fuzzymoomoo Posted November 23 Share Posted November 23 1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said: Does the 1.5 still have all those issues? Or have they been resolved over time? I'm looking at a bronco sport in the near future for a family member. Technically it’s a different engine than the old one that had known issues. I haven’t heard of many issues with the new 3cyl version. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted November 26 Share Posted November 26 Talking about the different engine options... Good friend of mine has a newer bronco with the 4 banger/manual trans. We did an event called the 24hrs of Appalachia last year with it and I drove a decent amount. That thing rips even on 37" tires. Computer rev matching shifts made it stupid simple to drive in some pretty hairy situations and I wasn't wanting for more power. When it came time to drive home through the mountains at highway speed we were blowing past our Jeep buddy on any grade. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 27 Share Posted November 27 16 hours ago, Captainp4 said: Talking about the different engine options... Good friend of mine has a newer bronco with the 4 banger/manual trans. We did an event called the 24hrs of Appalachia last year with it and I drove a decent amount. That thing rips even on 37" tires. Computer rev matching shifts made it stupid simple to drive in some pretty hairy situations and I wasn't wanting for more power. When it came time to drive home through the mountains at highway speed we were blowing past our Jeep buddy on any grade. People who dis the 4 cyl ecoboosts either haven’t driven one extensively or they’re still living in the 80s. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted November 27 Share Posted November 27 13 minutes ago, akirby said: People who dis the 4 cyl ecoboosts either haven’t driven one extensively or they’re still living in the 80s. Yea, to use a phrase from the article if 4 cyl ecoboosts are the cake, 6 cyl ecoboosts are the icing The V-6 is icing on the cake for the new Ranger, which is significantly improved over the one before it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 27 Share Posted November 27 2 hours ago, akirby said: People who dis the 4 cyl ecoboosts either haven’t driven one extensively or they’re still living in the 80s. Agree 2.3L EB has plenty of power for a Ranger, but wonder if those who dis the engine do so mostly because it lacks power, or because it’s a 4-cylinder, or maybe because they don’t want a turbo engine for a variety of reasons? The tough part is that buyers don’t have to be right, or have a valid reason. I’m not sure Ford understands the difference. For what it’s worth, I recently noticed on a Ford web page that they were highlighting naturally aspirated ICE powertrain for some applications where not long ago a similar page advertised they were all in on newest technologies like EcoBoost, Hybrids, and Battery Electric. It’s a subtle change but I think it was intentional. A very different tone suggesting more traditional engine choices are still available and may offer some advantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 27 Share Posted November 27 1 hour ago, Rick73 said: Agree 2.3L EB has plenty of power for a Ranger, but wonder if those who dis the engine do so mostly because it lacks power, or because it’s a 4-cylinder, or maybe because they don’t want a turbo engine for a variety of reasons? The tough part is that buyers don’t have to be right, or have a valid reason. I’m not sure Ford understands the difference. For what it’s worth, I recently noticed on a Ford web page that they were highlighting naturally aspirated ICE powertrain for some applications where not long ago a similar page advertised they were all in on newest technologies like EcoBoost, Hybrids, and Battery Electric. It’s a subtle change but I think it was intentional. A very different tone suggesting more traditional engine choices are still available and may offer some advantages. Some think it’s still the 80s and turbos suck. Some think only V8s are cool. Most are used to the 2.7 in edge and nautilus and drive like a bat out of hell so the 2.0 is slow by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted November 27 Share Posted November 27 6 minutes ago, akirby said: Some think only V8s are cool. Most are used to the 2.7 in edge and nautilus and drive like a bat out of hell so the 2.0 is slow by comparison. When I bought an F-150 Lightning, its performance made the V8 F-150s I owned previously not so cool anymore 😄 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 28 Share Posted November 28 RAM is learning the hard way that greater power and performance doesn’t necessarily translate to higher sales. Just saying a lot of factors go into decisions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted November 28 Share Posted November 28 1 hour ago, Rick73 said: RAM is learning the hard way that greater power and performance doesn’t necessarily translate to higher sales. Just saying a lot of factors go into decisions. Yea, that's why I like Ford's approach of making the 6 cyl ecoboost "icing on the cake" for Ranger. In Central Indiana, about 20% of new Rangers at local Ford dealership lots are 6 cyl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 28 Share Posted November 28 13 hours ago, morgan20 said: Yea, that's why I like Ford's approach of making the 6 cyl ecoboost "icing on the cake" for Ranger. In Central Indiana, about 20% of new Rangers at local Ford dealership lots are 6 cyl No doubt variety is great; just hope all icing is not chocolate flavored. I love chocolate, but want other flavors too. 😆 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted November 29 Share Posted November 29 On 11/27/2024 at 6:24 AM, akirby said: People who dis the 4 cyl ecoboosts either haven’t driven one extensively or they’re still living in the 80s. Most of the people I know who bash Ecoboost motors either don't like the sound, or cite long term reliability concerns. But it seems like newer Ecoboost engines are pretty reliable. I believe Ecoboost engines are running forged internals, and have a fairly conservative boost setting. It was mostly the 3.5 that had issues I believe, and even that engine is quite reliable with the newer versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 29 Share Posted November 29 18 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: Most of the people I know who bash Ecoboost motors either don't like the sound, or cite long term reliability concerns. But it seems like newer Ecoboost engines are pretty reliable. I believe Ecoboost engines are running forged internals, and have a fairly conservative boost setting. It was mostly the 3.5 that had issues I believe, and even that engine is quite reliable with the newer versions. There’s a difference between preferring a different engine technology and bashing EcoBoost. I think it comes down to costs, or the fear of possibly having to spend more in the future. For that reason many buyers prefer to keep things as simple as possible. That’s not bashing EB, but prioritizing simpler design instead. EcoBoost fans should not take a different opinion as personal criticism. EcoBoost was developed and promoted as a new technology that could save up to 20% in fuel by downsizing engine displacement by roughly 1/3, but in real-world applications that much in gas savings have not materialized. A good example is F-150 with 3.5L V6 EB versus 5.0L V8 Coyote. EPA ratings estimate EB gas savings at $100 per year if in combined driving. V8 efficiency improved over the years with use of 10-speed transmission, higher compression, cylinder deactivation, leaner burn, etc., thereby closing the gap with EB fuel costs. In highway driving cycle, EPA rates V8 as more efficient. And when towing, V8 often also gets better real-world fuel-economy ratings. To save $100 per year or less I would not buy a twin turbo V6 and risk the possibility of “maybe” having to spend much more in repairs down the road. I’d take my chances with V8 and pay a little more monthly in gas. I expect that if Ford could offer a Ranger with a 3.3~3.5L NA V6, it would be viewed similar to F-150 V8. It doesn’t dominate market share but has strong following nonetheless. By the way, the guy I mentioned earlier who purchased a Chevy V8 Silverado because he didn’t want a twin-turbo six had owned three RAM 1500 with Hemi V8s. The last Hemi had issues, and he figured a turbo six would be even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 29 Share Posted November 29 (edited) I remember those early days when Ecoboost was developed originally by Ford Europe and pitched to the USA by Derrick Kuzak, claiming the 20% improvement in fuel economy that Ford US powertrain could no replicate on EPA tests. At that time many Euro based manufacturers were gaming the European test cycles with insufficient roll down test resistance figures for dynamometer testing. So it’s easy to see how those fuel economy figures could not be replicated under closer scrutiny. The work that Ford US power train did to turn Ecoboost into a genuinely efficient power choice lead to F150 customers embracing the 3.5 Ecoboost and then the 2.7 Ecoboost after that. Similarly, the I-4 EBs replaced the need for transverse V6s in FWD vehicles - these days, nobody really questions the strategy of DI, Turbo and 6-speed auto as it basically shaped the last ten years or so for Ford. just looking at Ranger, the 2.7 EB looks ot be the perfect fit, with near 400 lb ft of torque -at certain points, that 80-90 lbft moe torque than the 2.3 EB Edited November 29 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 29 Share Posted November 29 The big problem with early ecoboosts is that they had to run rich to keep the heads cool which killed fuel economy. That was fixed after a few years with addditional cooling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 30 Share Posted November 30 2 hours ago, akirby said: The big problem with early ecoboosts is that they had to run rich to keep the heads cool which killed fuel economy. That was fixed after a few years with addditional cooling. Correct, Ford discovered that the cylinder barrels needed to be hotter and the heads cooler, so lots of changes to coolant passages to get that done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 30 Share Posted November 30 Just glad to see Ford is at least keeping the door open to “traditional internal combustion technology” for now. Not long ago this did not seem likely at all. “And for unique vehicle needs? The classic, naturally aspirated gas engine is still available on select cars and trucks.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted November 30 Author Share Posted November 30 7 hours ago, Rick73 said: EcoBoost was developed and promoted as a new technology that could save up to 20% in fuel by downsizing engine displacement by roughly 1/3, but in real-world applications that much in gas savings have not materialized. A good example is F-150 with 3.5L V6 EB versus 5.0L V8 Coyote. EPA ratings estimate EB gas savings at $100 per year if in combined driving. V8 efficiency improved over the years with use of 10-speed transmission, higher compression, cylinder deactivation, leaner burn, etc., thereby closing the gap with EB fuel costs. In highway driving cycle, EPA rates V8 as more efficient. And when towing, V8 often also gets better real-world fuel-economy ratings. Might want to pull your head out of your 3rd point of contact, since your biases are leading you down the wrong path: First off the V8 is an almost $2K upcharge over the 2.7L Ecoboost in 2025 F-150, while the 2.7L Ecoboost overs better gas mileage over the V8. In other trims, the 3.5L Powerboost is a "free" option that gets better gas milage AND more power then the V8 does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 30 Share Posted November 30 Data speaks for itself. In power, cost, and towing, the 3.5L EB is more comparable to V8 than base 2.7L. Bottom line is that there isn’t enough difference to worry about either way. In 2WD the 3.5L EB holds 1 MPG and $100/year advantage, but in 4WD it’s all close enough to call even. Downgrading to base 2.7L when available doesn’t save much anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted November 30 Author Share Posted November 30 45 minutes ago, Rick73 said: Data speaks for itself. In power, cost, and towing, the 3.5L EB is more comparable to V8 than base 2.7L. Bottom line is that there isn’t enough difference to worry about either way. In 2WD the 3.5L EB holds 1 MPG and $100/year advantage, but in 4WD it’s all close enough to call even. Downgrading to base 2.7L when available doesn’t save much anyway. Your just shifting the goalposts...the V8 (that in your mind would save you more money because its "simpler") costs more and is more limited (by design) by Ford for CAFE reasons all with similar or better power output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted December 1 Share Posted December 1 Plus, you left off torque. That's where both EB's shine. 2.7EB 400 ft/lb 5.0 410 ft/lb 3.5EB 500 ft/lb If I'm getting the same MPG, I'd rather have the higher torque. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted December 1 Share Posted December 1 15 hours ago, 92merc said: Plus, you left off torque. That's where both EB's shine. 2.7EB 400 ft/lb 5.0 410 ft/lb 3.5EB 500 ft/lb If I'm getting the same MPG, I'd rather have the higher torque. Yes, torque is indeed very important to some drivers. I mostly care about torque that reaches the driven wheels. 😆 Where turbo engines shine brightest is that they don’t lose much or any power at elevation — I left that off too. Naturally aspirated engines just can’t compete at 10,000 feet, but I live near sea level so that doesn’t come into play but once in a blue moon when I visit the Rockies. Traveling west is an infrequent occurrence so doesn’t add much value. I have 420 lb-ft and looking to trade for 250 lb-ft because there is no better vehicle at this time that meets most needs. Just saying I’d rather have 420 vs 250 lb-ft but overall it’s a small factor in deciding which vehicle to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted December 2 Share Posted December 2 (edited) Saw this 6 cyl 2024 Ranger XLT at Capitol City Ford today. Not too shabby for a 4x4 truck under 45 grand Edited December 2 by morgan20 3 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.