blksn8k2 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 I think what a lot of people conveniently ignore is the fact that no matter how light an F-150 is it still won't fit in some people's garage and it still takes up more space in a parking lot and it still has a larger turning radius, etc., etc. Some people just don't need or want to deal with a truck as "bigly" as an F-150 but they still want a reasonably capable truck. And the days of people like Derrick Kuzak pushing small sedans are over for the time being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 4, 2017 Author Share Posted April 4, 2017 I think what a lot of people conveniently ignore is the fact that no matter how light an F-150 is it still won't fit in some people's garage and it still takes up more space in a parking lot and it still has a larger turning radius, etc., etc. Some people just don't need or want to deal with a truck as "bigly" as an F-150 but they still want a reasonably capable truck. And the days of people like Derrick Kuzak pushing small sedans are over for the time being. This. All of this is why I'm getting a Ranger, otherwise I would have gotten an F-150 when the 2015s came out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 I think what a lot of people conveniently ignore is the fact that no matter how light an F-150 is it still won't fit in some people's garage and it still takes up more space in a parking lot and it still has a larger turning radius, etc., etc. Some people just don't need or want to deal with a truck as "bigly" as an F-150 but they still want a reasonably capable truck. And the days of people like Derrick Kuzak pushing small sedans are over for the time being. But the reason it got bigger/better was in response to competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 To keep with Ranger's "tradition", why not use a 2.3L DI and a 2.3L GTDI and call it a day. Maybe a diesel, to top it off, for the $45k crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 But the reason it got bigger/better was in response to competition. Yes and that is the majority of the truck market so it was the right move. But there is still a smaller market out there for smaller trucks so why not have the best of both worlds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 To keep with Ranger's "tradition", why not use a 2.3L DI and a 2.3L GTDI and call it a day. Maybe a diesel, to top it off, for the $45k crowd. Because there is no 2.3L DI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) I'm just hoping the 2.7 eco finds its way under the hood. Preferably with at least the option of an MT-82 bolted to it. That's probably wishful thinking, but perhaps Ford will see fit to give us the 2.3eb/MT-82 combo since it's already used in the current mustang and the 2.3 na / MT-82 is used in the current T6 ranger. Edited April 4, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Because there is no 2.3L DI? Remove the GT part from the 2.3 GTDI? - The only way NA Focus got 2.0DI was because 2.0GTDI was available.It should be easier than improve the 2.0 DI to output 180hp/180tq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 4, 2017 Author Share Posted April 4, 2017 Remove the GT part from the 2.3 GTDI? - The only way NA Focus got 2.0DI was because 2.0GTDI was available. It should be easier than improve the 2.0 DI to output 180hp/180tq. LOLOLOLOL Dude, the 2.0DI the Focus has has literally been used in that car since it came out. The only difference in the engines in my 2008 and 2015 Focuses is the newer one has VVT and flex fuel capability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Remove the GT part from the 2.3 GTDI? - The only way NA Focus got 2.0DI was because 2.0GTDI was available. It should be easier than improve the 2.0 DI to output 180hp/180tq. Actually you would only remove the T since the G stands for gasoline and I'm pretty sure it still needs fuel........ But I don't think there is much relation between the 2.0GTDI and the 2.0 GDI. The 2.0GTDI was purpose built for turbocharging. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 But I don't think there is much relation between the 2.0GTDI and the 2.0 GDI. The 2.0GTDI was purpose built for turbocharging. The two engines are both part of an engine family designed by Mazda. They share blocks and have the same bore and stroke. You are correct sir that the 2.0 GTDI Ecoboost engine was designed for turbocharging. It uses a different head, valvetrain, fuel system, and engine controller compared to the non-turbo version. I think the turbo version also uses balance shafts to improve smoothness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I'm just hoping the 2.7 eco finds its way under the hood. Preferably with at least the option of an MT-82 bolted to it. That's probably wishful thinking, but perhaps Ford will see fit to give us the 2.3eb/MT-82 combo since it's already used in the current mustang and the 2.3 na / MT-82 is used in the current T6 ranger. I think Ford would miss a big opportunity if they don't offer the 2.7eb. The V6 engines in the Tacoma and Canyonados is certainly adequate, but that is it. Neither offer a powertrain option that is really aspirational. The 2.7 would really differentiate the Ranger. And further, it seems even more important for the Bronco. If Ford hopes to sell them for high transaction prices, it will need something more than just adequate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 5, 2017 Author Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Is the Wrangler still available with a straight 6? Joe Hinrichs mentioned a new engine for Ranger/Bronco, so that got me thinking.... Edited April 5, 2017 by fuzzymoomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Is the Wrangler still available with a straight 6? Joe Hinrichs mentioned a new engine for Ranger/Bronco, so that got me thinking.... No, it's been V6 for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Also, T6 Rangers is closer to gen 1 Explorer Sport Trac in size, which probably explains why Ford held off for so long. The base 2WD single cab low rider 2.5 gasoline Ranger with 8 foot bed is still pretty light at 1530 Kg / 3366 lbs, I don't see a SC F150 (4152 lbs) getting anywhere near that..... I sure hope they have a 4 door short bed version like the Sport Trac. I always liked that truck, but would not buy one because it had such an "old" powertrain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 To keep with Ranger's "tradition", why not use a 2.3L DI and a 2.3L GTDI and call it a day. I have said it before, GDI has very little (if any) power/fuel economy benefits in the US ! And those extra parts are not cheap !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I have said it before, GDI has very little (if any) power/fuel economy benefits in the US ! And those extra parts are not cheap !! If that was the case, why do other manufacturers still use it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I sure hope they have a 4 door short bed version like the Sport Trac. I always liked that truck, but would not buy one because it had such an "old" powertrain. So from 2007 thru 2010 you considered the 4.6 3V as "old"? I bought mine in 2007 and it is still going strong. If Ford wimps out and does not offer the 2.7 EB in the Ranger I would seriously consider replacing the 4.6 in my Sport Trac with the 5.3L shortblock from Ford Performance. That engine is based on 4.6 architecture with 94mm siamesed bores and a 95.25mm stroke. They are designed to accept any modular cylinder head which means I could use 3V heads. That would allow me to up the power level considerably without all the hassles of redoing exhaust, electronics, etc. that would be involved with other engine choices like the Coyote 5.0. It would also avoid all the potential reliability issues of throwing a supercharger on the stock 4.6. And if I decided to add a blower later on I would already have a strong reciprocating assembly to build on as the 5.3 comes with all forged internals in a BOSS 5.0 iron block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 So from 2007 thru 2010 you considered the 4.6 3V as "old"? I bought mine in 2007 and it is still going strong. If Ford wimps out and does not offer the 2.7 EB in the Ranger I would seriously consider replacing the 4.6 in my Sport Trac with the 5.3L shortblock from Ford Performance. That engine is based on 4.6 architecture with 94mm siamesed bores and a 95.25mm stroke. They are designed to accept any modular cylinder head which means I could use 3V heads. That would allow me to up the power level considerably without all the hassles of redoing exhaust, electronics, etc. that would be involved with other engine choices like the Coyote 5.0. It would also avoid all the potential reliability issues of throwing a supercharger on the stock 4.6. And if I decided to add a blower later on I would already have a strong reciprocating assembly to build on as the 5.3 comes with all forged internals in a BOSS 5.0 iron block. Might be talking about the V6 that was in it...there wasn't that much different between the two power-wise from what I remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jqa1824 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 The 4.0V6 made 210hp while the 4.6V8 made something like 290-300hp. I'd say that's quite a difference. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The 4.0V6 made 210hp while the 4.6V8 made something like 290-300hp. I'd say that's quite a difference. The 4.6 3V was rated at 292 hp and 315 lb-ft in the Explorer. I've upped that a little on my Sport Trac with a Zabtech throttle body, K&N CAI, Magnaflow exhaust and computer re-calibration. The EPA fuel mileage rating difference was only about 1 mpg between the 4.0 and 4.6. Maybe that's what some are remembering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Might be talking about the V6 that was in it...there wasn't that much different between the two power-wise from what I remember. There wasn't much difference between the 5.0 V8 and the 4.0 SOHC in the older Explorers, but there was a significant difference between the 4.6 and the V6es. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 (edited) I'm just hoping the 2.7 eco finds its way under the hood. Preferably with at least the option of an MT-82 bolted to it. That's probably wishful thinking, but perhaps Ford will see fit to give us the 2.3eb/MT-82 combo since it's already used in the current mustang and the 2.3 na / MT-82 is used in the current T6 ranger. 2.5 I-4 in Ranger, the 2.3 hasn't bee used for years but I get where you're going. Think existing engines that use an auto and MT82, there's one, Mustang Ecoboost... The other possibility for North America is the F150's new PFDI 3.3 V6 and auto (6 or 10) Edited April 6, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 Still crossing my fingers for a 6 speed manual that's more than a base 2x4 model 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The other possibility for North America is the F150's new PFDI 3.3 V6 and auto (6 or 10) Have they said where the 3.3 will be assembled? I would assume Cleveland... 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.