Dealership Sales Woes

[AzScorpion]

Yes, we both know that but buyers see 4 cyl and are turned off.

I was too until I drove one. This 4 cyl blows away my 2016 Tacoma V6! Plus if I want more hp/torque I can/will just do a tune for $400.

Sponsored

 

[shred5]

I talked to a friend who fixes cars on the side and is into trucks to. We talked about the whole smaller engine turbo vs large non-turbo. So this is not just the Ranger. I already knew allot of this.

He said a turbo 4 cyl can put out decent horsepower and also a lot of torque. He said for towing and hauling they are preferred.

There is a few concerns.

First of the whole 4 cyl vs 6 vs 8. He said one of the reasons you see so many older Rangers on the road yet is they had larger engines and they were smaller trucks. You put a 8 cyl in a small truck and the engine had to do very little work. Very little wear on the engines so they lasted if taken care of. He said 4 cyl engines are better nowadays than they were back then but still the engine has to work harder. Also the size of these midsized trucks and full size trucks are much larger than they used to be. He said the midsized I have now is as big or bigger than a full size was 10 years ago.

Now you throw in a turbo. He said turbo adds allot of pressure to the engine. Again, he mentions it is not like back in the day when they just strapped a turbo on a regular engine. The engines are now built for this extra pressure. There is a but, these turbos still are making that motor work harder and do add extra pressure. Somethings will wear out faster than a non turbo.

He mention Carbon is another issue.. He said again not as bad as it used to be but it can become a issue as the engine ages. Ford has worked out allot of issues with this but it still is a issue longer term.

He said Ford has also come a long way with the Ecoboost even in the last few years.

Basically, he thinks the turbo boosted engine will not hold their value as long as a larger non turbo engine. Also add the price of maybe having to fix a turbo or replace it. Turbo is not cheap..

He said there should be no issues with them going a 150,000 miles anymore if maintained and not abused. Only thing is allot of truck owners keep them for allot of miles I mean 200,000.

Basically if you are the kind of person who trades a vehicle in every 3 to 5 years like allot of people do it should be of little issue and you get the benefit of extra torque.

If you keep near 100,000 or more it may be a issue with resale value.

He recommended regular maintenance and changing the oil sooner than recommended on these newer turbos.

He is a pretty knowledgeable guy but is not a full time mechanic or even trained but it seems pretty reasonable.

 

[RedlandRanger]

I talked to a friend who fixes cars on the side and is into trucks to. We talked about the whole smaller engine turbo vs large non-turbo. So this is not just the Ranger. I already knew allot of this.

He said a turbo 4 cyl can put out decent horsepower and also a lot of torque. He said for towing and hauling they are preferred.

There is a few concerns.

First of the whole 4 cyl vs 6 vs 8. He said one of the reasons you see so many older Rangers on the road yet is they had larger engines and they were smaller trucks. You put a 8 cyl in a small truck and the engine had to do very little work. Very little wear on the engines so they lasted if taken care of. He said 4 cyl engines are better nowadays than they were back then but still the engine has to work harder. Also the size of these midsized trucks and full size trucks are much larger than they used to be. He said the midsized I have now is as big or bigger than a full size was 10 years ago.

Now you throw in a turbo. He said turbo adds allot of pressure to the engine. Again, he mentions it is not like back in the day when they just strapped a turbo on a regular engine. The engines are now built for this extra pressure. There is a but, these turbos still are making that motor work harder and do add extra pressure. Somethings will wear out faster than a non turbo.

He mention Carbon is another issue.. He said again not as bad as it used to be but it can become a issue as the engine ages. Ford has worked out allot of issues with this but it still is a issue longer term.

He said Ford has also come a long way with the Ecoboost even in the last few years.

Basically, he thinks the turbo boosted engine will not hold their value as long as a larger non turbo engine. Also add the price of maybe having to fix a turbo or replace it. Turbo is not cheap..

He said there should be no issues with them going a 150,000 miles anymore if maintained and not abused. Only thing is allot of truck owners keep them for allot of miles I mean 200,000.

Basically if you are the kind of person who trades a vehicle in every 3 to 5 years like allot of people do it should be of little issue and you get the benefit of extra torque.

If you keep near 100,000 or more it may be a issue with resale value.

He recommended regular maintenance and changing the oil sooner than recommended on these newer turbos.

He is a pretty knowledgeable guy but is not a full time mechanic or even trained but it seems pretty reasonable.

I don't buy the "working harder" argument. 10 years ago, an F-150 with a V-8 was putting out 231 HP and 293 Ft lbs of Torque.

Our Ranger exceeds those numbers and those F-150's weighed more than our Rangers do, which means the 2.3 is actually working LESS than the V-8 had to.

Today's engines are NOTHING like the engines from even 10 years ago. The 2.3 (and related eco boosts) are ENGINEERED to take the additional load of the turbo. Lubrication chemistry has advanced a LOT in the last 10 years as well. Technology as a whole I think has filled that gap. I don't see any reason why a modern turbo can't last as long as a NA engine in this day and age.

 

[VAMike]

It's more complicated than that, IMO. For example, "more work"--is the 4cyl in the ranger doing more work at 2k RPM vs the 6cyl in the tacoma doing 5k RPM? If the turbo helps keep the RPMs down, doesn't that decrease engine wear? It's also important to remember that in a new truck we're not comparing a turbo gdi 4cyl to an overbuilt dirt-simple engine from 20 or 30 years ago. How does the reliability of the 2.3 ecoboost compare to a modern 6cyl with variable valve timing or cylinder deactivation or other (complicated) components? Answer: we won't really know for at least another 10 years. It's not really worth overthinking the reliability question because without a crystal ball it's really just a crapshoot.

 

[DavidR]

I don't buy the "working harder" argument. 10 years ago, an F-150 with a V-8 was putting out 231 HP and 293 Ft lbs of Torque.

Our Ranger exceeds those numbers and those F-150's weighed more than our Rangers do, which means the 2.3 is actually working LESS than the V-8 had to.

Today's engines are NOTHING like the engines from even 10 years ago. The 2.3 (and related eco boosts) are ENGINEERED to take the additional load of the turbo. Lubrication chemistry has advanced a LOT in the last 10 years as well. Technology as a whole I think has filled that gap. I don't see any reason why a modern turbo can't last as long as a NA engine in this day and age.

I think what he meant by more work was more work *per displacement*. But I agree, the technology has improved a lot and these components are all designed to work together. Having said that, things like turbos and GDI do add some complexity, not to mention other things like auto start-stop and all the awesome but complex tech with dozens of additional sensors and actuators, so like @VAMike said, time will tell if we will be able to get 250,000 miles out of these with as few problems as in the past.

 

[VAMike]

Also, for context, I've got a turbo direct inject diesel that's running strong after 15+ years and 200k+ miles with nothing other than scheduled maintenance, and the only vehicle I've ever gotten rid of for engine issues was a NA 6cyl honda that barely made it past 100k...

 

[shred5]

I think what he meant by more work was more work *per displacement*. But I agree, the technology has improved a lot and these components are all designed to work together. Having said that, things like turbos and GDI do add some complexity, not to mention other things like auto start-stop and all the awesome but complex tech with dozens of additional sensors and actuators, so like @VAMike said, time will tell if we will be able to get 250,000 miles out of these with as few problems as in the past.

Yea I am not to technical one some of this stuff, I do understand allot of it though. I was trying to explain it the best way I could and the way I understood it. There are some videos on the ecoboost engines that explain some of this.

There are no doubt these are built better now and that was mentioned.

He also said these ecoboost are very complicated the way they work with I believe he said the timing.

He basically asked if you needed a reliable truck and you were broke and needed a truck like a f150 and you could only get a truck with 100,000 miles and you had to have it a long time. Which would you take a V6 turbo or V8, which would you trust more or if it had a problem which would be the cheapest to fix?

 

[DavidR]

Also, for context, I've got a turbo direct inject diesel that's running strong after 15+ years and 200k+ miles with nothing other than scheduled maintenance, and the only vehicle I've ever gotten rid of for engine issues was a NA 6cyl honda that barely made it past 100k...

The only vehicle I've gotten rid of at less than 150K-200K miles was a 1981 Toyota pickup. The 22R engine in it had already had its front and rear seals replaced and the rest of it was just rattling to pieces by 100K. The '93 Ranger was a huge step up from that and has gone 260,000 so far. At 260,000, it is starting to show its age a bit, but that's a lot better than 100K

EDIT: NM, I just realized your point, comparing the longer-lived TDI diesel with the shorter-lived NA V6. The old Toyota was NA also

 

[hughesjv]

I'm not surprised. A 4 cyl turns off many.

It may be four but it is one strong and solid get up and go 4 cylinder...

 

[Hounddog409]

I talked to a friend who fixes cars on the side and is into trucks to. We talked about the whole smaller engine turbo vs large non-turbo. So this is not just the Ranger. I already knew allot of this.

He said a turbo 4 cyl can put out decent horsepower and also a lot of torque. He said for towing and hauling they are preferred.

There is a few concerns.

First of the whole 4 cyl vs 6 vs 8. He said one of the reasons you see so many older Rangers on the road yet is they had larger engines and they were smaller trucks. You put a 8 cyl in a small truck and the engine had to do very little work. Very little wear on the engines so they lasted if taken care of. He said 4 cyl engines are better nowadays than they were back then but still the engine has to work harder. Also the size of these midsized trucks and full size trucks are much larger than they used to be. He said the midsized I have now is as big or bigger than a full size was 10 years ago.

Now you throw in a turbo. He said turbo adds allot of pressure to the engine. Again, he mentions it is not like back in the day when they just strapped a turbo on a regular engine. The engines are now built for this extra pressure. There is a but, these turbos still are making that motor work harder and do add extra pressure. Somethings will wear out faster than a non turbo.

He mention Carbon is another issue.. He said again not as bad as it used to be but it can become a issue as the engine ages. Ford has worked out allot of issues with this but it still is a issue longer term.

He said Ford has also come a long way with the Ecoboost even in the last few years.

Basically, he thinks the turbo boosted engine will not hold their value as long as a larger non turbo engine. Also add the price of maybe having to fix a turbo or replace it. Turbo is not cheap..

He said there should be no issues with them going a 150,000 miles anymore if maintained and not abused. Only thing is allot of truck owners keep them for allot of miles I mean 200,000.

Basically if you are the kind of person who trades a vehicle in every 3 to 5 years like allot of people do it should be of little issue and you get the benefit of extra torque.

If you keep near 100,000 or more it may be a issue with resale value.

He recommended regular maintenance and changing the oil sooner than recommended on these newer turbos.

He is a pretty knowledgeable guy but is not a full time mechanic or even trained but it seems pretty reasonable.

"He said 4 cyl engines are better nowadays than they were back then but still the engine has to work harder. "

so max torque at 3000 RPM is working too hard, yet a V6 that makes max torque at 5500-6000 is not??????

seems to me that the 4 has to turn LESS Rpm to do the same work as a v6. that is NOT working harder.

And I had an old ranger with the 4.0 v6. yes it lasted forever. i was impossible to abuse...mash foot to floor and it would barely move.

 

[shred5]

"He said 4 cyl engines are better nowadays than they were back then but still the engine has to work harder. "

so max torque at 3000 RPM is working too hard, yet a V6 that makes max torque at 5500-6000 is not??????

seems to me that the 4 has to turn LESS Rpm to do the same work as a v6. that is NOT working harder.

And I had an old ranger with the 4.0 v6. yes it lasted forever. i was impossible to abuse...mash foot to floor and it would barely move.

I do not know what to tell you. I believe it is pressure in the cylinders not rpm.. I have seen videos from mechanics saying the same thing. Like I said i am not a technical guy when it comes to engines.

I watched this video last night and though it was interesting:



Not sure I would take something there to be fixed, some of the comments were off but it still came down to reliability and ease to fix if there is a problem..

I doubt Ford will release a natural aspirated V6 anyway.. I am guessing if we see a new engine it will be ecoboost 6 or maybe a 4 cyl Diesel. That is only speculation though and I doubt the Ranger sees a 6 cyl.

 

[RedlandRanger]

I do not know what to tell you. I believe it is pressure in the cylinders not rpm.. I have seen videos from mechanics saying the same thing. Like I said i am not a technical guy when it comes to engines.

I watched this video last night and though it was interesting:

Not sure I would take something there to be fixed, some of the comments were off but it still came down to reliability and ease to fix if there is a problem..

I doubt Ford will release a natural aspirated V6 anyway.. I am guessing if we see a new engine it will be ecoboost 6 or maybe a 4 cyl Diesel. That is only speculation though and I doubt the Ranger sees a 6 cyl.

Interesting. I didn't hear any of the mechanics saying there were any reliability issues with the EB - It sounded more like "old school" mechanics preferring NA engines over turbos. One of them even said the NA engine was easier to work on. (which I'm sure is true, and would absolutely make a huge difference if they were going to be working on their own truck).

I'm not a mechanic either but the whole "too much pressure" argument to me is another non starter. The engines are ENGINEERED to take the additional pressure of the turbo. It isn't a NA engine with a turbo slapped on it, they were designed from the ground up to be a boosted engine.

The only thing I can agree with from that video is that IF there are issues, the EB engines would be more expensive to fix - they are more complicated with more "plumbing" (as one of the techs put it).

 

[oldlog42]

If I had the Space the F150 would be my choice. Space being the key, then its either the Ranger or a Tacoma. only two I'm considering.

 

[DavidR]

I'm not a mechanic either but the whole "too much pressure" argument to me is another non starter. The engines are ENGINEERED to take the additional pressure of the turbo. It isn't a NA engine with a turbo slapped on it, they were designed from the ground up to be a boosted engine.

The only thing I can agree with from that video is that IF there are issues, the EB engines would be more expensive to fix - they are more complicated with more "plumbing" (as one of the techs put it).

Yes, it's all about design. The EB engines are designed to be turbocharged. In a similar vein, virtually all semi tractor engines are turbocharged and typically last 500,000 miles or more. Of course, the 2.3L EB isn't designed with a 500,000 mile lifetime goal, but it is designed to a normal consumer vehicle lifetime, including the turbine component. Yes, they are a bit more complicated, and there may be some things that are more challenging for DIY repairs than the older and simpler 4.0 V6, and proper maintenance is more important, but that's been happening gradually for the past 40 years.

The biggest issues that have surfaced, like valve coking, have more to do with GDI than the turbine, and also affect NA engines with GDI.

Ford has flooded these onto the market over the last half-decade or so, and only time will tell, but with proper maintenance over the 150,000-mile design lifetime, turbines will sometimes fail, but I'll be surprised if they fail a lot more often than other complex components like alternators, AC compressors, transmissions, starting motors, etc.

 

[dceggert]

Just because someone is a 'mechanic' does not necessarily mean that they have a downtown understanding of the systems they work on. My case in point is how many actually can diagnose a new issue without calling engineering at the service desk? Don't get me wrong, I think the job is very difficult given all the weird stuff coming out every model year and it is very hard to keep up at times.

The powertrain and it's operation is one thing but the electrical and electronics have gone exponential. These things are rolling computer rooms. Are they harder to work on? Yes. Are they harder to diagnose? Only if you don't connect a computer to it. If you do they TELL you what is wrong. Unfortunately there is a huge tendency to not check all the codes and fall back on the 'part change' method of diagnostics which is time consuming and expensive.

There is a well watched 'mechanic' on YouTube that rails against Ecoboost anything. His arguments give it away that he does not trust the magic box under the hood that makes the puny engine powerful. That is all well and good but the reality is he is conveying an opinion and not facts.

One aspect of argument is that if you run with a heavy foot you use more fuel than a normally aspirated engine...this is actually true. The reason why is simple; if you run with the boost on you are not driving with a 2.3L anymore. You are consuming air and fuel like a much larger engine. Keep out of the boost and you get better fuel economy. It really is not hard to understand.

If we asked people what engine they would buy in their F150 if they wanted to tow a 12000 lb boat the answer would change....

Sponsored