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

[AzScorpion]

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

Sponsored

 

[VAMike]

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]

How many years till next gen?

I'm going with 2022 model.

 

[Stevie Gee]

From today’s Autoblog.com:
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/09/ford-ranger-v6-ecoboost-engine/

 

[Deleted member 773]

I just want to roast the tires at will.....no such thing as too much power

Right? It’s not too much to ask for..

 

[Roofhopper]

A Ranger with twin turbo V6 would be just plain stupid with the power to weight ratio.... I want one

 

[Fjsteven]

length isn't the issue, width is. and if you make the ranger wider, you get an f150.

Or a Ranger Raptor........

 

[LIMITY]

After a month under my belt of driving the the 2.3, I'd be slightly terrified of a Ranger in sport mode with the 2.7.

 

[ChaEJF]

From today’s Autoblog.com:
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/09/ford-ranger-v6-ecoboost-engine/

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.

 

[t4thfavor]

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]

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]

A Ranger with twin turbo V6 would be just plain stupid with the power to weight ratio.... I want one

Me Too !!!

 

[Oregon Comrade]

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]

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, (400@2000RPM vs 400@4000RPM) 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]

I just want diesel for the turbo spool

Sponsored