fuzzymoomoo Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 OK. basic question. If this is the same world wide truck, why is it taking so long for production? because theyre waiting for the Focus to finish up with its production cycle, then they can rework the plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) OK. basic question. If this is the same world wide truck, why is it taking so long for production? The North American versions of Ranger will have its own unique gasoline power trains, It's also timed with a major evolution of T6 Global Ranger, all development work is done out of Geelong in Australia, Ford NA only decided in the last two years it wanted Ranger again. A lot of the waiting has to do with plans being revealed by UAW official long before Ford was ready. Rest assured that it is different to the first T6 Rangers that came out in late 2010. Edited December 23, 2017 by jpd80 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 24, 2017 Author Share Posted December 24, 2017 Since this seems to be the most current of the ongoing Ranger discussions, does anyone know what the current production capacity is for the 2.7 EB? I know Ford currently uses it in multiple platforms including F-150, Edge and Fusion. With that in mind, does Ford have enough capacity to use this engine as an option in the Ranger? Does the potential demise of the Fusion play into this? Also, knowing that Ford has updated the 2.7 EB in the 2018 F-150 with dual injection resulting in a max torque rating of 400 lb ft, does Ford still build the first gen Nano V-6 for other models besides the F-150? Which version, if any, would likely be used in the Ranger? If the 1st gen 2.7 EB is still in production, which transmission would it be paired with if used in the Ranger, the 6 or 10-speed auto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 Since this seems to be the most current of the ongoing Ranger discussions, does anyone know what the current production capacity is for the 2.7 EB? I know Ford currently uses it in multiple platforms including F-150, Edge and Fusion. With that in mind, does Ford have enough capacity to use this engine as an option in the Ranger? Does the potential demise of the Fusion play into this? Also, knowing that Ford has updated the 2.7 EB in the 2018 F-150 with dual injection resulting in a max torque rating of 400 lb ft, does Ford still build the first gen Nano V-6 for other models besides the F-150? Which version, if any, would likely be used in the Ranger? If the 1st gen 2.7 EB is still in production, which transmission would it be paired with if used in the Ranger, the 6 or 10-speed auto? unfortunately the only people who work at Lima who have accounts here are a few quasi-trolls that contribute nothing to the actual conversations in the employee section, so unless someone finds official numbers we can only really speculate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-bird Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) I wonder how much weight difference there will be between this and the F150 if they stick with steel. I hope there is significant fuel mileage difference unlike the old Ranger which from my experience was very poor for the vehicle size if not worse than the full size. IMO and for my purpose this would be a definite consideration. If only 10% or so difference may as well stick with an F150 with more capacity. Edited December 24, 2017 by T-bird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 24, 2017 Author Share Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) On the old Ranger not only was the body ancient, so were the drivetrains. The new truck may not have significantly better mileage than a full size but it will still be respectable. Some people need a more sensibly sized vehicle 99% of the time. That's why I am still driving my nearly eleven year old Sport Trac. It still runs great and it is the perfect size for my needs, unlike the F-150. Edited December 24, 2017 by blksn8k2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 Some people need a more sensibly sized vehicle 99% of the time. That's why I am still driving my nearly eleven year old Sport Trac. It still runs great and it is the perfect size for my needs, unlike the F-150. People keep asking me (coworkers especially for some reason) keep asking me why I dont get an F-150 instead of waiting for a Ranger. This is exactly why. The main reason anyway. That and I prefer to buy what I build (assuming Im brought back in November) and the immediate financial ramifications. Im enjoying having only 1 car note at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) I wonder how much weight difference there will be between this and the F150 if they stick with steel. I hope there is significant fuel mileage difference unlike the old Ranger which from my experience was very poor for the vehicle size if not worse than the full size. IMO and for my purpose this would be a definite consideration. If only 10% or so difference may as well stick with an F150 with more capacity.The old Ranger went both ways. The 4.0L/automatic/4wd was a gas guzzling pig and often times did get worse than a 150 because by 04'ish the 150 had a front end that unlocked whereas the ranger didn't. However the ranger with the 2.3L duratec/M5OD/2wd was a fuel sipper. I still have the window sticker from mine showing 22/27 EPA rating and it's not uncommon to hit 30 in practice. And honestly the 2.3 is enough power for the size of the truck. It's not like there's enough chassis or mass in the truck to be pulling big trailers or anything. I've put 4000 lbs (about the safe limit for the chassis) behind the 2.3L and it was slow, but not dangerously so. Also the 1997 and older 4x4s got better mileage. The TTB front end had locking hubs so 4wd wasn't really a gas mileage penalty since you ran around freewheeling the front end on the street. That and the pushrod 4.0L got better mileage in my experience than the later 4.0L SOHC. A 1997 4.0L/M5OD/4wd is usually a solid 18/23 truck with 25 possible on the highway sometimes. Obviously that's not too impressive by today's standards, but it was for the late 90s when half ton 4x4s were getting 13/17. What's sad is that Ford let it rot on the vine, with fuel economy actually getting worse with the newer SOHC engine and the full-time IFS. Edited December 24, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) Consider the new Ranger as a product that covers both the older Ranger 2WD single cab pick up all the way up to a 4x4 Sport Trac so it's going to mean different things to different people. Hopefully, Ranger casts a wide enough net to capture all those buyers who are looking for something not as big and cumbersome as an F150.. Merry Christmas folks.. Edited December 24, 2017 by jpd80 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Hopefully they do a better job cold testing the Ranger than they did with the last F-150. They have been fighting frozen door latches since the latest generation launched in 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Hopefully they do a better job cold testing the Ranger than they did with the last F-150. They have been fighting frozen door latches since the latest generation launched in 2014. . I think the frozen door latches had little to do with the temperature and more to do with mismatched metals interacting poorly with each other to the detriment of the owner of the vehicle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 .I think the frozen door latches had little to do with the temperature and more to do with mismatched metals interacting poorly with each other to the detriment of the owner of the vehicle. That or poor quality brought about by cost pressure on supplier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Water intrusion is the cause of the frozen door locks. Which probably goes back to the previously mentioned pressure on the suppliers for cheaper parts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Water intrusion is the cause of the frozen door locks. Which probably goes back to the previously mentioned pressure on the suppliers for cheaper parts. The first TSB involved cleaning out water and lubricating new door latches. The second TSB involves inspecting for kinked cables and actuator rods as well as installing better rain shields. The door latch recall became more comprehensive with latches, links cables and shields all being either replaced or checked for proper installation and operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Water intrusion is the cause of the frozen door locks. Which probably goes back to the previously mentioned pressure on the suppliers for cheaper parts. . Our good friend corrosion...brought to you by moisture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Back on Ranger, there's only so much cold weather testing that can be carried out in the laboratory, there's still an need to get out in actual conditions and do proper field evaluation of new/changed parts. This has been done in the past with a lot less notice because those rangers weren't bound for North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 29, 2017 Author Share Posted December 29, 2017 I probably wouldn't get too excited about the engine choice that is supposedly being shown in Bangkok. If the rumor is true about the Raptor getting the 2.0L turbo diesel that may only be true for that market. Or someone may have just confused the rumor of the announcement at Bangkok that the Ranger would be getting the 2.0 as the base diesel with the announcement (rumor?) that the Raptor would be shown at the same show. It should also be obvious that some "news" outlets release outrageous crap as click bait. It's called "fake news" for a reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 29, 2017 Share Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) Ecoblue 2.0 in different state of tune is replacing the Puma 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 in Ranger and Transit. Not sure about the 3.2. I would have expected the 3.0 V6 diesel in the Raptor (if rumor that 3.0 V6 is replacing the Puma 3.2 I5 is true) The higher tune in 2.0 Ecoblue basically replaces the 3.2 I-5 Puma in power and torque almost... If they put a ten speed auto on the new 2.0 I-4, it should be quicker than the old 3.2 anyway, Edited December 29, 2017 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplorerDude Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 We are getting closer....this one almost reminds me of the 2001 Sport Trac in Mandarin Orange. https://jalopnik.com/looks-like-the-new-ford-ranger-is-already-off-roading-i-1821660039 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 Notice the difference in tail lamps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 Notice the difference in tail lamps They look ridiculously large for that sized vehicle. And the side shot with that grey wheel well trim on the front fender looks hideous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 (edited) Someone in the comments thinks this is the new Bronco: Funny enough this is still the most traditional looking SUV ford has... at least for now. As for that Ranger it definitely has a Sport Trac vibe... Shame it's so big, they should really just call it as it is: an F100 Edited December 30, 2017 by probowler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 Agree it's to big! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 Someone in the comments thinks this is the new Bronco: Funny enough this is still the most traditional looking SUV ford has... at least for now. As for that Ranger it definitely has a Sport Trac vibe... Shame it's so big, they should really just call it as it is: an F100 lol yeah totally not a bronco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 They look ridiculously large for that sized vehicle. And the side shot with that grey wheel well trim on the front fender looks hideous. tail lights, I agree, they could stand to lose an inch or two. 100% completely disagree with you on the fender trim. Looks too bland without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts