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

[Sherminator98]

24 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

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. 

 

You won’t change is mind he is fixated on efficiency to the point that it makes zero sense to do the things suggested 

[Texasota]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

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 Ford would sell close to zero of the lower-power engine to retail purchasers. Maybe some fleet orders but that would be it.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, CurtisH said:

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. 

Good point, I wouldn’t want to either.  However, I’ve been discussing 200 HP, not 92 or 94 HP, or in my case 98 HP.  That was made clear multiple times.  If a few people can’t tell the difference, it’s not worth my time to debate any part of this issue.

 

Engine and transmission technologies have improved significantly since our sub-100-HP 4-cylinder and 5-speed Rangers from 30+ years ago.  Some here seem to only accept one new engine technology, and I’m not one of them. 

[Rick73]

37 minutes ago, Texasota said:

And Ford would sell close to zero of the lower-power engine to retail purchasers. Maybe some fleet orders but that would be it.

I disagree, but respect your opposing opinion.  I personally won’t buy any turbocharged vehicle to save a gallon of fuel a week when compared to a larger engine.  It’s not just with Ranger, it’s all vehicles.  I understand manufacturers may not have an option to offer a larger-displacement NA engine, and that’s OK too.  There are always other choices.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I disagree, but respect your opposing opinion.  I personally won’t buy any turbocharged vehicle to save a gallon of fuel a week when compared to a larger engine.  It’s not just with Ranger, it’s all vehicles.  I understand manufacturers may not have an option to offer a larger-displacement NA engine, and that’s OK too.  There are always other choices.

Ford offered a NA v6 in the f150.  Nobody bought it.

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I disagree, but respect your opposing opinion.  I personally won’t buy any turbocharged vehicle to save a gallon of fuel a week when compared to a larger engine.  It’s not just with Ranger, it’s all vehicles.  I understand manufacturers may not have an option to offer a larger-displacement NA engine, and that’s OK too.  There are always other choices.

 

Your personal option means jack shit to Ford meeting CAFE and other requirements.

 

If there are other choices, why not move on to that brand and quit bellyaching over something you personally have no control over?

[Rick73]

11 hours ago, akirby said:

Ford offered a NA v6 in the f150.  Nobody bought it.

That’s a great and valid point.  I will add though that there is one major difference between F-150 and Ranger.  In case of F-150, buyers who prefer simpler naturally aspirated engines could spend a bit more and get the V8; and according to EPA estimates, cost of additional fuel for the V8 was minimal, in the order of $150 per year.

 

I can see where the F-150 V8 option would put the 3.3L V6 out of business.  When we include higher resale value, the V8 F-150 was almost a no-brainer compared to 3.3L V6.  Ranger is different in that there are no comparable choices to be made.

[fuzzymoomoo]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

Ford offered a NA v6 in the f150.  Nobody bought it.

Self fulfilling prophecy. It was only available in base models nobody wanted. 
 

 

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Self fulfilling prophecy. It was only available in base models nobody wanted. 

 

The only group that entertained the NA 3.5 idea were local government fleets and then, not so much.

[akirby]

16 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The only group that entertained the NA 3.5 idea were local government fleets and then, not so much.

It was taken by buyers who wanted the cheapest version and didn’t care about anything else.

[akirby]

5 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Self fulfilling prophecy. It was only available in base models nobody wanted. 
 

 

Both the 3.3 and 3.5 were standard on XLs and XLTs

[jpd80]

6 minutes ago, akirby said:

It was taken by buyers who wanted the cheapest version and didn’t care about anything else.

Exactly, the type of vehicle that just occupies production space that could be used by more popular engine choices.

The 2.7 EB is a brilliant little engine, why not just make it the base engine as a bargain in XL and XLT base models.

 

GM still offers 4.3 V6 and 2.7 I-4 Turbo, neither of those two sell in big amounts and are just

distractions from the main engine, the 5.3 V8. …..GM seem more confused than Ford..

Edited November 16, 2024 by jpd80

[akirby]

2 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Exactly, the type of vehicle that just occupies production space that could be used by more popular engine choices.

The 2.7 EB is a brilliant little engine, why not just make it the base engine as a bargain in XL and XLT base models.

Which is exactly what they did.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

The only group that entertained the NA 3.5 idea were local government fleets and then, not so much.

Which is a shame because the 3.5 duratec was one of Ford's best NA motors for it's time. Not as good as the 5.0 or anything like that, but really solid for people who just wanted to get around with something a little cheaper and more reliable. 

[akirby]

19 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Which is a shame because the 3.5 duratec was one of Ford's best NA motors for it's time. Not as good as the 5.0 or anything like that, but really solid for people who just wanted to get around with something a little cheaper and more reliable. 

Except for the internal water pump failures on transverse models.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Which is a shame because the 3.5 duratec was one of Ford's best NA motors for it's time. Not as good as the 5.0 or anything like that, but really solid for people who just wanted to get around with something a little cheaper and more reliable. 

Still is, isn’t it?  I’m under the impression the 3.5L PFDI V6 is the base engine on Transit full-size vans, at least in North America.  Is that not correct.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Except for the internal water pump failures on transverse models.

But that seems to be a pretty rare issue. 

[DeluxeStang]

33 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Still is, isn’t it?  I’m under the impression the 3.5L PFDI V6 is the base engine on Transit full-size vans, at least in North America.  Is that not correct.

I always assumed it was the 3.5 Ecoboost but I can be mistaken. I drove one of those as a u-haul and it hauled ass. 

[jpd80]

28 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I always assumed it was the 3.5 Ecoboost but I can be mistaken. I drove one of those as a u-haul and it hauled ass. 

Transit has both the NA PFDI 3.5 and the 3.5 EB.

 

[akirby]

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

But that seems to be a pretty rare issue. 

Not rare but not widespread either.  

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I always assumed it was the 3.5 Ecoboost but I can be mistaken. I drove one of those as a u-haul and it hauled ass. 

Both engines can haul ass, just in different ways.  The naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 makes 275 HP, which is 89% of the EcoBoost’s 310 HP, but needs a lot more revs in normal driving.  Maximum torque is only 65% as much as EB which means van will need to downshift a lot more often.  That’s the main reason owners/drivers don’t like naturally-aspirated engines today.  Due to fuel economy standards NA engines have to operate at high percentage of maximum torque, and when vehicle at speed has to accelerate or climb a hill, it forces a downshift.  It’s not really lack of absolute power or available gears when you have a 10-speed, it’s just majority of people prefer vehicle remain in top gear pretty much all the time.  I grew up driving manual transmissions in many vehicles, so I suppose an automatic shifting gears doesn’t bother me as much.  I also live in very flat area so hills are not a regular occurrence, which may explain why I don’t object to owning and driving naturally-aspirated engines.  Buyers really are a diverse group with different preferences for all kinds of reasons. 😀

 

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Not rare but not widespread either.  

True, it is something that concerns me at times. Our explorer just had a coolant change/flush at around 30k miles/8 yrs. I hope that was sufficient, some were telling me it didn't need to have it done that early, but I didn't want to risk it. Apparently the newer coolant Ford uses is supposed to help protect and strengthen the seals of the water pump with some sort of additive it has, but I have no idea if there's any truth to that or not. 

[DeluxeStang]

22 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Both engines can haul ass, just in different ways.  The naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 makes 275 HP, which is 89% of the EcoBoost’s 310 HP, but needs a lot more revs in normal driving.  Maximum torque is only 65% as much as EB which means van will need to downshift a lot more often.  That’s the main reason owners/drivers don’t like naturally-aspirated engines today.  Due to fuel economy standards NA engines have to operate at high percentage of maximum torque, and when vehicle at speed has to accelerate or climb a hill, it forces a downshift.  It’s not really lack of absolute power or available gears when you have a 10-speed, it’s just majority of people prefer vehicle remain in top gear pretty much all the time.  I grew up driving manual transmissions in many vehicles, so I suppose an automatic shifting gears doesn’t bother me as much.  I also live in very flat area so hills are not a regular occurrence, which may explain why I don’t object to owning and driving naturally-aspirated engines.  Buyers really are a diverse group with different preferences for all kinds of reasons. 😀

 

Couldn't agree more. I've never really gotten on our explorer, in the 8 years we've owned it, I believe it's be revved up to 4k maybe a handful of times. But even tapping the gas at lower speeds, it's eager to take off. It helps that the gearing for the 6 speed is quite low for the first few gears. I believe 1st tops out at around 15-20 mph. So initial acceleration is really peppy. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

20 hours ago, akirby said:

Both the 3.3 and 3.5 were standard on XLs and XLTs

Until you try to add any desirable features. I built and priced one once, as soon as you did you were forced to upgrade to the 2.7. 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Until you try to add any desirable features. I built and priced one once, as soon as you did you were forced to upgrade to the 2.7. 

Such bullshit, I hate when brands do that.