2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[nickw]

The main benefit of the engine is not as much mileage related as it is drive-ability / torque curve, which is fairly impressive relative to the V6's out there. It's close to the diesels with how it drives, albeit with a bit less overall torque, but it comes on quick.

To get the same torque out of the V6's, they'd need to be boosted and/or upsized significantly to get it...at the expense of mileage.

YMMV of course - but for true diesel drive-ability in the US the EcoBoost is where it's at and IMHO is the safer bet relative to any of the new diesels. I wouldn't touch any of the newer diesel personally after living the debacle with a VW....they are much more complicated with the various emissions requirements, overseas Toyotas included (unless it's a stripped down LC).

Overseas Hilux's are getting 21-24 mpg - fairly insignificant gains when all costs are factored in relative to the 'petrol' versions....

 

[Todd780]

I will be surprised if we get the same the Ranger as the rest of the world. I hope we do but I will be surprised.

I won't be. I believe this Ranger was a stop gap measure to get a mid size truck out to a suddenly competitive market. I think they have intention to bring the next Ranger over sooner.

I'm thinking maybe a year or two after it goes on sale to the rest of the world. From what I understand, the Bronco platform will be based on the next Ranger, not the 2019 model. So the world Ranger platform should be being developed with the North American market in mind.

 

[nickw]

You're probably right. Still wish Ford would have included an option for a naturally aspirated V6 and a diesel. That might have helped make it more competitive to the Tacoma and Colorado. Maybe they will offer a diesel on the next version which is supped to be due in 2022?

It's more than competitive, from a drive-ability perspective, particularly pulling hills with a load....

 

[Todd780]

I wouldn't touch any of the newer diesel personally after living the debacle with a VW....they are much more complicated with the various emissions requirements, overseas Toyotas included (unless it's a stripped down LC).

Agree with you there.

However there does seem to be a market for diesels in trucks smaller than a 3/4 ton.

 

[nickw]

I won't be. I believe this Ranger was a stop gap measure to get a mid size truck out to a suddenly competitive market. I think they have intention to bring the next Ranger over sooner.

I'm thinking maybe a year or two after it goes on sale to the rest of the world. From what I understand, the Bronco platform will be based on the next Ranger, not the 2019 model. So the world Ranger platform should be being developed with the North American market in mind.

That is what worried me and why I wanted the 'old' version.....concerned that the new one will be too softened up....

 

[Wallygator]

That would be cool and I hope you are right. That would mean it will probably have more than one motor option also. I'm thinking diesel cuz the Chevy is doing pretty good with theirs.

 

[Todd780]

That is what worried me and why I wanted the 'old' version.....concerned that the new one will be too softened up....

Possibly? Hopefully not though. Who knows what Ford will do, lol.

I think when the time comes to replace my F150 I'll be looking at the Gladiator, Ranger and Tacoma. So, what they offer then....

 

[Wallygator]

Possibly? Hopefully not though. Who knows what Ford will do, lol.

I think when the time comes to replace my F150 I'll be looking at the Gladiator, Ranger and Tacoma. So, what they offer then....

Yeah I may just not even look for any efficiency and just go for a vehicle that will last the rest of my life. Be done with all this. One more and done. Maybe something like a new Godzilla powered F350

 

[Dalko43]

The main benefit of the engine is not as much mileage related as it is drive-ability / torque curve, which is fairly impressive relative to the V6's out there. It's close to the diesels with how it drives, albeit with a bit less overall torque, but it comes on quick.

To get the same torque out of the V6's, they'd need to be boosted and/or upsized significantly to get it...at the expense of mileage.

YMMV of course - but for true diesel drive-ability in the US the EcoBoost is where it's at and IMHO is the safer bet relative to any of the new diesels. I wouldn't touch any of the newer diesel personally after living the debacle with a VW....they are much more complicated with the various emissions requirements, overseas Toyotas included (unless it's a stripped down LC).

I don't think anyone disputes the torque advantage. I'd argue that these turbo gasoline engines are still a ways off from offering true "diesel-like" performance, but certainly they offer better low-end torque compared to most conventional v6's and v8's. These ecoboosts are somewhere in between naturally aspirated gasoline engines and turbodiesels in terms of torque ouput, but they're also somewhere in between the two in terms of complexity: direct + port injection; injectors, turbo-chargers (and all the associated plumbing); ect. A lot of newer gasoline engines are also starting to integrate EGR, stop-start, cylinder de-activation and rely increasingly on complex timing strategies to achieve the efficient fuel combustion. HCCI and other complicated strategies are on the horizon for gasoline engines too.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "simple" engine in this modern era; rather there are varying degrees of complexity. The ecoboost engines are certainly complex compared to even modern v6's and v8's; the modern diesels probably more so. There have been some diesel breakdown's that have left people stranded on the side of the road; there have also been ecoboost breakdowns as well. Any discussion over which engine type is going to be a safer bet over the long run becomes nitpicking after a certain point....modern engines are more efficient, more clean, and more powerful compared to their predecessors, but there is a price (literal and figurative) to pay for that technology.

My take is that if I'm going to deal with gasoline's mediocre efficiency, I might as well use an engine that has a bit less complexity. An appropriately-geared v8 can still offer very good low-end torque (Tundra)...perhaps not as much low-end as the F-150's 3.5l ecoboost, but still more than sufficient for the purposes of a truck. The Ranger seems to be alone in the low-end torque department within the midsized segment...except for the 2.8l diesel Colorado which still takes the cake both in terms of efficiency and torque delivery.

I just don't see the point in buying a more complicated and more expensive gasoline engine that is trying to be "diesel-like." If you want "diesel-like" performance, just get a truck with a diesel engine; that technology has a proven track record within the truck industry at this point.

Overseas Hilux's are getting 21-24 mpg - fairly insignificant gains when all costs are factored in relative to the 'petrol' versions....

21-24 mpg in combined driving. Heck, the 2.8l diesel Colorado can get about the same in combined driving and north of 30 mpg on the highway, despite all of the emissions systems in place. Based on what I've seen so far, I just don't think gasoline engines are anywhere close to rivaling that.

And yes, those diesels, even the overseas ones, do cost more to maintain and operate compared to petrol engines (at least in the short term)...but plenty of consumers flock to dealerships and hand over their hard-earned money for those diesels, especially in the truck/suv segments. Why? Likely for the same reason that so many consumers here in North American opt for the 5.7l iForce v8 over the 4.6l v8 in the Tundra, or the 3.5l ecoboost over the 2.7l in the F-150, or BMW's inline-6 S55 engine over the base N55 engine. People who want more performance are willing to pay more.

 

[nickw]

I don't think anyone disputes the torque advantage. I'd argue that these turbo gasoline engines are still a ways off from offering true "diesel-like" performance, but certainly they offer better low-end torque compared to most conventional v6's and v8's. These ecoboosts are somewhere in between naturally aspirated gasoline engines and turbodiesels in terms of torque ouput, but they're also somewhere in between the two in terms of complexity: direct + port injection; injectors, turbo-chargers (and all the associated plumbing); ect. A lot of newer gasoline engines are also starting to integrate EGR, stop-start, cylinder de-activation and rely increasingly on complex timing strategies to achieve the efficient fuel combustion. HCCI and other complicated strategies are on the horizon for gasoline engines too.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "simple" engine in this modern era; rather there are varying degrees of complexity. The ecoboost engines are certainly complex compared to even modern v6's and v8's; the modern diesels probably more so. There have been some diesel breakdown's that have left people stranded on the side of the road; there have also been ecoboost breakdowns as well. Any discussion over which engine type is going to be a safer bet over the long run becomes nitpicking after a certain point....modern engines are more efficient, more clean, and more powerful compared to their predecessors, but there is a price (literal and figurative) to pay for that technology.

My take is that if I'm going to deal with gasoline's mediocre efficiency, I might as well use an engine that has a bit less complexity. An appropriately-geared v8 can still offer very good low-end torque (Tundra)...perhaps not as much low-end as the F-150's 3.5l ecoboost, but still more than sufficient for the purposes of a truck. The Ranger seems to be alone in the low-end torque department within the midsized segment...except for the 2.8l diesel Colorado which still takes the cake both in terms of efficiency and torque delivery.

I just don't see the point in buying a more complicated and more expensive gasoline engine that is trying to be "diesel-like." If you want "diesel-like" performance, just get a truck with a diesel engine; that technology has a proven track record within the truck industry at this point.





21-24 mpg in combined driving. Heck, the 2.8l diesel Colorado can get about the same in combined driving and north of 30 mpg on the highway, despite all of the emissions systems in place. Based on what I've seen so far, I just don't think gasoline engines are anywhere close to rivaling that.

And yes, those diesels, even the overseas ones, do cost more to maintain and operate compared to petrol engines (at least in the short term)...but plenty of consumers flock to dealerships and hand over their hard-earned money for those diesels, especially in the truck/suv segments. Why? Likely for the same reason that so many consumers here in North American opt for the 5.7l iForce v8 over the 4.6l v8 in the Tundra, or the 3.5l ecoboost over the 2.7l in the F-150, or BMW's inline-6 S55 engine over the base N55 engine. People who want more performance are willing to pay more.

Well thought out post. Regarding the part in BOLD, I'm coming at it from a different angle....in my eyes the only complication the ecoboost has over a n/a petrol are the turbos, which is a well established and sorted system. I'd rather have a powerband someplace in the middle of a n/a V6 and a diesel, but less complexity than a diesel and a much sportier drive.

Just to be clear, I'm not justifying my purchase, I purchased based on what I could justify. I struggled with this same decision on the F150 I almost bought also, the new diesel (nope) the V8 or the Ecoboost - I probably would have opted for the 3.5 EB, but I'll be honest, the V8 was not far behind.

The VW I had with the 2.0 was incredible....but so many horror stories when it came to all the crazy emissions systems and big $$ to replace, sometimes at 70k sometimes at 150k.

Auto stop start - drives me nuts, I installed an eliminator, my first mod!

Those Aussies LOVE american cars though - I spent some time there last year and they'd give their left arm for our HiPo petrol trucks. I saw a US Spec Raptor in Melbourne - quite the attention getter....

 

[Dalko43]

Well thought out post. Regarding the part in BOLD, I'm coming at it from a different angle....in my eyes the only complication the ecoboost has over a n/a petrol are the turbos, which is a well established and sorted system. I'd rather have a powerband someplace in the middle of a n/a V6 and a diesel, but less complexity than a diesel and a much sportier drive.

Just to be clear, I'm not justifying my purchase, I purchased based on what I could justify. I struggled with this same decision on the F150 I almost bought also, the new diesel (nope) the V8 or the Ecoboost - I probably would have opted for the 3.5 EB, but I'll be honest, the V8 was not far behind.

The VW I had with the 2.0 was incredible....but so many horror stories when it came to all the crazy emissions systems and big $$ to replace, sometimes at 70k sometimes at 150k.

Auto stop start - drives me nuts, I installed an eliminator, my first mod!

Turbo's, early ecoboosts had direct injection which come with their own can of worms, but are somewhat mitigated by Ford's recent switch to direct + port injection. Auto stop/start. A lot stuff on the horizon though which promises to add even more complexity and even greater potential for breakdown....all in the name of less pollution (which is a noble cause but sometimes executed with little foresight).

I can't fault anyone for getting addicted to that low-end torque. I've driven enough turbo gasoline vehicles to understand that attraction. In my mind, a well-designed and appropriately geared v8 offers adequate low-end torque while still keeping the complexity to a minimum. The Ranger's ecoboost certainly is in a league of its own within the gasoline midsized market. I think the biggest unknown's are the engine's and vehicle's overall reliability. For as mediocre as the Tacoma's 3.5l v6 is, its the platform's and engine's reliability that has helped sell boat-loads of Tacoma's over the years.

Those Aussies LOVE american cars though - I spent some time there last year and they'd give their left arm for our HiPo petrol trucks. I saw a US Spec Raptor in Melbourne - quite the attention getter....

I'm sure there is a little bit of lusting for what you can't have going on over there...but I think for the most part, they are perfectly content with their diesel Landcruiser's, Hilux's and Rangers. They do in fact have some gasoline options over there (FJ Cruisers, LC Prado's, Patrols)...the diesel variants largely outsell the gasoline variants. Outside of the 3/4 and 1 ton market segments, that trend has been slow to catch on here in North America, largely due to marketing and consumer perceptions IMHO.

 

[Todd780]

Yeah I may just not even look for any efficiency and just go for a vehicle that will last the rest of my life. Be done with all this. One more and done. Maybe something like a new Godzilla powered F350

I hear ya. If we end up replacing our tent trailer with a larger bumper pull, I may end up in the gas 3/4 ton category. Hoping to downsize but, we will see when the time comes.

 

[nickw]

Turbo's, early ecoboosts had direct injection which come with their own can of worms, but are somewhat mitigated by Ford's recent switch to direct + port injection. Auto stop/start. A lot stuff on the horizon though which promises to add even more complexity and even greater potential for breakdown....all in the name of less pollution (which is a noble cause but sometimes executed with little foresight).

I can't fault anyone for getting addicted to that low-end torque. I've driven enough turbo gasoline vehicles to understand that attraction. In my mind, a well-designed and appropriately geared v8 offers adequate low-end torque while still keeping the complexity to a minimum. The Ranger's ecoboost certainly is in a league of its own within the gasoline midsized market. I think the biggest unknown's are the engine's and vehicle's overall reliability. For as mediocre as the Tacoma's 3.5l v6 is, its the platform's and engine's reliability that has helped sell boat-loads of Tacoma's over the years.




I'm sure there is a little bit of lusting for what you can't have going on over there...but I think for the most part, they are perfectly content with their diesel Landcruiser's, Hilux's and Rangers. They do in fact have some gasoline options over there (FJ Cruisers, LC Prado's, Patrols)...the diesel variants largely outsell the gasoline variants. Outside of the 3/4 and 1 ton market segments, that trend has been slow to catch on here in North America, largely due to marketing and consumer perceptions IMHO.

Jury is still out on the 3.5L at this point in a 'heavier' duty application and not comparable to anything in the 1st or 2nd gens or the history of longevity from those platforms, time will tell though. Remember those older V6's were dropped in overseas Hilux's/Prado's and LC's showing Toyota's design intent...the newer 3.5L was an evolution of the car based Lexus engine, FWIW. I was super disappointed with how high it had to be revved and the general driveability, but that is subjective.

Could say the same for the EcoBoost to a certain extent, car based, but HiPo, time will tell.

But I think in general, it's a proven global platform that has tweaks for the US market which are based on platforms that have a history here in the US. Rear axle - same as new Jeep Rubicon, Trans - F150, 2.3L - truckified version of Focus RS/Mustrang, Tcase - global ranger, frame/body - global ranger, front suspension - global ranger, etc.

As for Diesel not catching on here vs petrol overseas, I think it's a complex subject, based on supply, demand, state and government limitations....intermixed with a lot of politics. I think from a reliability standpoint, petrol = diesel now. There are a handful of 1HZ diesels still roaming around, but gone are the days of the 3B, 2H, 13BT's, etc.

 

[Desmontes]

I love my ZR2 diesel at about 18K miles. Stock suspension, tires etc. with lots of overlanding add-ons (Leitner rack and boxes, Decked, FrontRunner racks front and rear, etc. Even when not loaded up, didn't get close to 30 hwy. Getting about 23 combined country living now. I'll do a total delete as soon as warrantee expires - if it makes it that far. Had the emission control system catch fire at about 54K mi. on my '14 Grand Cherokee Diesel and was in the shop for weeks. Sold it as soon as I got it back. Just got notice today of the $3K compensation Jeep is giving to current and former owners of the JGC diesels. I won't buy a Jeep again. I also had a '12 Rubicon that had the cylinder head replaced when it was a few months old. I just don't like the looks of the Ranger, all other considerations aside.

 

[Dalko43]

Jury is still out on the 3.5L at this point in a 'heavier' duty application and not comparable to anything in the 1st or 2nd gens or the history of longevity from those platforms, time will tell though. Remember those older V6's were dropped in overseas Hilux's/Prado's and LC's showing Toyota's design intent...the newer 3.5L was an evolution of the car based Lexus engine, FWIW. I was super disappointed with how high it had to be revved and the general driveability, but that is subjective.

My observation is that all of the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks are still relying on NA V8's, at least for the gasoline engines. Even the new design put out by Ford is using that proven formula. I think for largely the same reason that Toyota still relies on a v8 with its Tundra: the fuel economy advantage is mostly a wash when under load and the torque delivery can still be very good for the v8 with the appropriate gearing. I guess that has influenced me to see the turbo gasolines within the 1/2 ton and midsized truck markets as more of a way to attract car people into the truck community rather than to offer a substantial improvement in terms of mpg.

NA v6's might be on their way out, they might not. I suspect the Tacoma's 3.5l Atkinson cycle v6 will probably eek out similar mpg #'s to the Ranger's inline 4 ecoboost. With that said, the Tacoma 3.5l v6 is certainly lacking in low-end torque, so I don't know for how long Toyota will stick with that strategy.

I acknowledge that turbo gasoline engines will continue to trend in the CUV and sedan world; I'm just not sure they will see the same level of application in the truck world.

As for Diesel not catching on here vs petrol overseas, I think it's a complex subject, based on supply, demand, state and government limitations....intermixed with a lot of politics. I think from a reliability standpoint, petrol = diesel now. There are a handful of 1HZ diesels still roaming around, but gone are the days of the 3B, 2H, 13BT's, etc.

I think gasoline engines are quickly starting to rival diesels in terms of complexity in emissions, induction and combustion strategies. I also think diesel industry is on the verge of realizing technological breakthroughs which potentially could offer huge improvements in emissions and efficiency. Political winds and business strategies will likely be deciding factors in whether or not those technologies stay popular. Anyone who is definitively claiming that one technology will be dominant while another one will be dead in 10 years is relying on wild assumption rather than educated guess...technology is evolving at the rapid rate compared to 10-15 years ago.