blksn8k2

I won't be shocked if they don't since they have never used the same engine in both the F-150 and Ranger in the past.

By "turbo V6 factor" are you referring to the Raptor only or does that include the 2.7L V6 in other trims? If it does then I might be more interested. I don't expect the Raptor to be produced until a few months after the lesser models and I do fully expect dealers will be charging markups on the Raptor due to limited availability. Because of those issues I'm leaning more towards either an XLT or Lariat with the Tremor package but only if it's available with the 2.7. I really don't NEED a new truck right now and by the time I do gasoline will be an illegal substance anyway so getting me to trade anytime soon is going to take something at least a little bit special and at a reasonable price, if such a thing exists.

The 2.7L and 3.0L NANO V6s use a CGI block but the rest of the engine's major components are already aluminum including the lower engine "girdle". I doubt there would be much weight savings in replacing the cylinder block. Would it really be worth saving a few pounds on an already proven design while spending a ton of money on engineering. etc.? Because of the fact that the Ranger and Bronco are built on the same assembly line and share the same basic chassis I would expect the Ranger to get the same versions of whatever engines are also available in the Bronco. That may or may not include the 2.7L and that doesn't even mean the Ranger Raptor will get the same tune on it's rumored 3.0L EB as is used in the Bronco Raptor. Since Ford hasn't yet officially said we are getting a '24 Ranger no one other than some of the people who actually work for Ford or its suppliers know the real answers to any of that.

So what happened with the rumored April 17th '24 Ranger reveal date? Any new guesses? Will it now be combined with the supposed May 26th opening of order banks?

Here's the response I received today from a Roush sales rep: At this time we have not got any plans for a 2024 ROUSH Ranger due to several availability and engineering issues that we see with the new design. This could change as time gets closer but as of now, the 2022 ROUSH Ranger will be our last year with that platform. Maybe when these crazy times due to inability to get this parts supply chain fixed, things may change. Not too encouraging at all. ? Would be curious to see what the sales figures for the current Roush Ranger were. My guess is they were not high enough to warrant tooling up for new parts for a new model that may be in short supply anyway.

Exactly. Knowing how long it has taken Raptor versions of other models to be released and their limited availability, I had another thought about the 2024 Ranger. I know Roush Performance has their version of the current Ranger and I assume they will also do their own take on the 2024. So I just filled out a dealer contact form on the Roush website. Should be interesting to see what they have planned, if anything, for the 2024 Ranger. My guess is that Roush dealers probably have little or nothing yet on the 2024 but it won't hurt to at least get in contact with one of their dealers. Here's a photo of the current gen Roush Ranger from their website:

The point is that the F-series is the do everything truck in the North American market. Neither the Ranger nor the Maverick will ever be marketed that way unless fuel prices get high enough to sway enough buyers away from full-size trucks.

It is kind of odd that here Ford markets both the Maverick and Ranger as "lifestyle" trucks. I guess they're just giving us options. LOL If you want a "work" truck in North America you're supposed to buy an F-series. Or a Tacoma...

I agree with that and, again, look at the Engine Type line at the top of the engine spec chart for the Bronco. One thing that is confusing people is that Ford also uses PFDI for any engine that uses both port and direct injection regardless of whether it is turbocharged or not. For example, all gas engines in the F-150 are PFDI including the 3.3L base V6 and the 5.0L V8, neither of which are turbocharged. GTDI is also confusing because it gives you the impression that it is direct injection only when that may not be the case. I initially fell into the same trap. As Alan said, GTDI seems to be the common designation for any EcoBoost engine and that includes what is shown on those underhood stickers. You have to dig a little deeper to see which of those are Direct Injection (DI) only or which have both Port and Direct Injection (PFDI). Look at the Fuel Delivery line in the above chart. So, with all that in mind, I suppose it is still possible that the engine sticker that was on that pre-production Raptor in the video could have been one from a Bronco meaning it still doesn't prove that the non-Raptor Ranger will get the 2.7 but at least it does give more hope. :shrug:

The photo I was looking at from the video was supposedly taken under the hood of a pre-production Ranger Raptor and it does say GTDI for all three engines. Here it is: However, your comment did make me look a little further, so thanks for that. This is even better. ? If you go back to page 6 of this thread and look at the screen shots I posted of Ford's Bronco webpage, at the top of the engine spec chart it shows the 2.7 as "GTDI" which is the same as what is shown for all three Bronco engines. Which, BTW, matches the Ranger sticker. But, if you go down to the Fuel Delivery line that's where it shows PFDI for the 2.7 and DI for the 2.3 and 3.0. So, based on that, it may very well be that although the underhood sticker of the Ranger may say GTDI just like the top of the Bronco chart, the 2.7 in the Ranger could still be PFDI just like is shown on the Fuel Delivery line in the Bronco chart. That actually makes even more sense. If that's true then that's just one more reason why I would be just as happy with a Tremor with a 2.7 with PFDI rather than waiting another year for a Raptor with an ADM and DI only. ?

Actually the question was why does the 2.7L in the Bronco get the dual system and the same engine in the Ranger apparently will not, at least based on that underhood sticker. BTW, I don't think there is such a thing as a non-turbo Nano V6 nor will there ever be. The exhaust manifold is cast integral with the cylinder head and the turbo actually bolts directly to the cylinder head. But, I suppose you could make a different head or maybe even bolt the exhaust pipe directly to the head if you didn't want the turbos although I seriously doubt that last option would be all that efficient.

Pretty sure he was referring to the Powerstroke diesel that was available here in the F-150 for a couple of years. We won't be getting that option.

So about that Bronco PFDI vs Ranger GTDI difference regarding the 2.7L, anyone know what that's all about? Is it emissions related? In other words, are the smog regs different for SUVs vs trucks? I guess that still wouldn't explain why the 3.0L in the Bronco Raptor is only GTDI. Maybe it is just a cost cutting thing. Oh well, I guess if anyone is worried about carbon buildup on the backside of the intake valves they can always add an oil separator to the PCV system.

This is interesting. My apologies if this has already been covered but I was watching a youtube video about the 2024 Ranger Raptor where the poster was showing a screen shot and photos from a thread on ranger6g where a member of the forum had gotten a ride in a test truck and then posted his review of it in the thread on ranger6g. The thread is obviously not there anymore but there was one little tidbit that really caught my attention. At the 1:40 mark of the video there is the screen shot from the ranger6g post and the second bullet point states that there was an underhood sticker that indicated that the non-Raptor versions would have available both the 2.3 AND 2.7 EBs. And then at the 8:20 mark of the video there is even a photo of the sticker. Now the other interesting thing about that sticker is that it shows all three engines as being GTDI. That would be different from the Bronco since it gets the PFDI version of the 2.7 so that right there makes me think this is legit and not just a Bronco spec sticker that was placed there by mistake. ?

And mine would be a crew cab XLT with the Tremor package and 2.7L which is also unlikely.

Should be interesting to see if the non-Raptor models of the 2024 Ranger have a V6 option. My guess is they will not and that is a bit disappointing but not surprising especially given the fact that GM has now gone down the same 4 cyl turbo only path with their mid-sizers although they do offer multiple tuning levels for their 2.7L. I will also be curious to see if Ford takes a similar approach with the 2.3L EB by offering different levels of tune depending on which model it is used in. We already know the T6 chassis was modified to be able to fit the Nano V6's but so far we have only seen that taken advantage of in the Bronco and Ranger Raptor. I haven't paid much attention to the GM mid-size lineup but after doing a little research it sure seems as though Ford has pretty much followed their script with the Ranger since it's reintroduction to the NA market in 2019 with the obvious exception of engine choices. Although in a turnabout of sorts GM does now seem to be taking a similar approach to Ford's when it comes to a single engine choice. It's also interesting to note that GM seems to have no issue with using the same powerplants in their mid-size and full-size trucks which is something Ford has never done with the Ranger so far.

Another thing that annoys me about his articles just as much as the inaccuracies is the fact that 90% of the information is just a rehash of earlier articles. Most of what's new could be stated in one or two sentences, but no, instead the reader gets inundated with links to old articles and what amounts to nothing but chest pounding about stuff we've already seen, some of which is total BS. One glaring example of the BS is in an admittedly old article about the 3.0L EB where they state: "The engine is heavily based on the EcoBoost 2.7L Nano, with cylinder bore increased from 83 mm to 85.3 mm. The engine’s piston stroke was also lengthened by 3.0 mm (for a total of 86 mm). Ford also replaced the Nano’s compacted-graphite iron block design for a cast aluminum construction." That last part is simply not true and that is easily proven by looking at the Bronco engine spec chart on Ford's own website which I included a screen shot of in an earlier response. Again, I get it that it's an old article but that shouldn't be an excuse for not correcting an obvious error that anyone who does a search for info on the 3.0L EB can still find a link to. And because the article has no date (or author's name) that I could see, most readers will probably assume that it is current. Hell, it's so old that it doesn't even list the Bronco Raptor as a vehicle that uses that engine, which is probably a good thing. ? https://fordauthority.com/fmc/ford-motor-company-engines/ford-ecoboost-family/ford-3-0l-ecoboost-engine/

That sounds reasonable. It just seems odd that they wouldn't add PFDI to the 3.0 since those two engines are basically the same physical size. If I recall correctly, they even use the same cylinder head castings and intake manifold so connecting the fuel rails, etc. should basically be a bolt-on especially considering that all of that stuff is already there on a 2.7 Bronco. What caused me to question all this was that I read a post on SVTperformance.com where Sid added an oil separator to his Bronco Raptor specifically because it does not have PFDI. I would also imagine that the Bronco Raptor program had fairly deep pockets as well.

Notice how Brett Open-Mouth-Insert-Foote called the rear side steps "bumper steps"? Idiot.

I was a little surprised to see that the 3.0L EcoBoost used in the Bronco Raptor uses DI only while the 2.7L EB, which is essentially the same Nano engine design with a smaller bore, shorter stroke and lower compression ratio (10.0:1 vs 10.5:1), uses PFDI. I assume the Ranger Raptor's 3.0 will also be DI only. I wonder why Ford has chosen not to use PFDI on the 3.0? https://www.ford.com/suvs/bronco/models/bronco-raptor/

Unless they make a Tremor with the 2.7, which I highly doubt, the only model I would possibly be interested in is the Raptor. I've never paid over MSRP for any other Ford and have no intention of doing it now so I seriously doubt I'll be getting a Raptor either.

NASCAR drivers Harrison Burton and Zane Smith took 1st place in the Grand Sport class in the 2023 four hour Michelin Pilot Sport Challenge race at Daytona in a Mustang GT4. Hailie Deegan and Ben Rhodes finished 3rd in another Mustang. https://www.nbcsports.com/video/event/2023-michelin-pilot-challenge-daytona

Here's my obvious favorite: https://titanapi.minisisinc.com/api/links/c29a9048c4864d89915b29f4f39330e4/uuid/a7c462529fc24c50abc9976b9778f581/access

https://www.motortrend.com/news/hot-rod-ford-heritage-vault-photo-library/?wc_mid=4035:24245&wc_rid=4035:1380735&_wcsid=F42812736891A4516EB5C7420A94B3AB78001F89CFF6E866 https://fordheritagevault.com/

Here's another possibility for the indentation in the flares. Look at where the side clearance light is located on the F-150 Raptor flares. Is it possible that in some other markets with much narrower highways the Ranger Raptor is required to have clearance lights and not just reflectors? Or did the designers of the earlier version of the flare just assume clearance lights would be required for the US and Canada? If you look at the RR grille there are also cutouts where lights could be mounted in the top of the grille just like on Big Brother. And BTW, the DOT rule is that any highway use vehicle that exceeds 80" in width is required to have three amber lights mounted somewhere high on the vehicle (most are on the roof) as well as one on each front fender.