Ranger's 2.3L 4-cyl vs. Colorado's 3.6L V6

[John62]

Enjoy your Colorado, and thanks for taking one for the home team, I never would have.

Time will tell, if I get 250,000 trouble free miles like I did with my 2000 Ranger, I'll be happy, as I said time will tell?

Sponsored

 

[Hounddog409]

there's more torque

I realize with the combination there is more torque, although better HP with 6., been lucky as I don't have any issues with the 8 speed like some do.
Just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo, maybe it's because of issues in the Mustang with it, if I remember right? I'm not here to knock the Ranger like some think, I owned two previous Rangers that serviced me well, my last had 250,000 when I got rid of it, just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo.

Why? Who cares whats under the hood? Its all about power and this 4 has more of that, at a much lower Rpm, than the competitors 6.

That engine does not have to work as hard either. Top torque at 3k rpm. That means it is working lease than the 6 that has to be at 5k rpm to reach top power.

That means longer life.

 

[VAMike]

Well I was speaking in term of the mid size trucks, Ranger, Colorado, Frontier, etc. as most offer the 4 or 6, although thought I heard of a future 8 in the Colorado, but not sure?

So you're willing to accept some engines which are purely a compromise on economic grounds, but not others. I'm not sure what else there is to talk about, sorry.

 

[Floyd]

Why because I'm not partial to turbo's Turbo= more parts=more maintenance and doesn't a turbo on a small engine make it work harder, in turn putting more strain on internal parts? Which work at higher temps while degrading oil quality faster? You know engines so tell me why a turbo 2.3 is a better engine, not in just performance but maintenance and longevity?

Let's take this one at a time...
1] more parts = wrong, the six has an extra head,two extra camshafts, two extra VVT units, two extra pistons and rods.
Two extra fuel injectors, eight extra valves and I'm sure I forgot something.

2]extra maintenance= wrong again, no explanation required.

3] Make it work harder=wrong once more The Ranger produces peak torque at 2000 fewer RPM and peak HP at 1300 fewer RPM. Thus more power with less strain on internal parts.

4] The 2.3L Ecoboost is a better engine for reasons which go beyond the better basic material and internal component design.
The I-4 design has better primary balance, less rotating mass, fewer pistons means less friction as does making power at lower RPM,
The twin scroll turbo is far advanced over turbos of yesteryear as are the electronics which control it.
This turbo is WATER COOLED, which pretty much eliminates turbo wear and the coking which was common with oil cooled turbos of yesteryear, which required smarter drivers.

Still, take good care of your V6, don't overwork it, keep the oil clean and it will likely last as long as the 4CYL offered in the Colorado. and produce more power.
Also if you really want it to last...
I'd stay away from that 6800RPM required make peak HP.
.

 

[Hounddog409]

there's more torque

I realize with the combination there is more torque, although better HP with 6., been lucky as I don't have any issues with the 8 speed like some do.
Just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo, maybe it's because of issues in the Mustang with it, if I remember right? I'm not here to knock the Ranger like some think, I owned two previous Rangers that serviced me well, my last had 250,000 when I got rid of it, just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo.

Hp is worthless. I never understood the fascination with horsepower. HP is the rate of work. Torque is the work.

How do you calculate HP? Torque times engine speed then divide by 5252.

HP means nothing. Torque is what determines how much power an engine has.

 

[joeb427]

Yeah, I don't think you understand engines.

No doubt there are plenty out there with the 4 cyl sucks vs 6 cyl thinking.
I was one until I drove it.

 

[RodSlinger]

Not getting hung up on the amount of cylinders just always preferred a 6 over a 4 in a truck. And to be honest I got the Colorado 6 knowing the Ranger did not have the 6 option or I would of waited to buy, as I've always had Rangers, but V-6's not 4's. I don't regret my choice as the V-6 is a very good runner, but I always like the ranger better just didn't really want a 4, but that's just me. Although everything I read, I'm at least wanting to test drive one.

Not sure why anyone would want one of these naturally aspirated V6 engines in a truck. They suck for truck use. All of them. No torque or it is so high in the RPM band you have to rev the bejeezus out of it hauling any loads or towing.

I've been shopping for a replacement for my V8 Dakota for probably the past three or four years. The Ranger has been about the only one that feels like it will work as well or better than the 4.7 V8 I have now. That 3.6 in the GM is a revver and runs well but could barely pull it's own weight up a steep grade unloaded without dropping down a gear or two. That's not a good sign and I'm not really in any mood to listen to it rev at 4500+ rpms towing a 6x12 box all day long.

 

[EcoRanger]

Turbo= more parts=more maintenance

Nope wrong ideal this is my 3rd Ecoboost and it was my other ecoboost engines that made me unafraid to buy the Ranger with one. I used synthetic oil in my 13 Escape and changed the oil when the car told me to which was every 10k miles. If I hadn't been using synthetic oil I would have changed more often but I wanted to see how the ecoboost engine would hold up.I have to say I'm 100% sold on the Ecoboost engine.

 

[Arc Ranger]

Why because I'm not partial to turbo's Turbo= more parts=more maintenance and doesn't a turbo on a small engine make it work harder, in turn putting more strain on internal parts? Which work at higher temps while degrading oil quality faster? You know engines so tell me why a turbo 2.3 is a better engine, not in just performance but maintenance and longevity?

You make it sound like Ford just decided to take a stock 4 cyl engine and slap a turbo on it. All components of the engine have been designed to handle the forced induction. The aluminum block and head to dissipate heat better, direct injection to make sure the fuel gets to the chambers as fast as the turbo forces air into it, the timing is calculated for this forced injection, and the exhaust system is sized according to these loads as well. I think you are confusing this comprehensive design with somebody that decided to buy a Honda civic and drop a turbo in it. Also, as others have stated, in the long run this engine won't work as hard as the V6 in the Colorado because it has more torque and delivers it at a lower rpm. The Colorado will have to rev higher more consistently to deliver the same amount of power, and this could be the reason that it is known to have some transmission issues. Don't get me wrong, I hope you do enjoy your truck, but a lot of your reasoning for why the Colorado is "better" just doesn't hold water.

 

[SubVet]

Why because I'm not partial to turbo's Turbo= more parts=more maintenance and doesn't a turbo on a small engine make it work harder, in turn putting more strain on internal parts? Which work at higher temps while degrading oil quality faster? You know engines so tell me why a turbo 2.3 is a better engine, not in just performance but maintenance and longevity?

A V6 has more moving parts than a four with a turbo.

You need to read up on the Ranger I4 Turbo. That engine can be tuned to over 350 horsepower with the same exact internals. It's tuned to 300 horsepower on the Lincoln MKC. The engine is barely working in the ranger at 270 horsepower. The turbo adds a few more moving parts but after you add two more cylinders to a 6 cylinder you'll end up with more moving parts. So the whole moving Parts argument is false

Turbos have been out long enough not to be scared of them anymore. The way I drive my Ranger the turbo barely does anything. But it's there when I need to pass or merge

 

[rangerdanger]

Well I was speaking in term of the mid size trucks, Ranger, Colorado, Frontier, etc. as most offer the 4 or 6, although thought I heard of a future 8 in the Colorado, but not sure?


As I said, just not sold on a 2,3 turbo? I keep vehicles long hoping for very little maintenance, as my last Ranger got 250.000 on the engine when I sold it with no engine issues. Just can't see a 2.3 turbo pulling 250.000 with no major engine issues, maybe I'm wrong time will tell?

Suddenly you will love 4 cylinder turbos when this is in the Colorado: First Drive: 2019 Chevy Silverado 4-Cylinder is a Mixed Bag

Stop feeding the obvious troll.

Edit: Would The 2.7L Truck Engine Suit The Chevy Colorado? | GM Authority

 

[THLONE]

I love a good chevy ford fight. I was a diehard chevy guy. Chevy/ GM used to be the best engineering but times have changed. One more thing ford has is, they didnt take tax payers money to survive. I was going to buy a Colorado but after reading all reviews chose to try a Ranger even though it was a first run. I am very happy that I did. The XL Ranger is the best buy.

 

[Texasota]

One more thing ford has is, they didn't take tax payers money to survive.

Exactly! Ford made me a lifelong loyal customer because of that! Soon the GMC Sierra in my garage will be replaced by a 2020 Ford Ranger which will join the 2015 Fusion already residing there.

 

[foulmouf]

Exactly! Ford made me a lifelong loyal customer because of that! Soon the GMC Sierra in my garage will be replaced by a 2020 Ford Ranger which will join the 2015 Fusion already residing there.

Same here. GM and Chrysler will never get a dime from me.

 

[MSG W]

Same here. GM and Chrysler will never get a dime from me.

As I have said before that is when I started to buy Ford stock . No GM or Chrysler or their any car they sale will be in my but list

Sponsored