2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[Dalko43]

What I was meaning was...not much "Eco" in the Ecoboost when it is under load.

Even though the Ranger has more torque, they both did the same job just about equally. Speed, time, fuel consumption. Was assuming the Ranger would of blown the doors off the Taco, but it didn't.

The Toyota engineers have been saying for years there is no real advantage to adding turbos their gas truck engines, maybe they are right.

As you pointed out earlier, the typical gasoline turbo does okay when under moderate to little load....put it under load and not so much.

The torque delivery is definitely there though for the ecoboost family of engines. You're just going to spend a little bit more at the pump to fully utilize all that torque.

I think the main reason for the lack of towing difference between the Tacoma and Ranger is that the Tacoma's 3.5l is a well-made high-reving engine; rev it high and it will produce good horsepower....the problem I have with it, is that down low in the RPM range, the horsepower is lacking.

Honestly, I'd prefer a turbo to NA gasoline in my truck. MPG won't always be great, but you at least have the opportunity for decent half mpg if you drive moderately. I do think the Ranger's EPA ratings will turn out to be a bit inflated, similar to how they were for the F-150 ecoboost. And I'm interested to see if the initial Ranger will have the same injection and turbo issues that the early F-150 ecoboost's did.

 

[Clutch]

@Dalko43

Was curious about how the GM diesel did, so I looked it up.

Slower...slightly better gas mileage, but not much.

 

[Clutch]

As you pointed out earlier, the typical gasoline turbo does okay when under moderate to little load....put it under load and not so much.

The torque delivery is definitely there though for the ecoboost family of engines. You're just going to spend a little bit more at the pump to fully utilize all that torque.

I think the main reason for the lack of towing difference between the Tacoma and Ranger is that the Tacoma's 3.5l is a well-made high-reving engine; rev it high and it will produce good horsepower....the problem I have with it, is that down low in the RPM range, the horsepower is lacking.

Honestly, I'd prefer a turbo to NA gasoline in my truck. MPG won't always be great, but you at least have the opportunity for decent half mpg if you drive moderately. I do think the Ranger's EPA ratings will turn out to be a bit inflated, similar to how they were for the F-150 ecoboost. And I'm interested to see if the initial Ranger will have the same injection and turbo issues that the early F-150 ecoboost's did.

Do believe the Ranger will get better mileage unladen, but not by much.

Yeah, Toyotas have always had high revving engines...still for a lot of us Americans that grew up driving V8's it is hard to come to terms with, however...Toyota has proven time and time again that you can ring the snot out of them, and they keep on coming back for more. I mean, geeze....mine is getting ready to roll 390'000 miles. Unsure a forced induction engine would go that far without major repair. I know it is anecdotal, but from that personal experience be extremely hard for me to leave the Toyota brand.

 

[Dalko43]

@Dalko43

Was curious about how the GM diesel did, so I looked it up.

Slower...slightly better gas mileage, but not much.

Yep, I recall that comparison video.

Heavy towing will degrade any engine's efficiency, however, the 2.8l "duramax" is legitimately capable of +30 mpg on the highway in stock form. The OEM's will likely continue to find ways to optimize the emissions and efficiency of diesels going forward. I honestly don't think gasoline trucks are going to see much more improvement unless they're incorporated into hybrid designs. Toyota is already using direct + port injection as well as part-time atkinson cycle with the Tacoma, and its combined mpg is maybe a 1-2 mpg better (~19 mpg) than the previous generation with the 4.0l v6.

Do believe the Ranger will get better mileage unladen, but not by much.

Purely a guess on my part, since the real world results aren't out yet. The F-150 ecoboost (both the 3.5l and the 2.7l) are known for getting a bit under what the EPA rates them at, at least for the average driver.

 

[Dalko43]

Yeah, Toyotas have always had high revving engines...still for a lot of us Americans that grew up driving V8's it is hard to come to terms with, however...Toyota has proven time and time again that you can ring the snot out of them, and they keep on coming back for more. I mean, geeze....mine is getting ready to roll 390'000 miles. Unsure a forced induction engine would go that far without major repair. I know it is anecdotal, but from that personal experience be extremely hard for me to leave the Toyota brand.

I think the early F-150 ecoboost engines did have reliability issues over the long run, or at least required additional maintenance over a NA v8. However, to Ford's credit, design changes have been made to address some of those issues. Does that mean they'll last just as long as a simple iForce or Coyote v8? Don't know.

But I do believe turbo's will make their way into most gasoline vehicles in order to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of these vehicles.

 

[Buddha.]

I think a situation where the eco boost would really shine is at altitude pulling a high profile trailer into a headwind, a situation that really showed the limitations of my truck. Of coarse in that situation the eco boost would get single digit mpg but oh well.

 

[Clutch]

I think a situation where the eco boost would really shine is at altitude pulling a high profile trailer into a headwind, a situation that really showed the limitations of my truck. Of coarse in that situation the eco boost would get single digit mpg but oh well.

Believe if they did an all out drag race up the pass, (instead of limiting the speed) the Ranger would of smoked the Taco. Maybe throw in a test trying to pass Semi's with a headwind (like you said) on the interstate.

Still think Ford has a winner here with the Ranger, but just not enough to pull dork Toyota fan boys like myself away from "the devil we know". Ya know what I am saying. Of course I am still stuck in the past and refuse to change. Still wish we had manual hubs and the like...

 

[Clutch]

I think the early F-150 ecoboost engines did have reliability issues over the long run, or at least required additional maintenance over a NA v8. However, to Ford's credit, design changes have been made to address some of those issues. Does that mean they'll last just as long as a simple iForce or Coyote v8? Don't know.

But I do believe turbo's will make their way into most gasoline vehicles in order to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of these vehicles.

Yeah, anything is going to have teething issues. Like the 5VZ-FE needing timing belts every 90K, they fixed that with the 1GR-FE.

Turbos seem to finding their way into a lot of cars, I see Honda and VW are now doing it. All of the added components gaining 1-2 mpg here and there. Still pretty amazing how much torque and power that has been added to the modern trucks compared to old, and get decent fuel economy. My old F250 with a 390 got 8-10 mpg no matter what. At least these new trucks are getting low to mid 20's unloaded. Impressive for how big they are.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I think a situation where the eco boost would really shine is at altitude pulling a high profile trailer into a headwind, a situation that really showed the limitations of my truck. Of coarse in that situation the eco boost would get single digit mpg but oh well.

Compare the EcoBoost to any gas motor that gives that amount of power at such a low RPM and you'll soon see that the fuel economy isn't bad.

You guys keep comparing it to vehicles that it flat out obliterates and then ********** about the fuel economy.

My EcoBoost gets 11mpg pulling a my dad's camping trailer doing 70 and it has zero problem accelerating or pulling hills. My Tundra got 9mpg doing 60 and it didn't like hills, on ramps, or passing.

 

[jadmt]

The more I see of the Ranger the less appealing it is to me visually. I think Ford dropped the ball big time on it. I was hoping this would be something I would want but I don't see any advantage of this vs a F150. Come on Bronco lets hope for something really off road worthy.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Believe if they did an all out drag race up the pass, (instead of limiting the speed) the Ranger would of smoked the Taco. Maybe throw in a test trying to pass Semi's with a headwind (like you said) on the interstate.

Still think Ford has a winner here with the Ranger, but just not enough to pull dork Toyota fan boys like myself away from "the devil we know". Ya know what I am saying. Of course I am still stuck in the past and refuse to change. Still wish we had manual hubs and the like...

Well, my guess would be the Ranger would embarrass the competition the same way the F150 EcoBoost did in a similar test.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I think the early F-150 ecoboost engines did have reliability issues over the long run, or at least required additional maintenance over a NA v8. However, to Ford's credit, design changes have been made to address some of those issues. Does that mean they'll last just as long as a simple iForce or Coyote v8? Don't know.

But I do believe turbo's will make their way into most gasoline vehicles in order to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of these vehicles.

Some of the early 3.5's had a problem with timing chain stretch due to a faulty cam chain phaser design. I got 170k out of mine with sero problems. So long as you maintain them and use them and recommended oil they are very reliable

 

[Buddha.]

Compare the EcoBoost to any motor making that gives that amount of power at such a low RPM and you'll soon see that the fuel economy isn't bad.

You guys keep comparing it to vehicles that it flat out obliterates and then ********** about the fuel economy.

My EcoBoost gets 11mpg pulling a my dad's camping trailer doing 70 and it has zero problem acceleratingor pulling hills. My Tundra got 9mpg doing 60 and it didn't like hills, on ramps, or passing.

I'm not complaining about the fuel economy. It has good power so I'd accept the fuel economy as being ok. Range might be a complaint though. My truck gets 13-14 unloaded but it has a 36 gallon tank.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Purely a guess on my part, since the real world results aren't out yet. The F-150 ecoboost (both the 3.5l and the 2.7l) are known for getting a bit under what the EPA rates them at, at least for the average driver.

Yeah...I have noticed that the people who get poor fuel economy out of an EcoBoost either like to be the first vehicle off the line or they laden them down with oversized and heavy wheels/tires.

Or, they for some reason think that they will get steller MPG pushing a 4x4 through the wind at 80mph.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I'm not complaining about the fuel economy. It has good power so I'd accept the fuel economy as being ok. Range might be a complaint though. My truck gets 13-14 unloaded but it has a 36 gallon tank.

Well, it's the same basic motor as the Mustang and they do great.

And daymn... how did you grenade your fuel economy that bad? 3.73 gears and larger tires?