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

[Doc]

Chuck: Tuned Stock 2.3 EcoBoost Ranger


Note,
387 rear wheel ft lbs of torque
My 69 396 325hp (crank) Chevelle had 290 ft lbs of rear wheel torque.

Sponsored

 

[RedlandRanger]

Ah geez. I was not comparing to Tacoma v6. You totally missed what I was saying. I have a 4banger turbo already, not very impressed.


Let's move on already.

It isn't JUST the motor - it is the motor AND the transmission that makes the combo so good. I don't think you've actually driven the Ranger (even though you said you did) - your comment above "I have a 4banger turbo already, not very impressed" makes me think you never did the test drive. Even the reviews on the truck - ones that weren't complimentary all said the powertrain was GREAT. I just don't know how you can say it is crap with a straight face (unless you've never driven it yourself).

I'm moving on. You've had multiple people try and tell you that the "4 banger" is the best option out there (even a few Tacoma converts), and yet you just argue the 4 banger is crap - nothing but a 6 will do.

Good luck to you with your choices.

 

[Geoff]

It isn't JUST the motor - it is the motor AND the transmission that makes the combo so good. I don't think you've actually driven the Ranger (even though you said you did) - your comment above "I have a 4banger turbo already, not very impressed" makes me think you never did the test drive. Even the reviews on the truck - ones that weren't complimentary all said the powertrain was GREAT. I just don't know how you can say it is crap with a straight face (unless you've never driven it yourself).

I'm moving on. You've had multiple people try and tell you that the "4 banger" is the best option out there (even a few Tacoma converts), and yet you just argue the 4 banger is crap - nothing but a 6 will do.

Good luck to you with your choices.

Yeah, have to say I agree.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I don't either, because I don't see where it would fit into the engine compartment. I guess with enough engineering effort anything is possible, but why would they spend that much effort on a low volume option that would only be around for a couple of years? It's possible that they'd design the next generation around a larger engine, but I'd hate to see them compromise something else (overall dimensions, for example) just to compete on marketing glossies. (Since there's no actual benefit to putting a bigger engine in this truck...) A NA V6 would be a downgrade, and a turbo V6 takes up a lot of space that's just hard to find in a midsize. That may well be why the segment generally has had such uninspiring powertrain options, and why Ford's 2.3 was just what was needed to shake things up.

They could shoehorn it into the current Ranger, but I wouldn't want to be the technician that had to work on it. There are many examples in the past where automakers made an engine fit into something it wasn't originally designed for, but it creates a lot of headaches when it comes to accessibility. I'm guessing getting the V6 to fit has been one thing causing a delay in getting the Bronco into production.

 

[Geoff]

Ford purposely kept to one drive train combo in the Ranger and only offered two body style choices to keep their costs down. I personally don't see that changing until they release the next chassis in 2021 or 22.

I had a 4.0L V6 2002 Ranger 2Dr Supercab but my 2019 Lariat Ranger would run circles around it. The 4 banger puts out more torque and HP and the 10 speed transmission keeps the 4 banger in its sweet spot that allows for plenty of acceleration no matter the current speed. I just don't see the need for a bigger engine and if it were an option I'd pass - there's plenty of power in the current Ranger incarnation.

 

[chuck stein]

Ford purposely kept to one drive train combo in the Ranger and only offered two body style choices to keep their costs down. I personally don't see that changing until they release the next chassis in 2021 or 22.

I had a 4.0L V6 2002 Ranger 2Dr Supercab but my 2019 Lariat Ranger would run circles around it. The 4 banger puts out more torque and HP and the 10 speed transmission keeps the 4 banger in its sweet spot that allows for plenty of acceleration no matter the current speed. I just don't see the need for a bigger engine and if it were an option I'd pass - there's plenty of power in the current Ranger incarnation.

Why are you comparing to 2002? The 2.3 eb also runs circles around most V8's from 40yrs ago. And 17yrs from now you'll be saying "hmm, this current engine runs circles around the 2019 Ranger I had". That is if Ford doesn't halt Ranger, again.

The discussion is Ford's 2.3 vs 2.7 and why the 2.7 is not an option currently.

Ford could have propelled both Ranger and F150 sales by making the existing 2.7 a Ranger option and making the base F150 with 3.0 eb. If they did we would not be trying to answer the threads question, which we already know the only option is the 2.3 eb.

I bet ya many many Ranger buyers would have bought the Ranger with the 2.7 if it were available. I would have chosen the 2.7 w/o even wondering about the 2.3

 

[RedlandRanger]

Ford purposely kept to one drive train combo in the Ranger and only offered two body style choices to keep their costs down. I personally don't see that changing until they release the next chassis in 2021 or 22.

I had a 4.0L V6 2002 Ranger 2Dr Supercab but my 2019 Lariat Ranger would run circles around it. The 4 banger puts out more torque and HP and the 10 speed transmission keeps the 4 banger in its sweet spot that allows for plenty of acceleration no matter the current speed. I just don't see the need for a bigger engine and if it were an option I'd pass - there's plenty of power in the current Ranger incarnation.

Agreed - I had a 2005 with the 4 liter (and a 2000 with the 3 liter, which wasn't quite strong enough) - and it was OK, but the 2019 is WAY stronger. WAY WAY stronger.

I think the other reason for limited options - at least for the first year - was to help with the new production line - trying to keep things relatively simple. I'm guessing next year they will have more options, but I'd agree- there probably won't be other drive train options until the new one in 2021.

 

[chuck stein]

They could shoehorn it into the current Ranger, but I wouldn't want to be the technician that had to work on it. There are many examples in the past where automakers made an engine fit into something it wasn't originally designed for, but it creates a lot of headaches when it comes to accessibility. I'm guessing getting the V6 to fit has been one thing causing a delay in getting the Bronco into production.

According to Ford, the Bronco is not a Everest re-badge, the Bronco is supposed to be ALL new, so what problem would they have getting an engine to fit? The Bronco is about same width as F150.

 

[DakotaGuy]

According to Ford, the Bronco is not a Everest re-badge, the Bronco is supposed to be ALL new, so what problem would they have getting an engine to fit? The Bronco is about same width as F150.

The Bronco is being built on a thoroughly updated and modified T6 platform. It is not being built on an F150 platform. Likely one of the modifications that's being done is redesigning T6 to be able to fit a larger engine. Bronco mules are using a current Ranger cab and front clip for testing purposes so this would indicate basic vehicle size even though the Bronco will have completely different sheetmetal. I would expect the new Bronco to be similar to the current Ranger in width. If they make it as wide as an F150 it will be a poor Wrangler competitor. The Bronco is ALL new, but that doesn't mean they aren't using a current platform as a starting point. That's what everyone does.

 

[chuck stein]

The Bronco is being built on a thoroughly updated and modified T6 platform. It is not being built on an F150 platform. Likely one of the modifications that's being done is redesigning T6 to be able to fit a larger engine. Bronco mules are using a current Ranger cab and front clip for testing purposes so this would indicate basic vehicle size even though the Bronco will have completely different sheetmetal. I would expect the new Bronco to be similar to the current Ranger in width. If they make it as wide as an F150 it will be a poor Wrangler competitor. The Bronco is ALL new, but that doesn't mean they aren't using a current platform as a starting point. That's what everyone does.

Since Everest, Ranger, and Bronco are all on the same "T6" platform, the "all new" Bronco is more a re-badge than "all new".

This Bronco mule is believed to not be a Ranger because it's too wide.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a31079/new-ford-bronco-ranger-details/

 

[chuck stein]

When will US ranger have a 3.2L Duratorq I5 option? This I5 produces nearly 500lb-ft !! And the T6 platform was designed to accept this motor.

 

[Geoff]

Why are you comparing to 2002? The 2.3 eb also runs circles around most V8's from 40yrs ago. And 17yrs from now you'll be saying "hmm, this current engine runs circles around the 2019 Ranger I had". That is if Ford doesn't halt Ranger, again.

The discussion is Ford's 2.3 vs 2.7 and why the 2.7 is not an option currently.

Ford could have propelled both Ranger and F150 sales by making the existing 2.7 a Ranger option and making the base F150 with 3.0 eb. If they did we would not be trying to answer the threads question, which we already know the only option is the 2.3 eb.

I bet ya many many Ranger buyers would have bought the Ranger with the 2.7 if it were available. I would have chosen the 2.7 w/o even wondering about the 2.3

I'm comparing it to my '02 V6 because I have first hand knowledge of what I'm talking about. No disrespect to you but I don't think you do. Again, no disrespect but do as you want. If the Ranger engine is a turn off then you'll have to find something else. Nobody here can help you with your V6 wish but most of us are more than happy with out I4/10Spd.

 

[VAMike]

They could shoehorn it into the current Ranger

Well, there's no production ranger with a V anything, so that's just a guess. The platform was designed with inline 4s and 5s as the target, and the longitudinal mounting makes it easier to go longer than to go wider. (A lot of the push toward V6s vs straight 6s is for the opposite constraint: the inlines are too long to easily fit into a car with a transverse FWD mount, so increased sharing motivates moving to the V configuration--even if that's not ideal for a truck with RWD and an longitudinal drivetrain.) The extra 6.5 inches in width on the F150 makes a huge difference here, and the only other RWD 2.7 (the upcoming Explorer) is still 5.5 inches wider. The one obvious place you might have expected the 2.7 to pop up is the Mustang, and it's not there (it's also only 2 inches wider than the Ranger...) I think all the other applications have been FWD.

 

[MSG W]

Personally I could not careless! if this engine was offered . . . it is not.... If only it had ...... it does not.... I bought my Ranger because it is what I wanted .. . If I want for the perfect Truck , I will be dead when that happens,, who care what could have been... if you do not like it do not buy it... or buy one and put your own engine in it.... again personally I just think you like to hear yourself talk - @ Chuck

 

[jsphlynch]

Since Everest, Ranger, and Bronco are all on the same "T6" platform, the "all new" Bronco is more a re-badge than "all new".

I think you might be mistaken about the meaning of a "platform." All it means is that they share some core components and design features. Very different vehicles (even vehicles with very different dimensions!) can be built on the same platform. If I recall correctly, the CRV is built on the Civic platform, and I really don't think anybody would consider a CRV to be a re-badge of a Civic (except maybe people who consider the Ranger 2.3 to be "wimpy").

Sponsored