Ford Inside News banner

21 - 40 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Again, I can't comment on if Diesel is coming, and I would be fine if it did as that is a unique customer, but more gas is simply not needed. The NA I4 engine choice is more power and torque than the biggest engine available globally, which don't forget is only with 6 speeds. So I am sure that the work capacity for NA Ranger will easily best the global unit, which bests the current competition btw. And again, more power is coming for Raptor, which will be a hit no doubt. So to that tiny single percent digit that asks 'why not', I will have to defer that question to similar questions that will surely ask....'why no 5.0L or why no 6.7L or why no new 7.3L.....and on and on.
Globally isn't the truck-loving, power-living US of A. And some of these trucks will be used for work. => Capability matters. If you think some American consumers won't walk away from the Ranger because it doesn't offer a 6-cylinder option, you're mistaken. I'll wager my Marketing/Consumer Behavior degree on it.

The power differential from 2.3EB -> 2.7EB is only 15HP and 30ftlbs. The bigger issue may well be NVH improvements that would come with the V6.
It's not just about the power. The character of the engines is completely different. Drive the MKC with the 2.3T then hop in an MKX with the 2.7T and there is absolutely no comparison ... and that despite substantial weight penalty.

Two buddies each bought an F-150 last year. Both went into their test drives undecided on powertrain. One purchased the 3.5 EB, the other the 5.0. They both found the 2.7T adequate, but despite a limited need for hauling or towing, adequate wouldn't cut it with either of these guys. The argument about who purchased the "right" engine continues to this day, and I suspect it always will. Choice, as they say, is a beautiful thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
If Ford can replace V8s with V6s in the F-150 then I'm pretty sure it can get away with an I4 that happens to destroy the V6s in the competition.
The turbo sixes didn't replace the V8, they supplemented it. Ford knows removing the 5.0 from the lineup would be a mistake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,929 Posts
All those pictures with people in them do a great job at showing that it is indeed small. To me, this is a great thing. Considering I've never seen one of these in person, I'm looking forward to getting a tangible sense of scale next week when I fly to Detroit. Will be there Fri-Mon!

Love the grilles and the steel bumper. This is such a welcome addition to the lineup. Really compelling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
We waited so long for a reskined version of the ranger from 2015 which was a reskin from the 2011

Just like the transit, much like the focus, ecosport and the mustang.

You just can't make this stuff up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,940 Posts
Globally isn't the truck-loving, power-living US of A. And some of these trucks will be used for work. => Capability matters. If you think some American consumers won't walk away from the Ranger because it doesn't offer a 6-cylinder option, you're mistaken. I'll wager my Marketing/Consumer Behavior degree on it.



It's not just about the power. The character of the engines is completely different. Drive the MKC with the 2.3T then hop in an MKX with the 2.7T and there is absolutely no comparison ... and that despite substantial weight penalty.

Two buddies each bought an F-150 last year. Both went into their test drives undecided on powertrain. One purchased the 3.5 EB, the other the 5.0. They both found the 2.7T adequate, but despite a limited need for hauling or towing, adequate wouldn't cut it with either of these guys. The argument about who purchased the "right" engine continues to this day, and I suspect it always will. Choice, as they say, is a beautiful thing.
That's all true and fine and good in the past.
But, Ranger is aligning itself to the future. A big part of that future is a huge reduction in ICE. So Ford will have to take the absolutely small gamble that in the interim, a few people seeking a V6 will not like the Raptor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
... a few people seeking a V6 will not like the Raptor.
More than a few I'm afraid. It's like saying Mustang buyers would either settle for the base 4-cylinder, or step up to the Shelby if they want a V8. You shouldn't need to buy a specialized model to get more power -- especially not in a product many will use for work.

Sorry, I won't be swayed from my thinking on this particular subject. Probably best we just agree to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
So I am sure that the work capacity for NA Ranger will easily best the global unit, which bests the current competition.
The current RoTW Ranger's 3.2 diesel torque figure is 347 lb-ft 1,750-2,500 rpm. To best that, i'm guessing the US-market Ranger's EcoBoost will be based on the Mustang version of the 2.3 EcoBoost which has 350 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm (93 octane).

Now i'm curious if the Everest SUV-style coil-spring rear suspension of the US-market Ranger can match the work load capacity of the RoTW Ranger's leaf springs. If i recall in the Everest, coil springs were used to improve ride & comfort.

-------------------------------------------------------------


More than a few I'm afraid. It's like saying Mustang buyers would either settle for the base 4-cylinder, or step up to the Shelby if they want a V8. You shouldn't need to buy a specialized model to get more power -- especially not in a product many will use for work.

Sorry, I won't be swayed from my thinking on this particular subject. Probably best we just agree to disagree.
I think the difference is the V8-sound is part of the Mustang's iconic image. In the case of the Ranger, the V6 sound isn't. Ford (well Hau Thai-Tang) claims the 2.3 EcoBoost is on par with the competition's V6 engines. Ford is probably going for best-in-class torque numbers for a gasoline engine since it's is a pickup.

In the Explorer, the 2.3 EcoBoost makes 280 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque
In the 2018 Mustang, the 2.3 EcoBoost makes 310 hp and 350 lb-ft of torque (93 octane)

The V6 gasoline engines from its competitors produce less than 290 lb-ft of torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,940 Posts
AM222, there is also the HP rating, which the Diesels can't touch.

HotRod, I don't expect to sway your thinking, I am only trying to remind you that electrification will be a big part of future Ford products. And your analogy about Mustang engine options might have worked, if Ranger I4 and V6 powers were not so close that it does not really make sense.
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
...Designed by wimps that used to sell furniture...
I for one will NEVER cut Mr.Hatchett *any*slack* BUT
he had NOTHING to do with the styling NOR engineering of the USRanger

my GRIPE is:
whichever Ford-suit said it'd have different front styling needs a dictionary / eye exam / truth-implant



...Why not the 2.7 or the 3.2 diesel already in the Transit here and in the Ranger oversees? Why spend all that money to fail? This tell me that the Bronco will also be a failure in inspiration. No Henry Ford steel in backbones of Ford's management.
I'm also worried about the Bronco
OTOH
since this initial Ranger destroyed my hopes (NOT for the trucks abilities) but for a "global hop-scotch" intro For-The-Moment,
I have to fall-back to hoping the Ranger gets some Bronco-Magic when that comes out
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
I for one will NEVER cut Mr.Hatchett *any*slack* BUT
he had NOTHING to do with the styling NOR engineering of the USRanger

my GRIPE is:
whichever Ford-suit said it'd have different front styling needs a dictionary / eye exam / truth-implant




I'm also worried about the Bronco
OTOH
since this initial Ranger destroyed my hopes (NOT for the trucks abilities) but for a "global hop-scotch" intro For-The-Moment,
I have to fall-back to hoping the Ranger gets some Bronco-Magic when that comes out
Well, they're not wrong - it is different, with a separate bumper, etc. It just might not be the amount of different you wanted.

I'm not worried about Bronco - that would be a clean sheet design anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
The new Ranger appears to be a very pleasant vehicle. The powertrain will meet the needs of 90 percent of the public wanting a vehicle like this. Those wanting an updated version of the basic old Ranger will need to look somewhere else. Ford will make a healthy profit from this vehicle, which it wouldn't from a basic old work truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
The new transmissions seem to be culling some engines for Ford, gone is the 3.5/3.7 V6 in the Edge/Nautilus. The 3.3 V6 in the F-150 would make some sense but that engine doesn't get the new transmissions either. So Ford's abundant engine choices are starting to get cut down to cut development cost and redundancy. It may turn off some customers, but not enough to keep investing in and/or sitting on older tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
I
my GRIPE is:
whichever Ford-suit said it'd have different front styling needs a dictionary / eye exam / truth-implant

I believe it was Joe Hinrichs who said it last year: https://youtu.be/EhE5ofSo3iU?t=25s

It gets a unique double power bulge aluminum hood, frame mounted (metal) bumpers, and additional grille designs/finish, this is what makes the front-end unique.

The US version does not have to look drastically different from other Rangers since it is a global model.

I'm also worried about the Bronco
OTOH
since this initial Ranger destroyed my hopes (NOT for the trucks abilities) but for a "global hop-scotch" intro For-The-Moment,
I have to fall-back to hoping the Ranger gets some Bronco-Magic when that comes out
You convinced yourself the US-market Ranger will look different, at one point you referred to it as a T7, I'm not surprised you're disappointed. lol I for one was not surprised about how it turned out.

The Bronco is a Bronco, it will share no exterior panel with the Ranger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Take it from someone that's sees about 50 Rangers a day on our roads in the arse end of the world - it's probably one of the best proportioned vehicles (not just truck) on the road. Very good looking, and all other midsized pickups fail to generate that on-road presence. It's won over many consumers and really spruced the aftermarket.

As for the 2.3, that is more powerful than the Triton 5.4 that was used in the F250 15-odd years ago, with practically more torque at the wheels courtesy of the 10sp.

The question is would they need to initially introduce it with multiple engine options if by chance demand outstrips supply?

Another aspect is maintaining that pecking order; with the 2.7 it would be stepping on the F150's toes, potentially robbing it of the number one sales spot. A 2.7 Ranger would be equivalent in performance to the 3.5, with much better economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Can't even begin to say how disappointed I am with the lack of powertrain choice here. Yes, this is my first post here, needed a place to vent as I've been very patiently waiting for the Ranger to debut. Been wanting one as I don't always need nor want to use my full size truck.

Sure the 4cyl will do the job that most will ask of it but this guy here wants a V6. An engine the Rangers competitors all offer. I went with Ford's ecoboost in my 14 F150 and have been so so happy with it (great power, rotten fuel economy, excellent refinement but plenty of small problems so far) just wanted a nice N/A V6 Ranger. Dammit Ford!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
What some people are forgetting is the standard 2.3 EcoBoost of the US-market Ranger is comparable to the optional V6 engine of its competitors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
What some people are forgetting is the standard 2.3 EcoBoost of the US-market Ranger is comparable to the optional V6 engine of its competitors.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm not forgetting anything. Compared to normally aspirated 6-cylinders, 4-cylinder turbos make comparable power and better torque. It's not a question of how much power they make, but how they make their power. In the last four years I've had four German 2.0T's in my garage. They're punchy and can be somewhat fun-to-drive, but they're also buzzy and unrefined. The vast majority of turbo fours sound flatulent, and custom exhausts can make them sound even worse.

I've said it before, and I'll reiterate ... the 2.3T is a fine base engine. Probably an ideal base engine for the Ranger. But why does it have to be the only engine?
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
^HotRod,
if the RangerRaptor only has the 2.3 then Fomoco can

...my GRIPE is:
whichever Ford-suit said it'd have different front styling needs a dictionary / eye exam / truth-implant
I believe it was Joe Hinrichs who said it last year: https://youtu.be/EhE5ofSo3iU?t=25s
Thanks for the video :thumb:
pretty sure more than OneSuit said it &
that's a good example of misuse of 'UNIQUE'
since it not only means [every so slightly changed only a fan could tell IF they're side-by-side]
but
"strikingly-original"

...It gets a unique double power bulge aluminum hood, frame mounted (metal) bumpers, and additional grille designs/finish, this is what makes the front-end unique.

The US version does not have to look drastically different from other Rangers since it is a global model.
agree ... just that the whole(****HOLE) year-long HYPE was blatantly misleading


...You convinced yourself the US-market Ranger will look different, at one point you referred to it as a T7, I'm not surprised you're disappointed. lol I for one was not surprised about how it turned out...
far + much WORSE than that
I convinced myself Fomoco wouldn't be STOOPID enough to allow misconception-prone language
definition #1:
Being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.



...The Bronco is a Bronco, it will share no exterior panel with the Ranger.
oh yeah?
>:)


&
I *Love* saying:
I for one will NEVER cut Mr.Hatchett *any*slack*
 
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
Top