Advertisement



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

Oregon Comrade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
108
Reaction score
66
Location
Portland, OR
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4
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)
Fair enough...I hear ya.

It really comes down to ability to gear within certain parameters and power application. Theory is one thing, where HP is king, application in the real world is more reliant on application or *HP* under curve and torque rise as you point out.

But the reality is, a vehicle with higher HP can be geared (within certain limit) to do the same amount of work...600 hp is 600 hp, 4 cylinder 2.0 liter twin turbo vs Cat C-15...they both (at max power) will provide the same amount of work.

Engines of the same family, like large diesels, all have sim torque rise so are always rated at HP as it pertains to performance.



Advertisement



 
Last edited:

R G

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2018
Messages
21
Reaction score
14
Location
SoCal
Vehicle(s)
35 MG PB thru 2011 R8
If a bigger engine means a bigger standard gas tank, I'm all for it. Would likely still buy a 2.3, but having say 20 gallons instead of 18 would make a meaningful difference in range.
 

RANGER_MARC

Well-Known Member
First Name
MARC
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
614
Reaction score
792
Location
Delaware USA
Vehicle(s)
FORD RANGER LARIAT 2019
Occupation
TEACHER
Vehicle Showcase
1
While it cannot be said that our current 2.3 lacks power, whether defined as HP or torque, and in Sport (or "Superman" mode, as I call it), it really rocks on the freeway, I would definitely trade my 2019 for a next-generation Ranger (or Ranger Raptor) that packs a 2.7, 3.3, or 3.5, just because you can never have too much power. I myself always drive responsibly, that is, only slightly above the posted limits, consistent with the flow of traffic, respectful of other drivers, but for merging, passing, and getting the hell out of the way if you are ever caught between two weaving semi's, it is better to more power rather than less. Just like your savings account, you may never dip into it, but you want to have the resources available when you need them! I agree with R.G. that finding a little more tank space, say, twenty gallons, would be a plus as well, not to mention an improved suspension, with more control and cushioning, eliminating the "Ranger Bounce"!
 

LIMITY

Active Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
36
Reaction score
36
Location
Washington State
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger
If a bigger engine means a bigger standard gas tank, I'm all for it. Would likely still buy a 2.3, but having say 20 gallons instead of 18 would make a meaningful difference in range.
Most definitely this. 18 for a truck, even a smaller one like the Ranger, just isn't enough. Hell, Ford could make that much more money by making the standard f150 gas tank of 24 gallons an option to buy for the Ranger. Call it something snappy like the, oh I don't know, the Ranger Extended Fuel Range option.
 

RedlandRanger

Moderator
First Name
Rob
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
3,173
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger Lariat FX4, 1973 Mercury Capri
Vehicle Showcase
1
Most definitely this. 18 for a truck, even a smaller one like the Ranger, just isn't enough. Hell, Ford could make that much more money by making the standard f150 gas tank of 24 gallons an option to buy for the Ranger. Call it something snappy like the, oh I don't know, the Ranger Extended Fuel Range option.
I think the challenge is where to put it all without making it sit between the frame rails. One of the reasons the storage on the drivers side under the rear seat is smaller is due to the fuel tank. Putting a larger one in would either eliminate that storage area, or make the tank sit below the frame rails probably. But there may also be a creative solution to it. I personally REALLY like the fact that nothing sticks down under the frame rails.

For normal driving, 18 is plenty, IMO. I can get close to 400 miles on a tank with my normal driving. My 2004 Honda only got 300 around town and on highway trips I could squeeze almost 400 out of it. When towing, I can see where a larger tank would be useful, however.
 

2.7EcoBoost

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
201
Reaction score
137
Location
NY
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4 Screw
I had to pull my thoughts together over a 2.7 in the next gen Ranger. In the words of Tim The Tool Man Taylor "we need more power ERRRUH." I would get just so I can tow my camper easier might even get better gas mileage while towing vs the 2.3
I am a big 2.7 fan. Can you tell? I would not trade my Ranger in on a new one simply for the 2.7 tho. I am thoroughly impressed with how effortlessly this 2.3 tows my 5,500-5,700 lb (loaded) TT. I think the 2.7L would do everything easier and it would embarrass anything currently offered in the class, but this 2.3/10 speed wins me over more and more every time I drive it, but especially when I tow. Now, had the 2.7L been an option, yes I would have bought it over the 2.3L as long as it was a reasonably priced option. I really like the "just right" size of this truck. The next gen will grow to be as big or bigger than the Colorado in every measurement. I plan on keeping this truck until I own it. Maybe a next gen in 2025 when I retire??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Advertisement






Advertisement






Advertisement


Top