Tested: 2024 Ford Ranger XLT's Optional Twin-Turbo V-6 Is a Sweet Treat

[Sherminator98]

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a62874018/2024-ford-ranger-v6-test/

[Rick73]

Engine bay looks a bit busy compared to 4-cylinder.  While the vast majority of buyers will never work on stuff themselves, they will eventually have to pay someone else to do it for them if they keep truck long enough.  Given the 2.3L is reported to have plenty of power, it seems the prudent choice for most buyers; plus it saves on initial cost too.  Expect there will be plenty of V6 takers though.

 

 

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Engine bay looks a bit busy compared to 4-cylinder.

No different than the V6 Bronco and I haven’t heard anyone complain too much about that. 

[Rick73]

22 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

No different than the V6 Bronco and I haven’t heard anyone complain too much about that. 

Most are fairly new and covered under warranty so wouldn’t expect “complains” anyway.  The potential problem is that when shop time costs well over $100 per hour, making repairs more difficult and or time consuming can add up quickly when paying out of pocket.  For example, I know one RAM owner who recently switched to a different pickup brand after having to pay over $1,000 to replace a broken bolt on exhaust manifold.  It was practically all labor.  I don’t know what may happen when some of the newer vehicles become 5+ years old, or over 100,000 miles, but I don’t want to find out personally.  Buyers are all different, and I’d prefer an even more basic engine, not the opposite.  On the other hand, I’m certain there will be plenty of buyers at other extreme willing to buy as much power as made available.

[Sherminator98]

1 minute ago, Rick73 said:

Most are fairly new and covered under warranty so wouldn’t expect “complains” anyway.  The potential problem is that when shop time costs well over $100 per hour, making repairs more difficult and or time consuming can add up quickly when paying out of pocket.  For example, I know one RAM owner who recently switched to a different pickup brand after having to pay over $1,000 to replace a broken bolt on exhaust manifold.  It was practically all labor.  I don’t know what may happen when some of the newer vehicles become 5+ years old, or over 100,000 miles, but I don’t want to find out personally.  Buyers are all different, and I’d prefer an even more basic engine, not the opposite.  On the other hand, I’m certain there will be plenty of buyers at other extreme willing to buy as much power as made available.

 

Maybe you don't realize this, but just about any repair (except something really simple) is going to run you a grand just to start with. Its a running joke in my family-my in laws spent a grand on replacing rear springs on their Traverse (common issue) and my wife spent a grand getting her tail gate auto lift fixed on her Escape.

 

I spent $1400 bucks to get my front brakes/lines replaced on my Fusion Hybrid-could have done it myself, but couldn't be bothered to do.

My SHO had no major issues in the 8+ years I had and I had zero out of warranty/pocket expenses. 

 

Your just picking the pepper out of fly shit for no good reason

[mackinaw]

4 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Maybe you don't realize this, but just about any repair (except something really simple) is going to run you a grand just to start with. Its a running joke in my family-my in laws spent a grand on replacing rear springs on their Traverse (common issue) and my wife spent a grand getting her tail gate auto lift fixed on her Escape.

 

A friend of mine needed a new battery for her 2018 Jeep Cherokee.  Or so she thought.  Because it's start-stop, it needs two batteries and the Jeep's computer also has to be reprogrammed.  Total cost, $700.00.  To add insult to injury, they then sent her a "get $10.00 off your next battery" coupon in the mail.

[jpd80]

The extra 90 lbft over the 2.3 is the biggest reason to buy the 2.7, the thing is almost as quick as a Raptor.

[Sherminator98]

14 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

A friend of mine needed a new battery for her 2018 Jeep Cherokee.  Or so she thought.  Because it's start-stop, it needs two batteries and the Jeep's computer also has to be reprogrammed.  Total cost, $700.00.  To add insult to injury, they then sent her a "get $10.00 off your next battery" coupon in the mail.

 

WTF is the deal with two batteries? I've never heard that before. Normally stop-start vehicles have an upgraded battery and that is it over what a standard car has. 

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

WTF is the deal with two batteries? I've never heard that before. Normally stop-start vehicles have an upgraded battery and that is it over what a standard car has. 

 

I can't answer that.  I was surprised too.  Walmart, a mechanic she knew, and the dealership, all told her the same thing, her Jeep needs two batteries.  Plus having the computer reset.  I can tell you that she will never buy another Jeep again.  

[Sherminator98]

17 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

I can't answer that.  I was surprised too.  Walmart, a mechanic she knew, and the dealership, all told her the same thing, her Jeep needs two batteries.  Plus having the computer reset.  I can tell you that she will never buy another Jeep again.  

 

https://www.jeepfan.com/tech/how-electronic-start-stop-ess-works-on-the-jeep-wrangler-jl/

 

hmmm 

[akirby]

38 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

I can't answer that.  I was surprised too.  Walmart, a mechanic she knew, and the dealership, all told her the same thing, her Jeep needs two batteries.  Plus having the computer reset.  I can tell you that she will never buy another Jeep again.  

Ford also requires the Battery Management System be reset after changing the battery.  Supposedly it resets itself if you let it sit for 8 hours but that didn’t work on my F150.

[Rick73]

52 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

I can't answer that.  I was surprised too.  Walmart, a mechanic she knew, and the dealership, all told her the same thing, her Jeep needs two batteries.  Plus having the computer reset.  I can tell you that she will never buy another Jeep again.  

Exactly like my previous example of broken bolt costing too much to fix, owners don’t need a good or valid reason at all to avoid a brand or manufacturer.  In my opinion manufacturers should think ahead on what they are designing today that could alienate buyers in the future due to high unexpected ownership costs.

 

Start-stop as an example is not well liked by many to begin with, and if associated repairs end up costing more than it saves on gas, I can see an owner feeling they were mislead by the manufacturer.  I think most owners don’t care about EPA or CAFE goals that manufacturers must meet as much as their own wallets.

 

Honestly, I have noticed a trend lately towards greater numbers of simpler powertrains being offered even though they may not squeeze every bit of MPG out of each gallon of gas.  Simpler engines also help lower initial vehicle price, which some buyers want badly.  With gas so cheap and minor repairs so expensive, it doesn’t take much of a failure or repair to offset a year’s worth of gas savings.

[DeluxeStang]

17 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Exactly like my previous example of broken bolt costing too much to fix, owners don’t need a good or valid reason at all to avoid a brand or manufacturer.  In my opinion manufacturers should think ahead on what they are designing today that could alienate buyers in the future due to high unexpected ownership costs.

 

Start-stop as an example is not well liked by many to begin with, and if associated repairs end up costing more than it saves on gas, I can see an owner feeling they were mislead by the manufacturer.  I think most owners don’t care about EPA or CAFE goals that manufacturers must meet as much as their own wallets.

 

Honestly, I have noticed a trend lately towards greater numbers of simpler powertrains being offered even though they may not squeeze every bit of MPG out of each gallon of gas.  Simpler engines also help lower initial vehicle price, which some buyers want badly.  With gas so cheap and minor repairs so expensive, it doesn’t take much of a failure or repair to offset a year’s worth of gas savings.

This is why hybrids are generally the best all around option and strike the best balance between fuel economy, and longevity. Ford's 2.5 hybrid system has been around for decades, and it's super reliable. Part of the reason is the engine itself isn't a stressed at all, not for fuel economy, and not for power. Ford can leave the quite archaic 2.5 duratec unchanged, and just rely on hybridization to improve performance and fuel economy rather than straining the engine to do so. 

 

I wouldn't have bought a maverick if it didn't already come with the well proven 2.5 that was the selling point. It's not just a hybrid, but a virtually unkillable one. 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

This is why hybrids are generally the best all around option and strike the best balance between fuel economy, and longevity. Ford's 2.5 hybrid system has been around for decades, and it's super reliable. Part of the reason is the engine itself isn't a stressed at all, not for fuel economy, and not for power. Ford can leave the quite archaic 2.5 duratec unchanged, and just rely on hybridization to improve performance and fuel economy rather than straining the engine to do so. 

 

I wouldn't have bought a maverick if it didn't already come with the well proven 2.5 that was the selling point. It's not just a hybrid, but a virtually unkillable one. 

Yes, and in some cases the hybrid can provide additional power similar to turbo engine.  When looking at newest Honda Civic it was interesting they replaced 1.5T with 2.0 hybrid as top option.  The base engine remains 2.0L naturally aspirated coupled to CVT.

 

What I like best is that a few manufacturers are offering 2.5L NA 4-cylinder engines with approximately 200 HP and 200 lb-ft as standard on compact and or mid-size vehicles.  For those buyers who can’t justify hybrids it may be a good choice.

 

To your point, perhaps Ford offering a 2.5L in base 2WD Rangers could add sales if they can get close to 200 HP.  That may not seem like much (or enough), but for many years Rangers did fine with much less power.  IMO Ford could use a more budget-minded powertrain for Ranger.

[fuzzymoomoo]

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

WTF is the deal with two batteries? I've never heard that before. Normally stop-start vehicles have an upgraded battery and that is it over what a standard car has. 

It’s definitely a FCA/Stellantis thing.The ProMaster needs a second battery to control the powertrain module. 

Edited November 15 by fuzzymoomoo

[Sherminator98]

13 hours ago, Rick73 said:

To your point, perhaps Ford offering a 2.5L in base 2WD Rangers could add sales if they can get close to 200 HP.  That may not seem like much (or enough), but for many years Rangers did fine with much less power.  IMO Ford could use a more budget-minded powertrain for Ranger.

 

Are you serious?

The new Ranger easily weighs 1000 pounds more then the old Ranger from the 1990s. 200HP isn't going to cut it. 

[brucelinc]

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

It’s definitely a FCA/Stellantis thing.The ProMaster needs a second battery to control the powertrain module. 

 

BMW also uses 2 batteries.   My M550 has one under the hood and one in the trunk.    Of course, if BMW had invented the paperclip, it would have 7 moving parts.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Are you serious?

The new Ranger easily weighs 1000 pounds more then the old Ranger from the 1990s. 200HP isn't going to cut it. 

 

Yes, very serious.  Ranger was successful in large part because of affordability.  That’s no longer the case IMO.

 

My Ranger which I loved only had ~ 98 HP (130 lb-ft ) and the most powerful engine option that year was 160 HP (225 lb-ft ) from a 4L pushrod V6.  In middle was a 140 HP (160 lb-ft ) 3L pushrod V6.  While present Ranger is heavier and buyers generally want more power, an engine with around 200 HP and 200 lb-ft of torque would satisfy many buyers if it saved them costs.

 

No doubt a small portion of population will never get enough power, and they are very loud in asking for more no matter how much Ford gives them, but in my opinion there are just as many potential buyers like me who prefer value, affordability, simplicity, etc.

 

In my opinion the biggest obstacle to a lower-power base engine is probably not lack of demand, but rather marketing.  A +/- 200 HP base engine would allow other manufacturers to claim superior standard power.  I doubt Ford or others want to defend that position, so we end up with a HP race.  Obviously some think that if a buyer wants less power they can just get a Maverick, but it’s not the same.

 

Anyway, bottom line IMO is Ford can use a cheaper more affordable Ranger.

[bzcat]

Lower power engine doesn't necessarily mean lower costs. If Ford wants to sell a cheaper Ranger, it has to be willing to accept lower profit margin. That makes no sense when it doesn't have trouble selling one that is more expensive, or can produce and sell a Bronco instead since they come from the same production line.

 

Ford has a lower priced truck for people that want a cheaper truck. 

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Yes, very serious.  Ranger was successful in large part because of affordability.  That’s no longer the case IMO.

 

My Ranger which I loved only had ~ 98 HP (130 lb-ft ) and the most powerful engine option that year was 160 HP (225 lb-ft ) from a 4L pushrod V6.  In middle was a 140 HP (160 lb-ft ) 3L pushrod V6.  While present Ranger is heavier and buyers generally want more power, an engine with around 200 HP and 200 lb-ft of torque would satisfy many buyers if it saved them costs.

 

No doubt a small portion of population will never get enough power, and they are very loud in asking for more no matter how much Ford gives them, but in my opinion there are just as many potential buyers like me who prefer value, affordability, simplicity, etc.

 

In my opinion the biggest obstacle to a lower-power base engine is probably not lack of demand, but rather marketing.  A +/- 200 HP base engine would allow other manufacturers to claim superior standard power.  I doubt Ford or others want to defend that position, so we end up with a HP race.  Obviously some think that if a buyer wants less power they can just get a Maverick, but it’s not the same.

 

Anyway, bottom line IMO is Ford can use a cheaper more affordable Ranger.

They don't make it anymore, and I doubt they'll be able to revive it in this day and age, but the 3.5/3.7 are the sort of motors that would have been a better fit for a naturally aspirated ranger. Reliable as hell, cheap to make, and decent enough on power. 

 

The 2.5, especially if they got rid of the hybridization, would REALLY struggle in something the size and weight of a ranger. It struggles in the fusion. It does well in the maverick due to the electric assists but without them, it would be meh. 

[Texasota]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Yes, very serious.  Ranger was successful in large part because of affordability.  That’s no longer the case IMO.

 

My Ranger which I loved only had ~ 98 HP (130 lb-ft ) and the most powerful engine option that year was 160 HP (225 lb-ft ) from a 4L pushrod V6.  In middle was a 140 HP (160 lb-ft ) 3L pushrod V6.  While present Ranger is heavier and buyers generally want more power, an engine with around 200 HP and 200 lb-ft of torque would satisfy many buyers if it saved them costs.

 

No doubt a small portion of population will never get enough power, and they are very loud in asking for more no matter how much Ford gives them, but in my opinion there are just as many potential buyers like me who prefer value, affordability, simplicity, etc.

 

In my opinion the biggest obstacle to a lower-power base engine is probably not lack of demand, but rather marketing.  A +/- 200 HP base engine would allow other manufacturers to claim superior standard power.  I doubt Ford or others want to defend that position, so we end up with a HP race.  Obviously some think that if a buyer wants less power they can just get a Maverick, but it’s not the same.

 

Anyway, bottom line IMO is Ford can use a cheaper more affordable Ranger.

What you are describing is the Maverick. It fills that cheaper and more efficient market perfectly. The Ranger is mid-size and is needed just as it is for heavier duty work and towing. I wouldn’t be able to tow my boat with a far less capable Ranger which would leave me with no Ford truck option (F-150 is to big). 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

If Ford wants to sell a cheaper Ranger, it has to be willing to accept lower profit margin.

Are those not two different quantities?  Related, yes, but not interchangeable.  Margin depends on more than price alone.

[Rick73]

28 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The 2.5, especially if they got rid of the hybridization, would REALLY struggle in something the size and weight of a ranger.

Your definition of “struggle” is different than mine.  I drove plenty of full-size Ford pickups and vans with less than 200 HP, including many F-250 4X4 my dad had as work trucks.  Hell, I even drove F-600 with less than 200 Hp.  And as previously mentioned, my 2.3L Ranger had about 100 HP, so adding a little weight doesn’t make 200 HP (twice as much) unacceptable in itself.  Expectations have changed, I’ll give you that, but everyone doesn’t want more and more of everything.

[Rick73]

22 minutes ago, Texasota said:

What you are describing is the Maverick. It fills that cheaper and more efficient market perfectly. The Ranger is mid-size and is needed just as it is for heavier duty work and towing. I wouldn’t be able to tow my boat with a far less capable Ranger which would leave me with no Ford truck option (F-150 is to big). 

No.  Like I said before, a Maverick is not a Ranger.  Regardless of power, they are very different.  I mean, they could be interchangeable to you, but to me they will not be comparable no matter what engine they have.

 

What’s important to note is that if Ford offered a lower-power or more basic engine choice, whatever that was, it would not preclude them from offering you the 2.3L EB.  And for what it’s worth, I towed occasionally with my 4-cylinder underpowered Ranger.  Not ideal but then again it was 98 HP, not the +/- 200 I’d prefer.

[CurtisH]

21 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Your definition of “struggle” is different than mine.  I drove plenty of full-size Ford pickups and vans with less than 200 HP, including many F-250 4X4 my dad had as work trucks.  Hell, I even drove F-600 with less than 200 Hp.  And as previously mentioned, my 2.3L Ranger had about 100 HP, so adding a little weight doesn’t make 200 HP (twice as much) unacceptable in itself.  Expectations have changed, I’ll give you that, but everyone doesn’t want more and more of everything.

I had a 92 Ranger.  If I remember correctly, it had 92 HP, maybe 94.  It had a 5 psd manual transmission.  There were hills  interstate where it couldn’t maintain its speed.  I had to downshift to maintain any speed.  You couldn’t pay me to drive such an underpowered vehicle now.