2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[toylandcruiser]

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.

My tundra got 11-12 pulling my land cruiser in a trailer and it would go as fast as I wanted.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

My tundra got 11-12 pulling my land cruiser in a trailer and it would go as fast as I wanted.

Nothing against the Tundra, they are great trucks...buuuut put the same load behind an EcoBoost and it wont even be a comparison.

 

[Clutch]

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

I am sure it would. At the end of the day...I don't drive all that fast or haul/tow anything real heavy. Dirt bikes, camping gear and thats it. The under powered turd Tacoma is more than enough. Toyota's reliability reputation and available manual trans is the only thing that keeps me interested in Toyotas.

Ranger does look good to me, but as TFL Andre said, it comes down to splitting hairs.

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.

Not much advantage mid-sizes offer over 1/2 tons...only thing is a slightly smaller foot print, that some guys like.

Guessing Ford is going to screw up the Bronco....if it is IFS, pretty much will ruin it. And I am a fan of IFS, but think a retro Bronco needs solid axle.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I am sure it would. At the end of the day...I don't drive all that fast or haul/tow anything real heavy. Dirt bikes, camping gear and thats it. The under powered turd Tacoma is more than enough. Toyota's reliability reputation and available manual trans is the only thing that keeps me interested in Toyotas.

Ranger does look good to me, but as TFL Andre said, it comes down to splitting hairs.



Not much advantage mid-sizes offer over 1/2 tons...only thing is a slightly smaller foot print, that some guys like.

Yeah, the lack of a manual definitely sucks. And I do agree that a slightly smaller size is it's only advantage over a full size. It would fit in my garage, while my F150 is to long...lol.

 

[Clutch]

Yeah, the lack of a manual definitely sucks. And I do agree that a slightly smaller size is it's only advantage over a full size. It would fit in my garage, while my F150 is to long...lol.

Do like a lot of the other modern convenience gee-gaws, but not ready to give up a manual trans just yet.

If the Ranger had a manual trans and a N/A V6 option, that might be enough to pull me from Toyota. The Jeep Gladiator has it, but no extra cab 6' bed. Always something!

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Do like a lot of the other modern convenience gee-gaws, but not ready to give up a manual trans just yet.

If the Ranger had a manual trans and a N/A V6 option, that might be enough to pull me from Toyota. The Jeep Gladiator has it, but no extra cab 6' bed. Always something!

Humm...what about a Ranger with 400 HP at the rear wheels? They after market will be hitting them pretty hard here shortly. Brewcity boost will probably build a monster here shortly.

 

[jadmt]

I am sure it would. At the end of the day...I don't drive all that fast or haul/tow anything real heavy. Dirt bikes, camping gear and thats it. The under powered turd Tacoma is more than enough. Toyota's reliability reputation and available manual trans is the only thing that keeps me interested in Toyotas.

Ranger does look good to me, but as TFL Andre said, it comes down to splitting hairs.



Not much advantage mid-sizes offer over 1/2 tons...only thing is a slightly smaller foot print, that some guys like.

Guessing Ford is going to screw up the Bronco....if it is IFS, pretty much will ruin it. And I am a fan of IFS, but think a retro Bronco needs solid axle.

I remember when they hinted that ranger might be a solid axle early on. If the Bronco is IFS it will be a deal breaker for me. I have a jkur (have owned 4 wranglers) and a solid front axle is a must for me. I know IFS works great for most stuff but the ease/cost of lifting a solid front axle to run at least 35's is so much easier and cheaper.

 

[Clutch]

I remember when they hinted that ranger might be a solid axle early on. If the Bronco is IFS it will be a deal breaker for me. I have a jkur (have owned 4 wranglers) and a solid front axle is a must for me. I know IFS works great for most stuff but the ease/cost of lifting a solid front axle to run at least 35's is so much easier and cheaper.

We will see what they will do...the Wrangler needs some competition. Will be shocked if Ford tosses a solid axle under there.

Humm...what about a Ranger with 400 HP at the rear wheels? They after market will be hitting them pretty hard here shortly. Brewcity boost will probably build a monster here shortly.

Cool and all, I seriously don't need that much power...it would only get me into trouble.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Cool and all, I seriously don't need that much power...it would only get me into trouble.

Haha, me too. I got a good tune for mine and a new down pipe and it's really hard not to blister the back tires every time the light turn green. Once I upgrade the turbos it's going to be all kinds of fun

 

[ultraclyde]

We had this discussion on another car forum. Of all the ************** things manufacturers have made us do for simple maintenance this doesn't even rank. As mentioned you should be rotating the tires anyway. With a cheap impact gun I'd rather remove a wheel than drop a skid plate.

 

[Dalko43]

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.

The horsepower that the Tundra actually delivers to the wheels is very comparable to what the F-150 3.5l ecoboost delivers because the Tundra is so over-geared. This compromises the Tundra's mpg's somewhat, but also 9 mpg for a Tundra @ 60 mph either means that you don't know how to drive or that there is something wrong with the truck. Tundra's can easily get mid to high teens on the highway, which is similar to what the 5.0l v8 F-150 gets.

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

Timing chains, turbo's failing and intake valves getting gunked up due to the direct injection....the early ecoboost engines had enough issues that I definitely wouldn't consider buying one used.

You got 170k miles. How far will the next owner get?

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

It's not that hard. You put a load in the bed, tow or just put the engine under decent load (accelerations, headwinds, going up grades, ect.) and the mpg goes down. Combined mpg for the 3.5l ecoboost is maybe 16-17mpg...that's better than the NA V8's, but not by much.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

The horsepower that the Tundra actually delivers to the wheels is very comparable to what the F-150 3.5l ecoboost delivers because the Tundra is so over-geared. This compromises the Tundra's mpg's somewhat, but also 9 mpg for a Tundra @ 60 mph either means that you don't know how to drive or that there is something wrong with the truck. Tundra's can easily get mid to high teens on the highway, which is similar to what the 5.0l v8 F-150 gets.



Timing chains, turbo's failing and intake valves getting gunked up due to the direct injection....the early ecoboost engines had enough issues that I definitely wouldn't consider buying one used.

You got 170k miles. How far will the next owner get?




It's not that hard. You put a load in the bed, tow or just put the engine under decent load (accelerations, headwinds, going up grades, ect.) and the mpg goes down. Combined mpg for the 3.5l ecoboost is maybe 16-17mpg...that's better than the NA V8's, but not by much.

No... 9 mpg at 60 towing a 28' camper and it wasn't at all happy about it. My EcoBoost gets 11 mpg, going faster, and putting forth much less effort and not losing any speed on a hill.

My 3.5 averaged 18-20 (loaded with gear for work) and my 2.7 has a life time average of 20.8.


Question: have you actuailly owned an EcoBoost powered truck or are you relying on Google?

 

[Dalko43]

No... 9 mpg at 60 towing a 28" camper and it wasn't at all happy about it. My EcoBoost gets 11 mpg, going faster, and putting forth much less effort and lot losing any speed on a hill.

Lol, okay I misunderstood what you meant there.

9 vs 11 mpg is a difference, however its not a big difference.

My 3.5 averaged 18-20 and my 2.7 has a life time average of 20.8.


Question: have you actuailly owned an EcoBoost powered truck?

Your averages are not the norm. I've driven the 3.5l plenty (work & play).

I can go find find a 6bt Cummins owner online who always "gets" 25-27mpg....that doesn't mean said result is the norm.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Lol, okay I misunderstood what you meant there.

9 vs 11 mpg is a difference, however its not a big difference.




Your averages are not the norm. I've driven the 3.5l plenty (work & play).

I can go find find a 12bt Cummins owner online who always "gets" 25-27mpg....that doesn't mean said result is the norm.

9 mpg doing 60 and not being able to comfortably hold it up a hill or merge onto the interstate vs. 11 mpg doing 70 and easily holding it up a hill or accelerating is a pretty big difference.

My fuel economy is quite normal. Go look at any EcoBoost forum or group on Facebook and you will find no shortage of people getting similar numbers. You have to remember not everyone is driving a lifted 4x4 with oversized tired and a metric ton of "expo" ******** bolted to it.

 

[Clutch]

We had this discussion on another car forum. Of all the ************** things manufacturers have made us do for simple maintenance this doesn't even rank. As mentioned you should be rotating the tires anyway. With a cheap impact gun I'd rather remove a wheel than drop a skid plate.

On my truck, you have to remove the splash guard to get to the filter. Those plastic fasteners really aren't supposed to removed very often and tend to break, it would be every 5-6 weeks in my case as I change every 3000. Easier and faster to hit the skidplate bolts with a 1/4" cordless impact wrench. At least it is for me it is. As they say, different strokes for different folks.

I rotate the tires every other oil change. Even then don't want to fuss with the splash guard.

On the new 3rd gen Tacomas there is an access panel on the TRD skid to get to the filter. And only 4 bolts holding on a stock one.

The cartridge filter is indeed BS, but there is a fix for that.