to mention when loaded or pulling at it's rating towing capacity. Fuel mileage under those conditions will not be any better than the competition.
An inline six is better suited for truck use, even one of similar displacement to the four banger simply by design. If an existing 60° V6 cannot be made to fit, an inline six would be a better choice than an inline four, IMO.

Click to expand...

Nobody who frequently tows significant weight is going to buy one of these Rangers. There are better options for that.
How often do you tow? What does your trailer weigh when it's loaded? How often will you be towing it?
Ford can't make the engine you want. They can't invest that kind of capital on an engine that won't be used in several vehicles. Their shareholders demand efficient and intelligent operation, and these days, that means sharing as many parts as they can between differen vehicles. Especially if those parts cost billions to design, certify and produce.
They also can't sacrifice any fuel economy numbers either. Fleet fuel economy is critical to tightening government regulations, and they don't test vehicles while towing. Even if real world mpgs don't live up to the sticker, they need to have the best numbers they can to remain competitive in the market. Customers and regulators demand it.

I think it's important to consider that Rangers have never been massively capable while towing, and no vehicle is going to get decent fuel economy while towing at or near its rated limit. For me, Id gradually sacrifice some fuel economy during towing to gain fuel economy during the regular driving that this truck will see for 98% of its life.

^^^yeah people said that about the new f150's with the lawnmower engines in them, and yet tons of them on the road pulling trailers.

When I buy a truck I get one with the largest engine because I want it to last. Sure that's cool your little rice burner pickup can get 20mpg on the highway but it wasn't built to work all day long like a V8, V10, or diesel. They are building those little engines to suffice the EPA and the mall crawler crowd that want a truck to show off to their friends but have no damn clue what towing/hauling is, ok fine they hauled their purse with them to the mall LOL.

The little 4 cylinder in the old rangers was fine for some, definitely was not meant to tow/haul anything just to get you around. In the real world people are finding out those little 4 and 6 cylinder engines aren't really all they're cracked up to be...well duh, they weren't really made for what Ford is trying to shove down people's throats.

I'll keep my old trucks LOL. We all better, people will be calling us to tow their new POS ecoshit cars home for them.

wildbill23c said:

well duh, they weren't really made for what Ford is trying to shove down people's throats.

Click to expand...

Actually they were. Which is why they do it so well and continue to sell so well.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Actually they were. Which is why they do it so well and continue to sell so well.

Click to expand...

They do it for a while, but the longevity isn't there and never will be. You can't force a smaller engine to do the work of a V8, V10 or a diesel and expect it to last long. Most will never know this because they change vehicles every few months and many aren't keeping them long because of all the problems they have right off the lot.

wildbill23c said:

^^^yeah people said that about the new f150's with the lawnmower engines in them, and yet tons of them on the road pulling trailers.

When I buy a truck I get one with the largest engine because I want it to last. Sure that's cool your little rice burner pickup can get 20mpg on the highway but it wasn't built to work all day long like a V8, V10, or diesel. They are building those little engines to suffice the EPA and the mall crawler crowd that want a truck to show off to their friends but have no damn clue what towing/hauling is, ok fine they hauled their purse with them to the mall LOL.

The little 4 cylinder in the old rangers was fine for some, definitely was not meant to tow/haul anything just to get you around. In the real world people are finding out those little 4 and 6 cylinder engines aren't really all they're cracked up to be...well duh, they weren't really made for what Ford is trying to shove down people's throats.

I'll keep my old trucks LOL. We all better, people will be calling us to tow their new POS ecoshit cars home for them.

Click to expand...

Ford isn't in business to make everybody's individual idea of the perfect truck. They're in business to make profits.
The first part of making a profit means producing trucks that meet all current regulations. Like it or not, that means fuel economy, safety, and emissions are huge priorities for automakers. That's why trucks are sized and shaped the way they are.
The second part of making a profit, is using as much common hardware as they can get away with, and avoiding expensive one-off items wherever possible. Things like engines and transmissions will be used in as many different vehicles as possible to share costs and pay for their development faster.
The third part of making a profit is knowing the market and understanding who will be willing to actually fork over cash for your product. Ford isn't making these trucks to tow a bunch of weight all the time because there's no demand for that. People that do that just buy a bigger truck to start with. These trucks are sold to people that only use the "truck" part for trips to the hardware store or towing their jet skis a handful of times per year, or helping friends move every now and then.They'll spend most of their time on paved roads hauling people around on their daily tasks. When it comes to the half-ton and smaller truck markets, suburbia pays the bills.

Nobody is forcing any of us to buy new trucks. If you have something that works for you then keep it but don't whine about new trucks not being good enough for a very specific task that most of them will never perform. Being upset about any of this is a waste of energy and time.

wildbill23c said:

They do it for a while, but the longevity isn't there and never will be. You can't force a smaller engine to do the work of a V8, V10 or a diesel and expect it to last long.

Click to expand...

That has been the trend since forever. And they last longer than ever.

And a little bird told me they are not going to replace the entire F-Series lineup with the Ranger.

blksn8k said:

I think the 2.3 is going to struggle as a truck engine. When installed in a nearly 5000 lb 4x4 crewcab it will be in the boost constantly on anything other than flat land not to mention when loaded or pulling at it's rating towing capacity. Fuel mileage under those conditions will not be any better than the competition.
An inline six is better suited for truck use, even one of similar displacement to the four banger simply by design. If an existing 60° V6 cannot be made to fit, an inline six would be a better choice than an inline four, IMO.

Click to expand...

As if the way smarter than you Ford engineers haven't been thinking about all this for years already and it hasn't been tested and tested ?

stmitch said:

Nobody who frequently tows significant weight is going to buy one of these Rangers. There are better options for that.
How often do you tow? What does your trailer weigh when it's loaded? How often will you be towing it?
Ford can't make the engine you want. They can't invest that kind of capital on an engine that won't be used in several vehicles. Their shareholders demand efficient and intelligent operation, and these days, that means sharing as many parts as they can between differen vehicles. Especially if those parts cost billions to design, certify and produce.
They also can't sacrifice any fuel economy numbers either. Fleet fuel economy is critical to tightening government regulations, and they don't test vehicles while towing. Even if real world mpgs don't live up to the sticker, they need to have the best numbers they can to remain competitive in the market. Customers and regulators demand it.

I think it's important to consider that Rangers have never been massively capable while towing, and no vehicle is going to get decent fuel economy while towing at or near its rated limit. For me, Id gradually sacrifice some fuel economy during towing to gain fuel economy during the regular driving that this truck will see for 98% of its life.

Click to expand...

I regularly tow ~5000 pounds TT with my 3.slow Ranger in warm weather and get 13 mpg doing so. Yes, I know that is twice it's rating.

Engines aren't usually what fails on a vehicle. Modern engines are pretty dang reliable.

Typically you see transmissions and drive train fail before the engine. Suspension components wear out, rust eats exhaust systems, electronics go wonky.

I have a friend who has an F-150 with the 5.4L Triton in it. He has over 350,000 miles on that "unreliable" engine. Never been opened. He proactively fixed the plug issue. He's quick to brag about how many miles he has on the truck, but he's had three transmissions, lots of suspension work, replaced the seats from a junkyard truck due to them wearing out, installed an aftermarket radio after his quit working, and a lot more things.

If you have a push broom, and you replace the handle three times and the base 4 times....is it still the same broom?