2020 Ranger: Will it get the 2.7 V-6 Eco Boost?

[Jim]

Is anyone wondering what the 2.7 Ecoboost V6 mpg would be in the new Ranger?

F-150 Supercab 4WD with 2.7L EB:
325 HP, 400 lb-ft torque
79.9 in width, 76.9 in height --> 42.7 sq ft frontal area
4805 lb curb weight
Mpg: 19 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

Ranger Supercab 4WD with 2.3L EB:
270 HP, 310 lb-ft torque
73.3 in width, 71.5 in height --> 36.4 sq ft frontal area
4232 lb curb weight
Mpg: 20 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

The 2.7L in the F-150 is rated equal hwy/combined mpg and 1 less city mpg, even though it has 17% more frontal area, weighs 14% more, yet delivers 20% more HP and 29% more torque than the 2.3L in the Ranger. At a certain point, buyers trade off fuel economy for extra power with engine choices, but the 2.7L would deliver more power AND better mileage than the 2.3L in the Ranger. A poor-man's guess would be an extra 2-3 mpg, while not working as hard under load.

Sponsored

 

[RedlandRanger]

Is anyone wondering what the 2.7 Ecoboost V6 mpg would be in the new Ranger?

F-150 Supercab 4WD with 2.7L EB:
325 HP, 400 lb-ft torque
79.9 in width, 76.9 in height --> 42.7 sq ft frontal area
4805 lb curb weight
Mpg: 19 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

Ranger Supercab 4WD with 2.3L EB:
270 HP, 310 lb-ft torque
73.3 in width, 71.5 in height --> 36.4 sq ft frontal area
4232 lb curb weight
Mpg: 20 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

The 2.7L in the F-150 is rated equal hwy/combined mpg and 1 less city mpg, even though it has 17% more frontal area, weighs 14% more, yet delivers 20% more HP and 29% more torque than the 2.3L in the Ranger. At a certain point, buyers trade off fuel economy for extra power with engine choices, but the 2.7L would deliver more power AND better mileage than the 2.3L in the Ranger. A poor-man's guess would be an extra 2-3 mpg, while not working as hard under load.

I'm guessing one big thing is the size of the engine. I think it might be hard to stuff into the narrower Ranger. It is certainly an interesting idea and I'd love to see it as an option. My Ranger is heavier than what you show as well - it is 4481 lbs (Lariat SuperCrew 4WD). I'm not sure it would make as much difference in mileage as you think. But the extra HP and Torque would be cool.

 

[t4thfavor]

Are we forgetting the fact that companies like Ford have no incentive to decrease fuel mileage, and every incentive to increase it? If the V6 could get better mileage and be more powerful, it would already be in the ranger.. that 2-3mpg would mean worlds as far as CARB and CAFE are concerned.

 

[Geoff]

Are we forgetting the fact that companies like Ford have no incentive to decrease fuel mileage, and every incentive to increase it? If the V6 could get better mileage and be more powerful, it would already be in the ranger.. that 2-3mpg would mean worlds as far as CARB and CAFE are concerned.

Yeah, I'm not so sure the 2.7EB is going to give all that much better mileage. And Ford's money maker is the F150 so I doubt they want to do anything to jeopardize F150 sales. And I agree that they have CARB and CAFE balancing acts to juggle. The minute they start adding engine options (and maybe transmission options) they've lost economy of scale but keeping it simple with one engine/tranny combo keeps costs down.

 

[chasvs]

I expect the 2.7LTR EcoBoost V6 will be in the Ranger Raptor when they decide to build one on the New Bronco/Ranger Platform in 2022 or later.

 

[chuck stein]

I expect the 2.7LTR EcoBoost V6 will be in the Ranger Raptor when they decide to build one on the New Bronco/Ranger Platform in 2022 or later.

The 2019 Ranger sales have been extremely dismal, even the crappy Frontier has beat out Ranger for the 2019 model thus far !!! And right in the middle of a dismal Ranger rollout Ford wants to introduce the Bronco? And, they skip bringing the Ranger Raptor to US? Makes no sense.

My local dealers sell F150's day-in day-out and have few to no Rangers.

Ford better figure something out, and fast. I would buy the v6 if it were available, would make for better towing and hauling ability for a mid pkup.

 

[RedlandRanger]

The 2019 Ranger sales have been extremely dismal, even the crappy Frontier has beat out Ranger for the 2019 model thus far !!! And right in the middle of a dismal Ranger rollout Ford wants to introduce the Bronco? And, they skip bringing the Ranger Raptor to US? Makes no sense.

My local dealers sell F150's day-in day-out and have few to no Rangers.

Ford better figure something out, and fast. I would buy the v6 if it were available, would make for better towing and hauling ability for a mid pkup.

Ranger sales have been low to date because there haven't been that many Rangers available. Most of the production has been going to fill dealers lots. It is only now that most dealers are starting to have some stock on them. May sales were around 10k which is just less than they are producing, so it seems like sales are doing pretty well, considering this is the first year. It will be very interesting to see what June sales end up being. My guess is that it will probably be VERY close to the production rate.

As far as the 2.7 giving better hauling and towing ability, I'm not sure how much more you could get out of a mid size realistically. It already has top hauling and pretty much top towing. I don't think you'd want to tow more than 7500 lbs with a mid sized truck.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

The 2019 Ranger sales have been extremely dismal, even the crappy Frontier has beat out Ranger for the 2019 model thus far !!! And right in the middle of a dismal Ranger rollout Ford wants to introduce the Bronco? And, they skip bringing the Ranger Raptor to US? Makes no sense.

My local dealers sell F150's day-in day-out and have few to no Rangers.

Ford better figure something out, and fast. I would buy the v6 if it were available, would make for better towing and hauling ability for a mid pkup.

Please provide data to support your allegations. Not your Dealer. Statements like this must be supported by data. Absence of data in meanless.

A Ford Plant that can not keep up with the demand, as documented by the media like Automotive News is not dismal. local dealers do not present a global picture, so I am interested in your data to back up your statement. I may be wrong, but my research says otherwise. Ranger has received accolades per this website. My dealer cannot keep them on the lot....

 

[Hambone437]

Please provide data to support your allegations. Not your Dealer. Statements like this must be supported by data. Absence of data in meanless.

A Ford Plant that can not keep up with the demand, as documented by the media like Automotive News is not dismal. local dealers do not present a global picture, so I am interested in your data to back up your statement. I may be wrong, but my research says otherwise. Ranger has received accolades per this website. My dealer cannot keep them on the lot....

My dealer is selling the Rangers like hot cakes. They also have plenty on hand at all trim levels. I just checked their inventory and they have 71 to choose from.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

My dealer is selling the Rangers like hot cakes. They also have plenty on hand at all trim levels. I just checked their inventory and they have 71 to choose from.

Thank you for reporting successful sales they are hot sellers!

 

[Hounddog409]

The 2019 Ranger sales have been extremely dismal, even the crappy Frontier has beat out Ranger for the 2019 model thus far !!! And right in the middle of a dismal Ranger rollout Ford wants to introduce the Bronco? And, they skip bringing the Ranger Raptor to US? Makes no sense.

My local dealers sell F150's day-in day-out and have few to no Rangers.

Ford better figure something out, and fast. I would buy the v6 if it were available, would make for better towing and hauling ability for a mid pkup.

again?

sales are not dismal. it is a new factory and new vehicle that did not have the same start at the model year as the other manufacturers.

The Ranger VIN's have been in the 8xxxx range for a bit now. Meaning they will sell between 80-100k for the first run during a SHORT PRODUCTION YEAR.

That would put the ranger at what #3 at worse?

not sure how Ford would be forecasting anything better than that for less than a year.

 

[chasvs]

The 2019 Ranger sales have been extremely dismal, even the crappy Frontier has beat out Ranger for the 2019 model thus far !!! And right in the middle of a dismal Ranger rollout Ford wants to introduce the Bronco? And, they skip bringing the Ranger Raptor to US? Makes no sense.

My local dealers sell F150's day-in day-out and have few to no Rangers.

Ford better figure something out, and fast. I would buy the v6 if it were available, would make for better towing and hauling ability for a mid pkup.

Such bullshit seems to be the typical comment from a TACO Owner visiting the RANGER Forum! Until Late March there was practically ZERO Inventory at Ford Dealers.

 

[TimberWolf2018]

Ranger Raptor I'm thinking and maybe Bronco

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner folks....That makes a lot of sense!

 

[doug910]

Is anyone wondering what the 2.7 Ecoboost V6 mpg would be in the new Ranger?

F-150 Supercab 4WD with 2.7L EB:
325 HP, 400 lb-ft torque
79.9 in width, 76.9 in height --> 42.7 sq ft frontal area
4805 lb curb weight
Mpg: 19 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

Ranger Supercab 4WD with 2.3L EB:
270 HP, 310 lb-ft torque
73.3 in width, 71.5 in height --> 36.4 sq ft frontal area
4232 lb curb weight
Mpg: 20 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

The 2.7L in the F-150 is rated equal hwy/combined mpg and 1 less city mpg, even though it has 17% more frontal area, weighs 14% more, yet delivers 20% more HP and 29% more torque than the 2.3L in the Ranger. At a certain point, buyers trade off fuel economy for extra power with engine choices, but the 2.7L would deliver more power AND better mileage than the 2.3L in the Ranger. A poor-man's guess would be an extra 2-3 mpg, while not working as hard under load.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I want to raise some points to consider.

OEM's do a pretty good job at matching a powertrain so that it can operate in its most efficient sweet spot in most driving conditions. Engine's need a certain amount of load to be efficient, too low of a load and you've dropped way down on the efficiency curve. See this brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) chart below. BSFC is just a fancy name when plotting engine efficiency with respect to engine torque (load) and engine rpms. The lower the number the better.

Engine's tend to be most efficient when loaded to about 50% torque capacity at 50% of redline. Just because you're in the green zone, however, does not necessarily mean you're using the least amount of fuel, because more fuel is still more fuel at the end of the day. Low rpms will consume less fuel, but at the expense of efficiency.

Dropping a 2.7L would make the engine run in the top left area of the chart more than the 2.3L because it would not be as loaded under normal driving conditions. As you can see in this example chart, efficiency starts dropping pretty dramatically in those areas of the chart and will start to negate the benefits of using less fuel at lower rpms. In other words, you have diminishing returns by decreasing load.

I hope I was able to share some insight as to why OEM's make their powertrain choices (among so many other factors). If you have any other questions, let me know!

 

[khyros]

So, let's take a look at what sales *could* be. We're going to make a few assumptions, and we're going to use some data that we know. For starters, the Ranger is being made at MAP, which recently underwent all sorts of new tooling in order to make the RWD Body on Frame Ranger instead of the FWD Unibody Focus. We also know that MAP runs a single shift, and that a couple months ago they said they were running over time. Let's assume that means either 6 days @ 8 hours, or more likely, 5 days @ 10 hours - they're both very close, so we'll just say 50hrs / week of production. Let's also assume the generic 60 sec line speed. I don't know exactly what it is, but most assembly plants fall between 50 and 70 seconds, you can go slower if you don't have enough floor space so you need to do a lot in each station, but there's only so much that you can do because you only have so much line space to provide parts to do the installs... And you can go faster, but most plants don't have an excess of space to spread it out, and it becomes more of a burden on the employee.

With that, we can assume they have the ability to make 600 a day, or 3000 a week, or 12,900 a month. That means that annual sales would be capped at 154,800 units. But that's assuming 100% uptime, even a good plant only achieves 95%, and this is a brand new vehicle architecture - they've had some time to figure it all out, but I would guess they're closer to 90% at this time instead of 95%. Which means monthly volumes maxes out at 11,610, and annual 139,320.

Okay good... we've figured out what Ford is targeting from a max sales perspective. That may or may not be what they're actually targeting for long term stability. But we do know that the industry targets a certain level of "days of inventory on lot," somewhere around 75 days. If they're selling 140k a year, that means they want 28,767 Rangers sitting on the lots on any given day... Some analysts have found that to be the targeted time on lot, balancing carrying costs of having the truck sit vs. availability to the customer.

I'm going to lump Jan, Feb, Mar into a single month of production, knowing that they were really slow and whatnot for all of that time period. So we have "4 months" of production thus far, or about 45,000 Rangers produced. I believe the Q1 results showed that they had sold 9k already, leaving 36k trucks available to purchase and to stock the lots. Even if we assume that only 5k a month (averaging the 9k for Feb/Mar) were sold for Apr, May, and June, that means 21k trucks are on the lots - still under the desired target. For reference, there are ~3k Ford Dealerships in the US (sorry Canada, I'm ignoring you) - which means that their target is an average of 7 Rangers per dealership ON THE LOT, available for a test drive, not sold, not retail ordered... sitting on the lot, available for you to drive and buy THAT day.



So, what does all of this mean? It means that Ford is still working towards building its inventory of Rangers. It means that they're not actively chasing sales. Which means that incentives haven't ramped up. Which means that monthly volumes haven't matched the expected volumes yet. Q2 results, due at the end of June, will provide us a greater idea of what the current dealer volume is (if they've sold 10k/mo that means that there's only ~6k on the lots, and they're still looking to build inventory... but if they've sold 3k, then they have their inventory, and Q3 should start seeing incentives and more sales). Once we know what the current dealer stock is, then we can start determining what the Q3 sales should be. The only time to really start worrying, is if the Q2 sales aren't high, indicating that they've reached the dealer stock level they want, and then Q3 sales aren't good, indicating that even with incentives, Ford is having a hard time pushing the Ranger. Then we can revisit this conversation. But until October, there's really not enough information to worry about it.

Sponsored