2024 US Ranger Without Camo Spotted

[akirby]

41 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Are you referring to a non-turbo 2.7L Nano V6?

No the twin turbo.  The question was whether it’s direct injection only or port and direct injection combined.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

No the twin turbo.  The question was whether it’s direct injection only or port and direct injection combined.

Thanks for clarification.  I thought he was suggesting Ford was bringing back a small-displacement naturally-aspirated V6 similar in size to the old 2.9L in Ranger.

[blksn8k2]

On 3/20/2023 at 12:25 PM, akirby said:

No the twin turbo.  The question was whether it’s direct injection only or port and direct injection combined.

 

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.

Edited March 21, 2023 by blksn8k2

[silvrsvt]

40 minutes ago, blksn8k2 said:

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

 

I think your reading into the sticker too much-on the Bronco (from the crappy online photo i saw) it doesn't even have GDTI listed with the engines. I'll check mine when I leave work. 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by silvrsvt

[blksn8k2]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I think your reading into the sticker too much-on the Bronco (from the crappy online photo i saw) it doesn't even have GDTI listed with the engines. I'll check mine when I leave work. 

 

 

 

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. ? 

Edited March 21, 2023 by blksn8k2

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

 

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. ? 

 

I'm super confused right now-

 

2.3L Ecoboost-DI injection only (GTDI)
2.7L V6 GTDI and PDFI

3.0L V6 GTDI

 

Ford hasn't made an ecoboost engine without Direct Injection, so getting a only PDFI 2.7L V6 is slim to none. 

 

 

[akirby]

I think Ford only uses GTDI in their engine designations regardless of whether it also has port injection or not, but I haven’t looked to be sure.

[Rick73]

What’s somewhat confusing is that I have only seen “PFDI” designation used by Ford to describe Port Fuel Direct Injection to differentiate a naturally aspirated engine to an EcoBoost, like in case of Transit 3.5L.  In specs below, Ford calls the naturally aspirated engine a PFDI and the GTDI they call EcoBoost.

 

I know engines can be port, direct, or both, and also with or without turbocharging.  Some designations don’t rule out all possibilities, which adds to ambiguity.

 

I think a naturally aspirated “PFDI” NANO V6 would be a good option to offer for those buyers who don’t like turbos for whatever reason.  Having stated that, I agree a NA NANO engine isn’t going to happen; unless it’s for a hybrid powertrain.

 

[blksn8k2]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

I think Ford only uses GTDI in their engine designations regardless of whether it also has port injection or not, but I haven’t looked to be sure.

 

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: 

Edited March 22, 2023 by blksn8k2

[Hugh]

The numbers look good even for 87 octane. IIRC, the Coyote had spots already for PI when available. Ford did plan ahead for this eventual evolution of combining the delivery systems. Also that the 10A is more than ample to support the power and a single exhaust is impressive. 

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

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. 

Regardless of name, that they don’t offer scaled-down non-turbo engines at all for the smaller Ranger pickup is what puzzles me most.  I recall someone suggesting the 3.3L in F-150 was mostly intended for fleets, and V8 as a performance option for those who prefer cubic inches over turbos (implying old timers, or else tow frequently), but I don’t fully understand why same reasoning wouldn’t apply to Ranger.

[rmc523]

39 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Regardless of name, that they don’t offer scaled-down non-turbo engines at all for the smaller Ranger pickup is what puzzles me most.  I recall someone suggesting the 3.3L in F-150 was mostly intended for fleets, and V8 as a performance option for those who prefer cubic inches over turbos (implying old timers, or else tow frequently), but I don’t fully understand why same reasoning wouldn’t apply to Ranger.

 

1) Keeps prices/ATPs up

2) now Maverick is below Ranger, so this also builds in a cushion between them.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Regardless of name, that they don’t offer scaled-down non-turbo engines at all for the smaller Ranger pickup is what puzzles me most.  I recall someone suggesting the 3.3L in F-150 was mostly intended for fleets, and V8 as a performance option for those who prefer cubic inches over turbos (implying old timers, or else tow frequently), but I don’t fully understand why same reasoning wouldn’t apply to Ranger.

Because they’re not marketing Ranger as a cheap fleet vehicle. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Regardless of name, that they don’t offer scaled-down non-turbo engines at all for the smaller Ranger pickup is what puzzles me most.  I recall someone suggesting the 3.3L in F-150 was mostly intended for fleets, and V8 as a performance option for those who prefer cubic inches over turbos (implying old timers, or else tow frequently), but I don’t fully understand why same reasoning wouldn’t apply to Ranger.

Also you can’t just remove the turbo from an ecoboost engine - the turbo and associated piping is integral to the engine design.

[fuzzymoomoo]

45 minutes ago, akirby said:

Because they’re not marketing Ranger as a cheap fleet vehicle. 

They also don’t want to have to build more Rangers at the expense of Bronco production. One makes way more in North America than the other, I’ll leave you all to figure out which is which 

[Rick73]

On 3/22/2023 at 1:56 PM, rmc523 said:

 

1) Keeps prices/ATPs up

2) now Maverick is below Ranger, so this also builds in a cushion between them.

Isn’t there pricing overlap between Maverick and Ranger, Ranger and F-150, and F-150 and Super Duty?  Unless I’m mistaken, the loaded version of  Maverick cost more than base Ranger, and loaded Ranger cost more than base F-150.  Since a naturally aspirated V6 would cost as much as a turbo I-4, it may not make sense to offer a NA V6 given it would likely have less power and consume more fuel than 2.3L EcoBoost; with possible exception of when towing.  Even so, I would personally prefer a NA V6 over a turbo 4 in a Ranger.  I doubt most buyers choose vehicles primarily based on HP and MPG ratings, some preferring simpler and lower-cost engine options.

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Isn’t there pricing overlap between Maverick and Ranger, Ranger and F-150, and F-150 and Super Duty?  Unless I’m mistaken, the loaded version of  Maverick cost more than base Ranger, and loaded Ranger cost more than base F-150.  Since a naturally aspirated V6 would cost as much as a turbo I-4, it may not make sense to offer a NA V6 given it would likely have less power and consume more fuel than 2.3L EcoBoost; with possible exception of when towing.  Even so, I would personally prefer a NA V6 over a turbo 4 in a Ranger.  I doubt most buyers choose vehicles primarily based on HP and MPG ratings, some preferring simpler and lower-cost engine options.

 

Yeah, some overlap is pretty common on the top/low end of each segment.

 

My point is that they don't want TOO much of an overlap.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Isn’t there pricing overlap between Maverick and Ranger, Ranger and F-150, and F-150 and Super Duty?  Unless I’m mistaken, the loaded version of  Maverick cost more than base Ranger, and loaded Ranger cost more than base F-150.  Since a naturally aspirated V6 would cost as much as a turbo I-4, it may not make sense to offer a NA V6 given it would likely have less power and consume more fuel than 2.3L EcoBoost; with possible exception of when towing.  Even so, I would personally prefer a NA V6 over a turbo 4 in a Ranger.  I doubt most buyers choose vehicles primarily based on HP and MPG ratings, some preferring simpler and lower-cost engine options.

There is overlap but not with the same equipment level.  And forget about NA direct injection engines being simpler or more bulletproof nowadays.  They’re all complicated and all have issues (to wit F150 Coyote).

[T-dubz]

https://fordauthority.com/2023/03/ford-ranger-wildtrak-x-debuts-as-less-intense-raptor/
 

This wildtrak x seems very similar to a tremor. Even uses the same orange trim. Could this be rebadged as a tremor in the US?

[jpd80]

On 3/6/2023 at 12:10 PM, JX1 said:

Now, that makes sense, somewhat. I figure you saw the delay to August 7th Job 1? It's marginally understandable, but I'm quite bothered by how USA will barely get a truck they've been seeing in media for elsewhere for 2 years (November 2021 reveal).

 

It was one thing with 3rd MCA to P375 in 2018-19 finally arriving in USA, which didn't look much different than the first MCA (ROW) in late 2015. But I had expected Ford would reduce this gap for the next generation.

 

What I see here is, Ford wanted to get enough years in tooling out of the P375N from late 2018 to early 2023, partly I imagine to give space to launch the Bronco at MAP, which was originally targeted for MY2021 in late 2020.

 

As well as get some ROI to convert MAP and capital investment for revised T6 for P375N.

 

What has happened now as usual is unforeseen delays creeping in and taking P703N launch targets hostage. So, now they are struggling to keep up with the delay causes, without letting it spiral out of control too much.

 

If they did not get too comfortable in the first place during planning and try to squeeze money out of an eleventh hour decision in 2015 to bring over the P375(N), more than 7 years after initial launch, by stretching it's lifecycle longer than ROW, there would be more room to deal with these delays.

 

Like let's say, targeting USDM Ranger P703N to be 6 months behind global Ranger P703 in late 2022 versus nearly 18 months now. It can be done and has been done before between global markets, it's not unheard of.

 

At this rate, the truck will not be in North American showrooms until early 2024, if another delay happens again. I find that inexcusable, considering when the truck was actually designed.

 

I already see some public complaints regarding datedness, even though I love the new truck and consider it an improvement.

 

Ford set out to design this truck back in 2016 and 99% finished that design work in late 2018-early 2019, yet find it more than acceptable to launch that same exact design effort in its domestic market, almost 5 years after pencils down? It's not being done right for USDM at least on that front.

 

It's bad enough that the Maverick was designed parallel to this 4-5 years ago, yet you get ignoramuses calling this an "ugly oversized Maverick" or other Maverick related criticisms. Almost similar to Bronco Sport (late 2020) vs Bronco Summer 2021 dilemma.

 

What many of those ignorant trolls don't realize, is that the inspiration was the 1982 Ranger for both the P758 Maverick and P703 Ranger.

 

To them anyway, it doesn't matter. All they see is a new Ranger-- especially many current generation owners--which looks like a "cheaper, soft" Maverick.

 

When Ford, due to the pandemic, delayed the P702 F-150 a few months, it at worst elapsed 37 months since styling completion in 2017 and showrooms launch in December 2020. Ford aimed to be lean with that, but ended up standard lead time cycles. For the 2024 Ranger, it's almost 60 months now. That's highly irregular and worse than 1980s lead times.

 

Ford basically tried to keep the current Ranger running longer than it needs to and now that they need to get to market sooner, they can't help all these delays. Toyota made the same mistake with the Tacoma and some other models, by keeping them on the vine too long.

 

 

I can tell you’re passionate about the new T6s but the reality is that Ford’s North American T6 supplier base is having real problems supplying the quantities that Ford needs for current Bronco and Ranger. Normally final 12 months production requires a hard lock in of defined build and parts supply numbers, so when delays happen the change over blows out and then with more delays, moves again.

 

I agree, there should be nothing stopping  Ford doing the switch to new Ranger in this or the next quarter, what really concerns me is the supplier base still not being able to supply full parts ordered to maintain just in time production. It really sucks but I hope this pounds on Ford’s profits until they do something.

 

Not that it’s any comfort but people ordering a new Ranger in Australia, there’s still a nine month wait out of Thailand, they can’t seem to close the timeline on demand. That’s mostly because everyone wants 3.0 Powerstroke and first year production is limited to 24,000 units. So they’re about half the V6s needed…..

Edited March 26, 2023 by jpd80

[Rick73]

On 3/23/2023 at 5:27 PM, akirby said:

There is overlap but not with the same equipment level.  And forget about NA direct injection engines being simpler or more bulletproof nowadays.  They’re all complicated and all have issues (to wit F150 Coyote).

Yes,  it’s not possible to go back in time, though older Rangers like this 2011 below did not need that much power to be an excellent daily driver for many who wanted a basic and affordable vehicle.  My Ranger also had 2.3L NA engine, but an earlier generation with much less power.  I sold it with about 150,000 miles and it required no engine repairs whatsoever; just scheduled maintenance.  Never had to add a drop of oil between changes either.

 

https://fordauthority.com/2023/03/regular-cab-fans-must-bid-on-this-8k-mile-2011-ford-ranger/

 

Ford obviously wants to maximize profits by selling more expensive vehicles, but I wonder how necessary it is for base engine to have around 300 HP?  Not suggesting they go back to 4-cylinder pushrod engines or 100 HP, just that a simpler and lower-cost engine option should be made available.

[akirby]

While I agree with the sentiment, if they did that reviewers would kill them for being underpowered relative to the competition.  Plus the vast majority of buyers for that type of truck are going for the cheapest price and you end up in a price war with no profit.  Not to mention the cost of an entirely separate drivetrain.

 

If they were trying to fill up an entire plant then they might do that along with having lots of other fleet friendly options but that’s not the case.

 

Also remember that the new Ranger was always secondary to Bronco in NA both from a R&D and factory standpoint.  ROW doesn’t have that constraint.  They didn’t delay the Ranger just for the heck of it or due to incompetence.  It’s just prioritization.

[Rick73]

Tacoma 2.7L I-4 is rated 159 HP and 180 lb-ft.  Nicer trims only offer a larger V6.

[blksn8k2]

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...

[GearheadGrrrl]

Despite Ford's best efforts like offering F150s and Transits for the about same fleet price as Rangers and Transit Connects, the fleets keep buying them... To the point that fleet orders kept the 2nd gen Ranger in production for a whole model year longer than Ford planned, and looks like the Transit Connect may get a stay of execution for the same reason. Ford's market research is sometimes brilliant, but they can't seem to figure out that not everybody wants MPG in the teens and a "light truck" that won't even fit in their garage!