SoonerLS Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 No. its been pretty well documented that the engine is the sole weak point of the Ranger Raptor, especially in a straight line. You might be able to get away with a rock-crawling variant of the new Bronco that uses the EcoBlue, but I don’t think you could do a Ranger Raptor in the US that’s not a gasoline V6–and even then it would preferably be an EB V6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 You might be able to get away with a rock-crawling variant of the new Bronco that uses the EcoBlue, but I dont think you could do a Ranger Raptor in the US thats not a gasoline V6and even then it would preferably be an EB V6. Maybe. Might be a good idea to squeeze a little bit more torque out of it for rock crawling though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) The 3.3L would not be a base engine in the Ranger, it would be an upgrade. Base would be the 1.5LEB or 2.0LEB. No need for a small V6 with those 2 EB engines.Maybe. But thus far we've seen pretty much zero embrace of ecoboost powertrains by fleets. A bored/stroked atmo version of the 4-pot engines is another possibility. Maybe the existing 2.5 that ROW ranger uses or maybe an updated one with Ford's latest tech, displacing somewhere in the 2.5-2.8L range. Edited August 30, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Maybe. But thus far we've seen pretty much zero embrace of ecoboost powertrains by fleets. I’m pretty sure fleets are embracing them in the F150 and Transit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 All I see are 3.3L f150s. If the application calls for more power it's an f250. In transit I see atmo V6s and some diesel in certain apps. I'd be interested in hearing about applications where a fleet has purchased an ecoboost truck. I just haven't seen any in the wild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 I dont know that Ive ever seen a Transit with an EcoBoost badge. Very few with the power stroke badge too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 All I see are 3.3L f150s. If the application calls for more power it's an f250. In transit I see atmo V6s and some diesel in certain apps. I'd be interested in hearing about applications where a fleet has purchased an ecoboost truck. I just haven't seen any in the wild. That has nothing to do with engine choice and everything to do with price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-dubz Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 What would be the benefit of the v6? Ive had 2 4 cylinder ecoboost engines and have been pleased with both. Id even say my wifes escape with the 2.0eb is fairly quick. The 2.3eb in the ranger should have more power than the v8s of a few years ago. I think the ranger will be fairly quick as well and should be able to handle all your light towing needs. Even the Silverado now has a 4 cylinder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) I've seen plenty of F-150 2.7 Ecoboost in fleet duty. It's hard to tell they are EB because they don't always have the EB badge. Here for example is a press release from Ford when Time Warner Cable purchased several hundred F-150 2.7EB: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/09/01/time-warner-cable-adds-ford-f-150-to-its-fleet-for-work-capabili.html The F-150 trucks come with the available 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 engine, and standard Auto Start-Stop. This technology, specially tuned for truck customers, shuts off the engine when the vehicle is at a stop – except when towing or in four-wheel drive – to give drivers power on demand when they need it most. When the brake is released, the engine restarts quickly. “Time Warner Cable is committed to reducing our impact on the environment,” said George Survant, senior director, Fleet Management, Time Warner Cable. “The Ford F-150 is another way to help us achieve our sustainability goals. Energy and fuel efficiency are very important to us as we continue our efforts to ensure the TWC fleet is environmentally friendly.” It all depends on how Ford does pricing in its fleet deals. Because Ecoboost are in high retail demand, Ford is probably less likely to offer fleet discount to bulk orders of 2.7 or 3.5 EB. So fleet managers go with the cheaper option like 3.3 or 5.0 because Ford will deal on those. Plus Ford has incentive to push fleet customers into more expensive F-250 if they want more power/capability, which also has added benefit of leaving more F-150 EB for retail sales. So it's a self-reinforcing cycle. Edited August 30, 2018 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 I dont know that Ive ever seen a Transit with an EcoBoost badge. Very few with the power stroke badge too. I have. Driven one, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) What would be the benefit of the v6?Some people dont like the idea of a high strung 4-banger and some people just prefer a V6, just like some truck buyers simply prefer a V8. Didnt somebody just post that some people are delaying the purchase of a Raptor based on nothing more than the rumor that the next Raptor will have a V8 as an option? Edited August 30, 2018 by SoonerLS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 There are a few who think only a naturally aspirated engine is a viable choice, so they'd prefer a 3.3L option in Ranger. But the vast majority of buyers either don't care or would prefer the ecoboost version anyway. The bigger reason that the next Ranger needs to handle a v6 is for the 2.7LEB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Which would make a naturally aspirated 2.7 so easy! Plus, why should Ford be giving away all the extra ecoboost parts to fleets at cost (because you know the fleets aren't going to be willing to pay any more than that)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Yes the 2.3 eco will have plenty of power. However, there is the perception and perhaps some reality than a naturally aspirated V6 will be more durable, simpler and offer greater longevity than a turbo 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Yes the 2.3 eco will have plenty of power. However, there is the perception and perhaps some reality than a naturally aspirated V6 will be more durable, simpler and offer greater longevity than a turbo 4. The 3.5 at least has been proven to be super durable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 That would not be "easy" - the EB engines are purpose built. You can't just remove the turbo. Ford is not going to be "giving away" all those ecoboost parts - they'll be charging a premium for premium content for those buyers willing to pay for it. They're not going to chase sales at the expense of profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Which is why I'm saying they aren't going to sell very many rangers to fleets unless they're willing to give the turbo parts away for free or close to it. Let's face it - the 2.3eb costs a heck of a lot more than the atmo 4 banger GM puts in the fleet colorados. That puts Ford at a distinct disadvantage with fleets (especially since Ranger and Colorado are already the cheapest/bottom end of their respective pickup lineup). Also, retorical question: what exactly is so complicated about de-boosting an engine? It'd require different exhaust manifolds and literally nothing else. Just lose the turbo parts. Sure you could probably tweak stuff to optimize it for atmo operation, but simply changing the manifolds would yield a perfectly acceptable/operational engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Time was literally that short that they only did one engine trans combo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Why would Ford want to sell more cheap vehicles with little to no profit? They'll gladly let GM have that business. Ecoboost engines are designed specifically for turbocharging and direct injection (and port on some). The heads are different. The internals are different (I believe). This is what makes them reliable. And what would it buy you other than having another cheap engine? Better to just keep the 3.3L if there is a need for a NA V6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) Fleet sales will be on Ford's terms, XL with 2.3 EB, the I-4 atmo combos in Tacoma and Colorado are not big sellers. The money saved by not developing another basic engine combo is more justified given this product cycle has about three years left before an all new vehicle arrives. As akirby said, there's a whole lot more to product development than just taking turbos off an engine... I also suspect that the atmo 2.5 engine line might be going away Edited August 30, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Why would Ford want to sell more cheap vehicles with little to no profit? They'll gladly let GM have that business. Ecoboost engines are designed specifically for turbocharging and direct injection (and port on some). The heads are different. The internals are different (I believe). This is what makes them reliable. And what would it buy you other than having another cheap engine? Better to just keep the 3.3L if there is a need for a NA V6. We all know Ford will fight for every fleet truck sale possible so long as they can make at least $1 on it. If you doubt that, just look around and notice all the Ford trucks and vans running around in fleet white paint and argent steel wheels. There's a reason they dominate the fleet market. It would be very unlike Ford to not aggressively market the ranger to fleets. It's a simple matter of unit cost to manufacture that the 2.3 eco being the only engine puts them at a competitive disadvantage. I'll buy the argument that bothering with different engines doesn't make sense at this point in the product cycle, but I don't believe for a second that we won't see a naturally aspirated Ranger targeted at fleets in a couple years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 We all know Ford will fight for every fleet truck sale possible so long as they can make at least $1 on it. If you doubt that, just look around and notice all the Ford trucks and vans running around in fleet white paint and argent steel wheels. There's a reason they dominate the fleet market. It would be very unlike Ford to not aggressively market the ranger to fleets. It's a simple matter of unit cost to manufacture that the 2.3 eco being the only engine puts them at a competitive disadvantage. I'll buy the argument that bothering with different engines doesn't make sense at this point in the product cycle, but I don't believe for a second that we won't see a naturally aspirated Ranger targeted at fleets in a couple years. Ford makes a lot more than $1 on a F150 XL work truck. But look at it this way - if the 3.3L fits the bill as a cheap fleet engine there is no reason to spend any time and effort to making a 2.7L just for Ranger fleet sales. And you still have the 1.5EB or 2.0EB or maybe the 2.0L diesel for the ones wanting better fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) Ford's absence certainly let Toyota Tacoma thrive. It's a little like Toyota's Wrangler more than F-150, it's a truly rugged and distinctive product with lots of customization and rugged amenities. The Ranger is a more sophisticated truck like the F-Series, but it doesn't quite have the same culture and personality as Tacoma...at least when you're talking about certain configs. It helps that Toyota Tacoma/4-Runner have a well earned reputation for being indestructible. In many ways, I'm sure Ford has drawn inspiration from Land Rover, Toyota, Jeep, and Subaru on their new rugged lineup. I think Ford has long been more interested in building a reputation for performance and technological sophistication over just simple and rugged, especially since they've been trying to overcome that old stigma of aging and primitive Detroit engineering. Edited August 30, 2018 by Assimilator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Tacoma has personality?...if personality means dated, nosy, rough riding and fuel inefficient, with a cheap interior...then I guess youre right...the ranger makes it look exactly what it is....extremely dated. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 It would be very unlike Ford to not aggressively market the ranger to fleets. But theres already a HUGE difference in the way they are marketing the Ranger vs the F-150 and the Ranger hasnt even hit production yet. The Ranger is being marketed as an everyday lifestyle truck whereas the F-150 is (and has been for a decade or more) as the utilitarian work truck, even in the higher trims. 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.