Advertisement



Ford Authority: Next-Gen Ranger Rumored To Get Twin-Turbo V6 Engine

AzScorpion

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jul 25, 2019
Messages
3,162
Reaction score
8,600
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger SuperCrew Lariat 4x4
How many years till next gen?

Even though the Ranger just got to the U.S., the current-generation truck debuted globally in 2011 and got refreshed in 2015, with the replacement expected roundabout 2021
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/09/ford-ranger-v6-ecoboost-engine/?yptr=yahoo



Advertisement



 

VAMike

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
1,478
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat SuperCab
I hope they don't shorten the front seat leg room. They could add a couple of inches to the overall length.
length isn't the issue, width is. and if you make the ranger wider, you get an f150.
 

joeb427

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
1,534
Location
Fort Mill/Indian Land area South Carolina
Vehicle(s)
'19 Lariat Sport and 19 Lincoln MKC Reserve
Occupation
Retired
Vehicle Showcase
1

Roofhopper

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ted
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
420
Location
Fairfield OH
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger XLT FX4
Occupation
HVAC Service Manager
Vehicle Showcase
1
A Ranger with twin turbo V6 would be just plain stupid with the power to weight ratio.... I want one
 

t4thfavor

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chance
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,893
Reaction score
1,157
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT, 2011 Ford Edge Sport
Not so fast, it's actually the opposite, torque is largely a meaningless figure. To find out how much "work" something can do you need to account for time....aka RPM. You are right in that we use equation/math that utilizes torque and RPM to calculate HP....but at the end of the day, 500 hp is 500 hp, weather that means 1500 ft/lbs at low RPM or 300 ft/lbs at high rpm, they both have the same ability to do the same amount of work. This isn't taking into consideration NVH, durability, longevity, fuel consumption, etc...

It's the reason all large diesel engines are rated based on "HP", torque is largely irrelevant from an application perspective.

It's irrelevant if your large diesel engine spends all of it's time near redline running some sort of heavy equipment, but I can assure you 400ft/lbs and 200HP feels just as fast on the street as 500HP and 400ft/lbs.

It's that instant acceleration feeling that you get when you mash the pedal, all of the 3/4t and 1t vehicles on the market are boasting 1000+ft/lbs and barely 450HP for a reason.
 

VAMike

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
1,478
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat SuperCab
It says they are testing in Australia, but the truck has a German license plate. That is a standard Euro plate and the D in the blue area stands for Deutschland.
It's a website "reporting" a rumor. Mostly they just want people to click on the ads.
 

Doc

Well-Known Member
First Name
Doc
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
2,557
Location
Live oak fla
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger, 2020 HPP Mustang, 2006 GMC Sierra, 2015 Suzuki King Quad, 2006 883/ 1200 Sportster conversion
Occupation
Retired

Oregon Comrade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
108
Reaction score
66
Location
Portland, OR
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4
It's irrelevant if your large diesel engine spends all of it's time near redline running some sort of heavy equipment, but I can assure you 400ft/lbs and 200HP feels just as fast on the street as 500HP and 400ft/lbs.

It's that instant acceleration feeling that you get when you mash the pedal, all of the 3/4t and 1t vehicles on the market are boasting 1000+ft/lbs and barely 450HP for a reason.
The problem with what you are saying is it doesn't account for RPM. Torque is meaningless without RPM and the minute you bring RPM into the equation....you have horsepower. It's a bit of a semantics argument, kinda chicken and egg, but from an engineering perspective it truly does come down to HP, full stop.

Diesels need to make HUGE torque numbers down low to have the HP to compete with gas engines.

Go to anybody that has any experience drag racing and ask them which one of your examples is going to be faster. You could use a more extreme example too, an old steam powered industrial engine with 400ft/lbs and 50 hp vs an F1 engine with 1000hp and 400ft/lbs....sure, one will weigh more, but we can pretend they are the same weight.

Another example, 400 ft/lbs @ 2000 RPM vs 400 ft/lbs @ 4000 RPM. You wanna pull a load up a hill, which one do you pick?
 

t4thfavor

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chance
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,893
Reaction score
1,157
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT, 2011 Ford Edge Sport
The problem with what you are saying is it doesn't account for RPM. Torque is meaningless without RPM and the minute you bring RPM into the equation....you have horsepower. It's a bit of a semantics argument, kinda chicken and egg, but from an engineering perspective it truly does come down to HP, full stop.

Diesels need to make HUGE torque numbers down low to have the HP to compete with gas engines.

Go to anybody that has any experience drag racing and ask them which one of your examples is going to be faster. You could use a more extreme example too, an old steam powered industrial engine with 400ft/lbs and 50 hp vs an F1 engine with 1000hp and 400ft/lbs....sure, one will weigh more, but we can pretend they are the same weight.

Another example, 400 ft/lbs @ 2000 RPM vs 400 ft/lbs @ 4000 RPM. You wanna pull a load up a hill, which one do you pick?
I agree with your explanation. I think we're on the same train... I'm saying that I'd rather have massive torque numbers at "regular" rpm instead of massive HP numbers at 5500-11k rpm's, so in the case that the 2.3 makes 325HP at the 7200rpm that most tunes raise the limiter to is in-fact inferior to having all that torque (And admittedly HP) at a much lower number.

When you can mash the pedal and have ~400FT/LBS from 1800 to 5500rpm's it will feel much better than a vehicle with less tq but much more HP (which takes many more RPM's)

It's referred to "Area under the curve" when running on a dyno.

I'm not arguing that a drag racer would want more HP as they spend all their time at max RPM's (or close) similar to how the HP figure is used to reference large commercial diesel engines which also spend 99% of their time at or near their red line (like tractors, generators, air compressors, etc).


In your example, ([email protected] vs [email protected]) I cannot pick based on that data, as I don't know the curve. Is 2000 or 4000 the max RPM? . I'm certain the 2000 rpm retains most of it's tq at 4000rpm, but I don't know if the 4000RPM one started off at 500ft/lbs or 40ft/lbs. It''s much more complicated than "HP is better", and that's basically why I choose more torque on the street instead of math that needs a torque number in order to exist.

TQ*RPM/5252=HP

The red line on a large truck is close to 2000rpm, so clearly that's enough to pull a big load up a large hill. (Cat C-15 turbo RPM limit is 2100)
 

808matt

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matt
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
201
Reaction score
239
Location
Hawaii
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4 Sport Package, 2015 f450 Bucket Truck
I just want diesel for the turbo spool
 

Advertisement






Advertisement






Advertisement


Top