Ranger getting PHEV 2.3L

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Ford stated that about 10% of buyers choose Hybrid F-150, and I would guess many of those do so due to higher-capacity Pro Power Onboard, not just fuel economy.  By comparison, Ford stated just over 50% of Maverick buyers choose Hybrid over EcoBoost, and PPO isn’t a deciding differentiation.

 

I may be wrong on this, but still think that if you want potential buyers to select your hybrid vehicles, fuel economy ratings (both EPA and reported real world testing) must be significantly higher than the standard ICE option, or else the Hybrid will have to offer a unique feature like PPO; and those probably affect sales to a lesser degree.

 

The Mustang, a performance oriented car, seems a very different vehicle to me than T6, which I view much like a larger brother to Maverick.  For that reason, a turbo 2.3L hybrid makes more sense to me for a Mustang, but not for a Ranger.  Whatever powertrain Ford comes up with for Ranger hybrid, I hope it targets much higher fuel economy versus performance, much like they did with Maverick.  I know the investment  cost would be higher, but Ford needs a great hybrid system for RWD vehicles, and maybe Ranger could be a good test vehicle.  I personally would like to see a larger-displacement Atkinson engine and new transmission, perhaps an electrified DCT with at least 100 kW electric motor, to achieve fuel economy improvements proportional to Maverick’s size.

Consider the global Ranger where diesel is becoming more difficult, hybrid and PHEV solutions are needed as future hedges because a lot of diesel buyers are already looking to switch.

[Rick73]

10 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Shhhhh, don't say DCT here.

Yeah, DCT I drove in rental cars were horrible at times.  The main problem was launch being jerky, like a person learning to drive a stick, but once out of first gear I don’t recall any issues.  Shifts were fast and smooth as far as I recall.

 

I expect a “hybrid-specific” DCT using electric power for launch could solve the jerky performance.  I don’t know if there were other Ford DCT issues, but know Hyundai is using them in hybrid applications.  I hope rental cars have them before too long because I’d like an extended test drive.

[akirby]

24 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Yeah, DCT I drove in rental cars were horrible at times.  The main problem was launch being jerky, like a person learning to drive a stick, but once out of first gear I don’t recall any issues.  Shifts were fast and smooth as far as I recall.

 

I expect a “hybrid-specific” DCT using electric power for launch could solve the jerky performance.  I don’t know if there were other Ford DCT issues, but know Hyundai is using them in hybrid applications.  I hope rental cars have them before too long because I’d like an extended test drive.

DCTs are not inherently jerky.  Ford’s wet clutch versions were fine.  The problem is they exceeded the design thresholds with the dry clutch version.

[DeluxeStang]

14 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

15 hours ago, Rick73 said:

The Mustang, a performance oriented car, seems a very different vehicle to me than T6, which I view much like a larger brother to Maverick.  For that reason, a turbo 2.3L hybrid makes more sense to me for a Mustang, but not for a Ranger.  Whatever powertrain Ford comes up with for Ranger hybrid, I hope it targets much higher fuel economy versus performance, much like they did with Maverick.  I know the investment  cost would be higher, but Ford needs a great hybrid system for RWD vehicles, and maybe Ranger could be a good test vehicle.  I personally would like to see a larger-displacement Atkinson engine and new transmission, perhaps an electrified DCT with at least 100 kW electric motor, to achieve fuel economy improvements proportional to Maverick’s size.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm kind of the opposite, the way I see it, you can't out maverick the maverick, it nails it's mission of being a sensible, affordable and hyper efficient car that just so happens to have a bed on it. That appeals perfectly to the people who want a commuter car that occasionally needs to do truck things. Then you have the powerboost f-150, which is also sensible with its MPG improvement and on-board power system. Ford has the sensible hybrid truck market covered pretty well. What I want to see, is a badass hybrid  

 

I'm kind of the opposite, the maverick and f-150 powerboost both have the sensible hybrid truck market covered pretty well on both ends of the spectrum in terms of price and size. While I could see the 2.3 hybrid being a good fleet option for the ranger, what I want to see is an insane high performance ranger. That would allow the ranger to stand out, would draw in a different kind of audience buyer, and would give the ranger a leg up over something like the Tacoma or frontier. 

 

Just imagine a 2.7 hybrid, or if you want to go really crazy, throwing the aviators 3.0 hybrid in the ranger. Just imagine 500 hp and over 600 lb ft of torque from the 3.0 setup in something the size of a ranger. The Tacoma wouldn't stand a chance. Plus you could take that 3.0 hybrid, and throw it in the bronco, which we already know can fit the 3.0 in it, that would make for a great wrangler 392 rival. 

 

Then instead of having three hybrid truck offerings that are all trying to be fuel efficient and sensible, you have a greater amount of diversity in your lineup. The cheap and cheerful maverick, the sporty and insanely powerful ranger, and the practical and sensible f-150 powerboost with features like pro-power on board. Three hybrid trucks that appeal to consumers for radically different reasons, won't step on each other's toes, and kick the competition in the teeth in a way they never saw coming. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by DeluxeStang

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm kind of the opposite, the maverick and f-150 powerboost both have the sensible hybrid truck market covered pretty well on both ends of the spectrum in terms of price and size. While I could see the 2.3 hybrid being a good fleet option for the ranger, what I want to see is an insane high performance ranger. That would allow the ranger to stand out, would draw in a different kind of audience buyer, and would give the ranger a leg up over something like the Tacoma or frontier. 

Great perspective from a car guy’s point of view, but I wonder what percent of actual buyers care about extreme performance as much as you?  When I walk around my neighborhood, or observe cars on the highways, I notice the vast majority are fairly normal vehicles.  I think “most” buyers care more about price, looks, fuel economy, reliability, etc.  I understand there are many buyers who would pay for a high-performance powerful Ranger, but believe that hybrids will succeed mostly based on how much they improve fuel economy over their ICE counterparts.  In my opinion Hybrid Maverick improves on fuel economy more than Hybrid F-150 (percentage wise, not absolute), which may explain higher acceptance.  I would develop Hybrid Ranger in same direction, though I believe Ford may go in your direction and focus on power more than economy.  To support and smooth transition from ICE to BEV, fuel economy should be priority IMO.

[akirby]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

I'm kind of the opposite, the maverick and f-150 powerboost both have the sensible hybrid truck market covered pretty well on both ends of the spectrum in terms of price and size. While I could see the 2.3 hybrid being a good fleet option for the ranger, what I want to see is an insane high performance ranger. That would allow the ranger to stand out, would draw in a different kind of audience buyer, and would give the ranger a leg up over something like the Tacoma or frontier. 

 

Just imagine a 2.7 hybrid, or if you want to go really crazy, throwing the aviators 3.0 hybrid in the ranger. Just imagine 500 hp and over 600 lb ft of torque from the 3.0 setup in something the size of a ranger. The Tacoma wouldn't stand a chance. Plus you could take that 3.0 hybrid, and throw it in the bronco, which we already know can fit the 3.0 in it, that would make for a great wrangler 392 rival. 

 

Then instead of having three hybrid truck offerings that are all trying to be fuel efficient and sensible, you have a greater amount of diversity in your lineup. The cheap and cheerful maverick, the sporty and insanely powerful ranger, and the practical and sensible f-150 powerboost with features like pro-power on board. Three hybrid trucks that appeal to consumers for radically different reasons, won't step on each other's toes, and kick the competition in the teeth in a way they never saw coming. 

I think Ranger Raptor has the performance angle covered already without the hybrid power boost.  I think 7.2kw pro power onboard is a more compelling use case.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Great perspective from a car guy’s point of view, but I wonder what percent of actual buyers care about extreme performance as much as you?  When I walk around my neighborhood, or observe cars on the highways, I notice the vast majority are fairly normal vehicles.  I think “most” buyers care more about price, looks, fuel economy, reliability, etc.  I understand there are many buyers who would pay for a high-performance powerful Ranger, but believe that hybrids will succeed mostly based on how much they improve fuel economy over their ICE counterparts.  In my opinion Hybrid Maverick improves on fuel economy more than Hybrid F-150 (percentage wise, not absolute), which may explain higher acceptance.  I would develop Hybrid Ranger in same direction, though I believe Ford may go in your direction and focus on power more than economy.  To support and smooth transition from ICE to BEV, fuel economy should be priority IMO.

My issue is if the ranger hybrid prioritizes efficiency over power, it's just gonna become one of those "I also exist" type of offerings. People are gonna look at it and say "It's not as fuel efficient or affordable as the maverick, and it's not as practical and capable as the f-150 powerboost".

 

Inversely, it could appeal to people who want something more capable than the maverick, but cheaper than the f-150. It could find it's audience, but it seems as though the ranger has been struggling to find success relative to the Tacoma, because it's basically trying all the things the Tacoma is trying. The way I see it, if you want to steal people away from a vehicle that has a massive cult following, you have to do something different, something radical to give people a reason to look at you. 

 

I'm not against a 2.3 hybrid, if they could find a way to pull out off without raising the price too much, I actually think making the 2.3 hybrid the base engine and getting rid of the 2.3 non hybrid would strengthen the ranger/bronco's engine lineup. You have the powerhouse 2.7/3.0 and the more affordable, sensible 2.3 hybrid for people who want better fuel economy. 

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

I think Ranger Raptor has the performance angle covered already without the hybrid power boost.  I think 7.2kw pro power onboard is a more compelling use case.

I'm mostly analyzing it from a "Whatever the ranger gets, the bronco also gets" mindset. A 2.3 hybrid would appeal to fleets, and people who want to get better gas mileage, but on vehicles like the ranger, and especially the bronco, fuel economy isn't very important to a lot of those buyers. They want performance, capabilities, and excitement, that's what those kinds of vehicles promise. 

 

I mentioned it to the other guy, but the ranger/bronco are both going up against heavy hitters, the Tacoma and wrangler. When you're going home against vehicles with very high levels of owner loyalty, you need to do something different to wow buyers, and pull them over to your product.  A 2.3 hybrid seems like one of those things where most people will look at it, say "On neat" and then go and buy something else. Either a different Ford hybrid truck, or a competitors product. 

[akirby]

48 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm mostly analyzing it from a "Whatever the ranger gets, the bronco also gets" mindset. A 2.3 hybrid would appeal to fleets, and people who want to get better gas mileage, but on vehicles like the ranger, and especially the bronco, fuel economy isn't very important to a lot of those buyers. They want performance, capabilities, and excitement, that's what those kinds of vehicles promise. 

 

I mentioned it to the other guy, but the ranger/bronco are both going up against heavy hitters, the Tacoma and wrangler. When you're going home against vehicles with very high levels of owner loyalty, you need to do something different to wow buyers, and pull them over to your product.  A 2.3 hybrid seems like one of those things where most people will look at it, say "On neat" and then go and buy something else. Either a different Ford hybrid truck, or a competitors product. 

Serious question (and I don’t know the answer) - did Tacoma sales fall when Ranger came back?  Did Wrangler sales fall when Bronco came back?  Maybe Ranger and Bronco are the answer for buyers who don’t want a Tacoma or Wrangler as opposed to them being in direct competition for buyers?

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

My issue is if the ranger hybrid prioritizes efficiency over power, it's just gonna become one of those "I also exist" type of offerings. People are gonna look at it and say "It's not as fuel efficient or affordable as the maverick, and it's not as practical and capable as the f-150 powerboost".

If a “new” Hybrid Ranger powertrain was designed with considerably greater towing capability than Hybrid Maverick, then I think that that along with body on frame would differentiate it from Hybrid Maverick.  However, I think it would need to achieve at least 30 MPG combined, which should be doable. 
 

Longer-term a Hybrid Ranger’s powertrain could possibly be used in RWD SUVs (maybe explorer?), which would be required to justify higher investment.  Going all-in on fuel economy would likely require a new Atkinson engine larger than 2.5L I-4.  Again, I’d prefer an I-6 based on new Mustang I-4 architecture of ~3.4L.  Besides, Australians had more recent history with inline sixes, so maybe a natural fit.  OK, wishful thinking.

[HotRunrGuy]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Serious question (and I don’t know the answer) - did Tacoma sales fall when Ranger came back?  Did Wrangler sales fall when Bronco came back?  Maybe Ranger and Bronco are the answer for buyers who don’t want a Tacoma or Wrangler as opposed to them being in direct competition for buyers?

 

On the contrary, Tacoma sales INCREASED when Ranger was re-introduced for the 2019 MY.

 

https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/toyota-tacoma-sales-figures/

 

HRG

Edited September 18, 2023 by HotRunrGuy

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

On the contrary, Tacoma sales INCREASED when Ranger was re-introduced for the 2019 MY.

 

https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/toyota-tacoma-sales-figures/

 

HRG

I suspected that.  Looks like Wrangler fell a little but hard to tell if that was Bronco or Covid/supply chain.

[jasonj80]

The hybrid is needed for mileage and meeting CAFE so Ford can actually sell the other versions. Buyers might not care that a hybrid gets 7 mpg combined better than a regular version but to Ford that 5 mpg is huge on the CAFE calculations as the numbers go higher and higher over the next few years. 

I know a few Maverick hybrid owners that would trade to a Ranger hybrid for both more size and towing but also that 4WD is available.  

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Serious question (and I don’t know the answer) - did Tacoma sales fall when Ranger came back?  Did Wrangler sales fall when Bronco came back?  Maybe Ranger and Bronco are the answer for buyers who don’t want a Tacoma or Wrangler as opposed to them being in direct competition for buyers?

Tacoma sales have grown I believe, and that's largely because the Tacoma is an overhyped product that sells on perception over reality. That's a very hard thing to go up against. The ranger is objectively a better truck than the Tacoma, it's more reliable, more fuel efficient, more powerful, better looking, has a much better interior, and better tech. But many of the truck bros don't care, they're too busy circle jerking with the Tacoma thinking it's the best thing ever. 

 

Ford is winning in terms of objective metrics, but the ranger isn't winning it terms of consumer perception.  Frankly, I don't see that changing unless they do something that blows people's minds. The ranger is the weak link in Ford's truck lineup, it's not the icon in the segment like f-series, and it's not the trailblazer that the maverick is, it's just kinda there. 

[bzcat]

3 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

The hybrid is needed for mileage and meeting CAFE so Ford can actually sell the other versions. Buyers might not care that a hybrid gets 7 mpg combined better than a regular version but to Ford that 5 mpg is huge on the CAFE calculations as the numbers go higher and higher over the next few years. 

I know a few Maverick hybrid owners that would trade to a Ranger hybrid for both more size and towing but also that 4WD is available.  

 

The US market is probably not a main focus for Ranger hybrid. Ford has a hard timeline to phase out diesel Ranger in Europe and Australia so they need the hybrid solution to keep fuel economy and CO2 emission comparable to diesel (but with much more performance which is a bonus). There is very little doubt that it will be paired with 2.3 Ecoboost as pairing it 2.7 V6 makes no sense given the primary mission and purpose. 

 

I'm sure it will eventually make it to the US market since Toyota already announced the Tacoma hybrid but it is probably lower priority in the big scheme of things for Ford.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Ford is winning in terms of objective metrics, but the ranger isn't winning it terms of consumer perception.  Frankly, I don't see that changing unless they do something that blows people's minds. The ranger is the weak link in Ford's truck lineup, it's not the icon in the segment like f-series, and it's not the trailblazer that the maverick is, it's just kinda there. 

 

That necessarily isn't a bad thing because the Bronco is so popular. If they sell 120-150K of them a year with little to no discounts, that is win for Ford. 

[Rick73]

58 minutes ago, bzcat said:

I'm sure it will eventually make it to the US market since Toyota already announced the Tacoma hybrid but it is probably lower priority in the big scheme of things for Ford.

2024 Tacoma with 2.4L Turbo Hybrid and 8-speed auto should achieve in range of 27 MPG according to estimates comparing it to Land Cruiser with same powertrain.  Assuming that’s close, it’s not that much better than F-150 Hybrid.  If Ranger with 2.3L EB hybrid ends up in same +/- 27 MPG combined fuel economy, I don’t expect the 50+ percent sales success as Hybrid Maverick.  Breaking 30 MPG would make a statement; 26~27 not so much IMO.

 

 

https://tfltruck.com/2023/08/wait-will-the-2024-toyota-tacoma-i-force-max-get-27-mpg-combined/

[silvrsvt]

33 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

2024 Tacoma with 2.4L Turbo Hybrid and 8-speed auto should achieve in range of 27 MPG according to estimates comparing it to Land Cruiser with same powertrain.  Assuming that’s close, it’s not that much better than F-150 Hybrid.  If Ranger with 2.3L EB hybrid ends up in same +/- 27 MPG combined fuel economy, I don’t expect the 50+ percent sales success as Hybrid Maverick.  Breaking 30 MPG would make a statement; 26~27 not so much IMO.

 

 

https://tfltruck.com/2023/08/wait-will-the-2024-toyota-tacoma-i-force-max-get-27-mpg-combined/

 

The hybrid Tundra isn't doing so well in real world usage

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a43603508/2023-toyota-tundra-hybrid-reliability-maintenance/

The truck's thirst for fuel is also worrisome. The hybrid Tundra gets an EPA-estimated 20 mpg combined, but our long-termer is only averaging an alarming 13 mpg at the moment. About one-third of its current 3023 miles were accumulated while towing a 3500-ish-pound enclosed trailer, but even ignoring those miles only increases that average to 16 mpg. Poor fuel economy plagued other models we've tested too, and it's something we'll monitor as the road ahead includes lots of towing and other truck stuff.

 

 

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

The hybrid Tundra isn't doing so well in real world usage

 

Yup, Ford F-150 PowerBoost suffers from the same problem. Consumer Reports' real world fuel economy testing for that truck produced 20 mpg overall in mixed driving. For comparison, the F-150 Ecoboostnon-hybrid they tested got 19 mpg overall, and their F-150 Lightning got 70 mpge. 

 

Among the light vehicle categories, pickup trucks (all size classes from compact to super duty) benefit most from a transition to 100% BEV, skipping hybrids entirely.

[silvrsvt]

6 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yup, Ford F-150 PowerBoost suffers from the same problem. Consumer Reports' real world fuel economy testing for that truck produced 20 mpg overall in mixed driving. For comparison, the F-150 Ecoboostnon-hybrid they tested got 19 mpg overall, and their F-150 Lightning got 70 mpge.

 

the Powerboost F-150 is EPA rated at 23 all around vs 19/22 for the Tundra, so almost losing 50% of your MPG rating (13 MPG) is a bit insane and has nothing to do with Lightning-esp when it has range issues towing. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

the Powerboost F-150 is EPA rated at 23 all around vs 19/22 for the Tundra, so almost losing 50% of your MPG rating (13 MPG) is a bit insane and has nothing to do with Lightning-esp when it has range issues towing. 

Their average without towing is stated as 16 MPG, which is still quite poor but not that unexpected for a 6,000+ pound truck with twin turbos, nearly 400 HP, and driven by Car and Driver staff (likely aggressive on throttle).  In that context dropping from 20 to 16 MPG on a brand new truck is not surprising.  It does confirm my previous point that if you’re going to design a hybrid for fuel economy, it needs a legitimate hybrid powertrain consisting of most efficient engine and powerful electric motor assist.

 

 

“The truck's thirst for fuel is also worrisome. The hybrid Tundra gets an EPA-estimated 20 mpg combined, but our long-termer is only averaging an alarming 13 mpg at the moment. About one-third of its current 3023 miles were accumulated while towing a 3500-ish-pound enclosed trailer, but even ignoring those miles only increases that average to 16 mpg.“

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yup, Ford F-150 PowerBoost suffers from the same problem. Consumer Reports' real world fuel economy testing for that truck produced 20 mpg overall in mixed driving. For comparison, the F-150 Ecoboostnon-hybrid they tested got 19 mpg overall, and their F-150 Lightning got 70 mpge. 

 

Among the light vehicle categories, pickup trucks (all size classes from compact to super duty) benefit most from a transition to 100% BEV, skipping hybrids entirely.

What’s the generated CO2 comparison between F-150 at 20 MPG and Lightning at 70 MPGe, which is roughly 2 miles per kWh?  I think you’d be surprised. 

 

 

[rperez817]

57 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

it needs a legitimate hybrid powertrain consisting of most efficient engine and powerful electric motor assist.

 

Tundra i-FORCE MAX Hybrid is a legitimate hybrid powertrain, a P2 architecture with Toyota's most efficient V6 engine to date (V35A-FTS) and 250 Nm AC synchronous motor.

 

The issue is that the legitimate hybrid powertrains Toyota and Ford are using in pickup trucks are much better suited for regulatory compliance than for real world benefits to customers. Ford is better off focusing its efforts on bringing Ranger BEV to market sooner than Toyota does the same with Hilux or Tacoma BEV, rather than fielding a competitor to Tacoma i-FORCE MAX Hybrid or a future Hilux hybrid. 

[pffan1990]

Just revealed and announced. PHEV with 2.3 EcoBoost I4 as was rumored. No power figures yet but 28 miles of pure electric driving range. Will offer Pro Power Onboard. Expected to enter production for Europe and Australia in late 2024 with deliveries by early 2025 model year. I'm sure it's coming here in North America at some point.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2023/09/19/Ford-Expands-Global-Truck-Family-with-First-Ever-Ranger-Plug-in-Hybrid.html

 

https://fordauthority.com/2023/09/2025-ford-ranger-plug-in-hybrid-debuts-for-global-markets/

[GearheadGrrrl]

Ford Europe will be offering the hybrid Ranger as a 2025 model too, I like it: https://twitter.com/FordNewsEurope/status/1704012443335164159