• American 2019 Ford Ranger: Here is Everything There is to Know! (Video)

    [Photo: Ford]
    Fresh from the 2018 Detroit Auto Show is the all-new, back-from-the-dead, American 2019 Ford Ranger. Ford’s midsize truck offering has been gone from the U.S. dealership showrooms for about seven years, but with the truck market as hot as it is right now, Ford had to capitalize. We don’t know everything yet, but here is everything that we know so far.

    [Photo: Ford]


    There is only one powertrain option on the 2019 Ford Ranger. That is a 2.3L turbocharged four-cylinder EcoBoost engine. This is paired to a 10-speed automatic transmission which sends power to either the rear wheels or a 4×4 system. While Ford has not disclosed the power figures for this exact truck-specific engine, a similar version in the Mustang makes 310 horsepower and 350 lb-ft of torque. However, the engine will be re-tuned for this truck and may have slightly different numbers. Fuel economy numbers have not been released as of yet.

    [Photo: Ford]


    While Ford has not yet announced the max payload, max towing, and most other technical specifications – we know that the 2019 Ranger will offer radar-based blind spot detection system with trailer coverage for trailers up to 33-feet in length. A similar system is available of the Ford F-150 and the Super Duty.


    The new Ranger comes with a slew of technology features that are seen on many trucks in this segment today. Automatic emergency braking is standard on all trim levels while Lane Keep Assist, Lane Departure Warning, a Reverse Sensing System and Blind Spot Information System with trailer coverage are standard on XLT and Lariat trim levels. Pedestrian Detection and Adaptive Cruise Control are also on the Lariat trim.

    Trim Levels and Appearance Packages

    The Ranger will come in the usual Ford trim levels: XL, XLT, and Lariat. Furthermore, there will be a number of appearance packages including the Chrome and Sport packages. Two cab options exist as well, a crew cab with a short bed and an extended cab with a long bed. The package that we are most interested in is the FX4 off-road package.

    [Photo: Ford]

    FX4 Off-Road Package

    Ford’s famous off-road truck treatment has made its way onto the new Ranger. In this case, it includes steel skid plates, specially tuned shocks, and a tricky Terrain Management System. Furthermore, it includes a lifted suspension and a system called Trail Control. Effectively a program for off-roading that acts like a cruise control for low speeds (up to 20 MPH).

    Pricing has not yet been announced yet, but the production release date has been set for early 2019 calendar year.

    To hear Andre explain everything in-depth, please be sure to watch the whole video. Also be sure to stay tuned to TFLtruck and TFLnow for more news about the new 2019 Ford Ranger and more coverage of the 2018 Detroit Auto Show!

    Similar Articles

    270 thoughts on “American 2019 Ford Ranger: Here is Everything There is to Know! (Video)

    1. “There is only one powertrain option on the 2019 Ford Ranger. That is a 2.3L turbocharged four-cylinder EcoBoost engine. ”

      Seriously? No 2.7? No diesel? Practically no visible difference from the T6?

      Ford, what on EARTH took you 3 years to prepare this? I’m honestly let down, was looking forward to a 2.7EB Ranger.

      Seems ford was too worried that the ranger would be too close to the F-150

      1. Drrrrmmmmuuuh,
        They said the above truck is just a preproduction vehicle.
        So, uh, that means its just a concept vehicle.
        And uh, urrrr, that means it won’t ever actually be produced.

      2. This truck is “Pre-production.” When the final production version is announced, perhaps Ford will surprise us with the 2.7L we are all craving. That said, there is a probably a bit of CAFE influence here. Trucks have to meet the MPG figure, and soon. Lack of a larger engine beyond the 2.3L in a medium sized truck helps. Still, I’m disappointed and only one engine gives the impression of not being fully committed to the product.

      3. Today trucks are getting larger in size, the midsize are full size now and $50,000 no thanks, why can’t they make a small pu that fits in a garage and you can use it as a daily commute, my 80s s10 was perfect I wish I had it today.

        1. Ranger, “back from the dead”.

          Well, the old ones(that are still running), are still barely alive and killing their occupants.

          Ranger, “back from the dead”. Yep, I know a lot of people with dead Rangers, especially if they bought the automatic transmission and towed with it.

          Well, at least it will fit on the trails better–if you dare go too far out away from a tow truck in this thing.

          Notice they made the grill quite a bit like the Tacoma, to fool consumers into thinking they were buying a reliable mid-sized truck.

          And no, it is all steel, except for hood and tailgate.

          Smaller vehicles just don’t get the goodies. Too expensive to build that in.

          GM tried it with the original Saturn models with all aluminum space frames and plastic fenders, which were only found on cars over $60,000 at the time.

          Stupid consumers didn’t appreciate the fact that they only paid $10,000 for an efficient reliable car that would not rust away.

          So GM just could not afford to keep that up and started making junky steel Saturns after that to cut costs.

          1. Bull sh!t I have a 2001 4×4 4 Ranger with 4.0 v6 now with 405,000 miles on the odometer ,you never owned one you have no f**king clue what your taking about I had a car Hitler trailer and hauled my other ranger when I moved from Iowa to south Florida with no problems what so ever ,so stop reading fake news

            1. Hal spews negativity for many vehicles under his dozen or so usernames. Most of his criticism is entirely unfounded, and without experience, just as it is here.

              The Ranger was a very good vehicle. Crude and unrefined by today’s standards, but much better than an S-10. The 4.0L V6 was a strong long lasting engine, and the transmission was fine. Look how many millions of Explorers used this same successful drivetrain. I’m not surprised you’ve had good luck with your Ranger.

            2. The 4.0L was a major gas guzzler and the power was unimpressive but it was reliable. Way more reliable than some of the newer engines Ford is putting out. The wife’s Flex just had a water pump fail. I guess Ford is putting the water pump behind the timing chain cover like Chrysler did on their old 2.7L V6. coolant leaked into the oil and sludged it up. I loved the Duratec up until this happened. Why would anybody think that’s a good place for a water pump. It even muffles the sound enough to make it difficult to hear the pump failing. The older Ford V6’s weren’t as efficient but at least they were designed right.

              This Ranger looks great and I would love buy one but Ford needs a good solid naturally aspirated V6. Like an updated 4.0 for example.

          2. Perhaps, in a couple years when you finally get a drivers permit, you might find yourself driving an old ranger, and realize why people liked them so much.

            Old rangers were tanks. a bit cramped, but tanks that could be modded to the moon and back.

            1. Your memory does not line up with the reality. They were not good trucks. I mean, if you were 17 they were fine but a lot of times people’s memories of something are far more fond then they should be.

            2. German tanks. The engine and trannies were contracted to Germany. The manual was good. The automatic just could not tow in mountains, or it would melt. Same for the explorer that had that same automatic.
              I know a mechanic who had a tow truck and would follow them up the mountain if he saw them towing significant weight. He had to tow them home every time.

            3. @MichaelAllan Based on what? They were durable, they could haul a decent amount, they performed well even when overloaded, they were easy to fix when they did break, and seeing how many are still around, a lot of people liked them.

              In what way was the old ranger not a “good truck”?

            4. Troverman ,its your opinion not a fact of ranger being better than s-10s.Last time I checked ranger has been in hiatus.s10/colorado still on the highways..4.0 3.8 were average engine with recalls up the butt..4.3 is still being built and very reliable..Theres a reason explorer were called exploders ,very medicore at best, all the ranger was a rebadged Mazda midsize pickup.Which til this day pretty much last on Japanese automobiles in reliability.This new ranger looks ok but already dated I’ve seen many come across our San Diego border,Colorado and Toyotas have nothing to worry about imho..

    2. I don’t get the fascination with these econobox trucks. All of them are pieces of crap, cheap looking, small and marginally better on fuel or cheaper than a full size. Congratulations Ford on bringing yet another skinny jean millennial truck to clog up the roads like everyone else has done.

      1. Clearly you have never driven a truck in a city with narrow roads. Mid size trucks are significantly easier to maneuver.

        Also, given the durability of nissan frontiers, and the capability offroad of tacomas and chevy colorados, calling them “pieces of crap” reeks of full size fanboi. Worried that other drivers are not as obsessed with over-compensation as yourself?

        1. The pieces of crap comes from them not getting anywhere near the attention the fullsize trucks get. Midsize trucks have a lot of compromises the full-sized trucks don’t have, like powertrain and interior quality for example.

          If they continue to get more popular, they’ll get better. People already expect to pay a lot less fir a truck that doesn’t cost much less to make.

      1. You were right about the engines, or lack thereof, Rambro. Wow. Just enough but not too much for the midsize market. The truck looks good but only one engine choice? Epic fail.

        1. We have not seen any towing specs / 0-60 yet. Many of us thought that the 2.7tt would be weak in the F150 but look how that turned out. The 2.3tt will do MORE than fine in a lighter truck.

          It will still be stronger than any of the car-like V6s found in GM and Toyota midsizers.

          1. The updated V6 in the 2017 GM midsizers has a lot more grunt than the previous version of the 3.6. The 2.3 EB will definitely perform great, but don’t expect the same power numbers the 2.3 EB makes in the Mustang. Those power numbers are based on 93 octane. Car engines are also tuned much differently than truck engines. The Ranger’s 2.3 EB has to be tuned to run 87 octane while also being able to meet J2807. That means pulling its max tow capacity up a steep grade in high heat conditions for a pretty long duration. That kind of heat, with a turbo I4 running 87 octane fuel, is going to require a conservative tune.

        2. Yup, thanks Moondog, Ford is protecting F150 sales rather than bringing customers a better midsize truck and the consumer suffers.

          Resale on this truck will be terrible, no one in their right mind def dumb and stupid will buy a turbo 4cyl unless its cheap.

          This is what will happen. Auto journalists will give it a great review and it will beat or be very close to the 0-60 of a Ridgeline, Coloado, etc. It might even get MT truck of the year award just because those guys prostitute anything that is new. For the few of us who know and read that the turbo 4cyl can compete with a V6 still wont want it due to resale and reliabilty concerns and the people at the hairdressers who know nothing will be talking and say “I cant decide if I want the Ford Ranger”. Friend will say “It is only a 4cyl yeck”. Other friend realizes they are now going to go look at a Tacoma or a Colorado and Ford never gets them on their lot.

          These current truck companies are in an old monopoly of bragging rights and it hurts the consumer. Ford is protecting half ton sales so you get a bastard midsize truck again and the consumer loses.
          This is why we need companies like Tesla, Bollinger and Workhorse. We need them to break up this old monopoly in the truck industry or we are forever stuck with prehistoric garbage.

        3. I was pretty confident the 2.3 Ecoboost would be the only Ecoboost available in this truck, but I was expect Ford to still offer a Duratec V6. I’m shocked that Ford held back as much as they did here. They offer an absurd number of engines in the F-150 yet just one option here. I’m disappointed.

          1. Rambro and Brick. Ford just dropped a really nice looking midsize truck. Someone in Ford recognized it right away. That someone was apparently the head of the F-150 team. I’m sure they concluded they had to make sure that there would be no reason to cross shop these trucks – and they did. The 2.3 is a good engine but this truck, especially in higher trim levels, deserves more. Midsize shoppers deserve more. This also shows me that GM seems more serious about the word trucks than Ford. Ford seems to be acting like a beauty queen that is more afraid of losing her crown (make that fullsize sales crown here) than selling a diverse portfolio of trucks. Toyota offers 2 engines and GM offers 3 in their midsize trucks. Ford’s big counter move is a one size fits all turbo 4? No thank you. I’ll stick with my Tacoma with it’s weird power curve and SUV engine. I would have been a buyer of this truck with more engine choices. After sleeping for 2 nights in my Tacoma on my hunting land that fullsize truck option is looking better every day. Ford could have come in and dominated this section but they are too afraid of losing that fullsize sales crown. Now they are running to gym class trying to find out which pick they will be on the team today. Who knows because they blend so well with the crowd?

            1. I agree 100% Moondog. I believe the Ford Explorer is a great example. It has the 3.5EB with 350HP and Ford could not even add the 2.7 in fear of canibalizing F150 sales. And this does not mean they lose it just means they lose bragging rights. They offer a competitive SUV and no one cares who sells more as they all try to out do each other. Not the case for trucks. The consumer in the midsize truck market continues to suffer for bragging rights. Cant wait to never buy another truck from these big five trucking companies ever again. I will dedicate the rest of my vehicles be it a truck or a car or SUV to someone else other than these companies. You know I am desperately looking elswhere. Toyota I believe owns 27% of Tesla so maybe my Tundra helps Tesla a bit because Toyota wants them to do well.

            2. I really hope that Ford would do as thy said and not ho,d this truck back. I think less of Hackett for this. They aren’t worried about moving forward. They just want to hold on to what they have. OK, Ford, you have the best selling fullsize truck. McDonald’s also has the best selling hamburger just so we all know. I’m a Ford truck fan and respect what they have done in pushing the market forward but it is clear they aren’t interested in pushing any more. Shopping the midsize market is like going to an ice cream shop that only sells variations of vanilla ice cream.

            3. You make an excellent point. It definitely seems like a case of Ford undermining its own Ranger to protect their F-series. Can’t risk that famous tagline – best selling ‘truck’ for the last xx years. Had the Ranger been named an F-100, you can be certain that it would have more than one engine option. Maybe there was some internal conflict over whether or not even get back into the midsize market. The board probably didn’t like seeing Ford missing out on sales in the booming midsize market but the truck guys at Ford didn’t want to lose potential F-150 sales to a Ranger if it was too good.

              I’m sure the 2.3EB will perform great in the Ranger but I think a lot of guys that were hyped that ot was coming back wanted something a little smaller and with a few more options. The exterior styling is pretty good and the interior definitely tops GM. I don’t think the interior looks as good as the Tacoma’s current interior. I really wanted to see the 2.7EB or even a Duratec V6 option.

            4. Ford just announced a hybrid pickup and are spending 11 billion to upgrade to EV vehicles. Maybe they dont want to put any effort into these trucks anymore. What type of hybrid? Dont know but if it is not electric drive than it is a fail. This Ranger is still a fail. Just as easy to throw a 3.5 into it like they did with the explorer.

    3. There is no way this truck can compete with Colorado and Tacoma. One engine option is a total joke. Should have had at least one v6 and a diesel. Also no crew cab long bed? Does blew it with this truck.

      1. No crew/6 was predictable, as ford doesnt have such an option overseas, seeming to prefer a single frame design. WE are definitely not getting the single cab/7ft though.

        The 2.3 eco can outpower the colorado 3.6L, a and whip the pathetic tacoma pig iron known as the 3.5L. But it seems they phoned in the options as good enough, rather then bringing out the 2.7 eco and crushing them with 400LBs torque.

          1. Oh wow, a google image search. Im shocked.

            Meanwhile, in the realm of those who can actually RESEARCH, there is no ford ranger with a crew cab/long bed. ford australia and mexico have every possible configuration, and there is no crew cab long box.

            The old ranger was an access cab, if you are calling that a crew cab, you are missing a few brain cells.

            1. @Robert

              A DualCab (aka ACCESS CAB) is available with a 6 ft bed in the US. Did you watch the video?

              A CREW CAB is a 4 door, a super/access cab is suicide doors.

    4. Midsize trucks will forever be the bastard child to the 1/2 ton. Told everyone there is no way the Monopoly of Ford, GM, Ram or Toyota will ever let the power to weight ratio of a midsize beat a 1/2 ton. Not even Honda is allowed, it is forbidden. Yet they can take a smaller Trackhawk, smaller in every dimension to that of the ZR2 and stick 707HP in it and let it tow 8700Lbs. But as soon as it gets an open box it becomes the 1/2 tons bastard.

      You guys in the midsize segment including me better pray for someone like Tesla to or Bollinger to shove a boot up the auto industries ass. What a joke. 2 decades of shit. Should never of allowed the bailouts. What a mistake. I want a divorce from the auto industry so bad. I have money but I am so determined to go elswhere other than GM, FCA, Toyota, Honda, or Ford. I dont care what it costs I am done with these idiots. Im putting a grand down for the W15. Sure it will have its own issues but I hate the others. Just down right playing us for hapless saps. Fck them. Im done.

      1. Rambro, that would be absolutely stupid to use 707 Hp on the platform, which can safely handle just 350Hp, like light rear axle midsize truck is.
        The light rear axle would kill everyone around include driver in no time, if you turn off TC and ESC.
        I don’t see a point to get 707Hp in a midsize truck, if TC and ESC constantly cutting down the power to 350Hp level and less , so you can make it safely from the red light ,or through the corner.

        1. Zviera its called traction control and its on every new vehicle so zero spin if traction is exceeded. There is also the option to do what the Ridgeline did and the Trackhawk and offer full time AWD and with traction control you never spin. But I agree 707HP sounds like a lot and socially is unacceptable but when you look at electric drive, not even the Trackhawk can compete with the Tesla SUV. When electric drive becomes mainstream acceleration will no longer be a luxury expensive option to own. Reports are that the Model 3 does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and its cheaper to own than a Civic over a 5 year study. Now Ford could have offered at least 400HP in this segment and still fallen into social acceptance with traction control that cuts engine power if slippage occurs.

          1. Well ,try guess,what TC means in my post. TC will make your 707 Hp Ranger platform running like 350Hp one. Light rear Ranger platform with prehistoric rear axle and leafs can’t handle full 707 Hp safely.
            Trackhawk and Tesla has completely different chassis and weight distribution.
            You missed the point.

            1. Zvierra your point is a mute point. All the ranger needs to do is add AWD full time and the light rear end does not matter, especially with TC.

            2. Really? It’s that easy? Ford doesn’t have a system like that. Especially with leafs to address axle wrap and wheel hop.
              You can’t use the yransfer case and front wheels to do all the 707Hp job.
              Ford simply doesn’t have a chassis and drive lines to handle that.
              Not even system and chassis from Raptor can handle 707 Hp.

            3. Zvierra it is that simple. Wheel hop does not occur with TC. Secondly drive trains do not need to get tougher. Once you exceed traction vs weight vs friction or tire grip then parts dont break because the wheels lose traction or the TC kicks in.

            4. Exactly my point. The TC and ESC would kick in constantly, to put 300 Hp on the road from your 707Hp engine. Completely useless

            5. Zvierra that is not how it works. There are lighter vehicles out there with more hp. You are living in an old era. The trackhawk does not spin tires with AWD. Even a 2wd truck like the SRT 10 with 500HP gets better acceleration times. Any level of HP in todays trucks will break the tires loose if you turn off traction control. You get faster acceleration because rpm does not give you 707 hp the whole time. It depends on gearing and how much throttle you give it. At 60 mph in 2wd pulling a load up the gauntlet you may need 500hp to accelerate at 3000 rpm instead of 500HP at 6000rpm. One engine has max 500Hp at 6000 where the 707HP motor can relax at 500HP. Depending on gearing vs load the truck may need the full 707Hp for a brief max rpm in order to pass. This is the beaty of electric drive. You have one gear and instant power all the time and you still do not lose traction given todays TC systems. You are way off into liberal territory and bias and social stigma. Trucks and cars will be lightning fast in the future. Ford just announced the thrill of V8 sound will be replaced with Mach 1 meaning acceleration and speed like you have never seen in a truck. Tesla has proven this with a car that gets 0-60 in 1.9 seconds for 200 grand cheaper and faster than 2 million dollar hyper cars.

              You are thinking old school when HP broke parts in the past. We are way beyond that now. Acceleration is a tool the industry now uses to charge more and to keep you in a certain buyers bracket. Tesla has changed this. The low HP in the Ranger is a reuse to keep F150 sales in tact. Has nothing to do with the inability to make it stronger, we can fix that for cheap now. Ford is spending 11 billion to change or they will no longer be competitive in the world of EV’s and they better get it right. The entire auto industry is changing because of two people. A US pioneer called Nikola Tesla who originally built the electric motor and Elon Musk who advanced the battery electric car to kill the combustion engine. No longer will you pay ridiculous prices for acceleration. Why you think a Ranger can’t handle power is from years of automotive brainwashing.

    5. It looks like the “Americanized” Ranger is a slightly downmarket version of the Global Ranger. That 2.3 Ecoboost engine was a failure in the now defunct Falcon. Everyone chose the 4 litre Barra engine. US bumpers would fail to pass ADR regulations here. My feeling this would be a lot lighter than the Global Model probably 4000lb or less

        1. The V6s already outpull the diesels easily, the new ecoboost is more powerful.

          The baby duramax has 369lb torque compared to ~320 for the ecoboost, but the eco has 300+ HP compared to your 169.

          The chevy colorado V6 is way faster up the ike then the 2.8 diesel is.

          1. This 2.3 Ecoboost is going to guzzle fuel while pulling it’s max tow rating up Ike. The power numbers the 2.3 EB makes in the Mustang is on 93 octane. The Ranger’s 2.3 EB is going to be tuned to meet J2807 running 87 octane. It won’t be making the same power towing its rated tow capacity up a mountain while running 87 octane.

            The diesel might not race up the mountain, but it’s not chugging nearly as much fuel while doing it either.

    6. Wow!! No diesel or other engine option; no 6′ bed option on the crew cab, and an open front diff!! You’ve just shot you’reselves in both feet!! I wasn’t worried about the Ranger cannilbalizing F-150 sales, but evidently you are!!

      1. @Blueovalblood
        Have to agree Ford has been making very peculiar decisions.
        I know they are playing catch up in the US as regards the Midsize segment but this Ecoboost is a very poor offering on the face of it.

        1. For how long it took Ford to develop it, a Ranger with just one engine option has to be a major disappointment. Especially after the wild rumors about Ford making a Ranger with the 2.7 or even 3.5 EB, no matter how ridiculous that would be.

    7. Andre’, just watched the video again, are you SURE you understood correctly that the FX4 package has an open front diff?! The video show it’s right front wheel spinning/pulling it up the bank and then slowing down after it crests the top. Is this an early April Fool’s joke?

      1. It wouldnt surprise me if it had an open front diff. To my knowledge All other fx4 packages are open front diff and all the trucks on the market are open front diff except the raptor,zr2 and the power wagon.

          1. I dont think so. I have never seen any literature or sites saying such a thing. Just came up empty using google right now. Just a rear locker that only works in low. I have a buddy with one and I doubt it has one it fairs as well as an fx4 in the trails.

      1. Ford would have had to spend a TON of money retooling the Ranger plant to make aluminum bodies. It also took Ford a LOT of money to design the F-series bodies. They could justify it there because they knew they would sell well over 800k of them. They wouldn’t risk spending that amount of money to design and build an all-aluminum Ranger that might not sell more than 150k trucks a year (not saying it won’t sell more than 150k, just that Ford isn’t going to make that big of a bet considering how late they are to the midsize truck revival). I’m surprised Ford didn’t go aluminum on the doors like GM just revealed on their new Silverado.

    8. Michael – – –

      From comments here and my own views, this “trucklet” appears to be unspectacular, to say the least. And not even a manual transmission option!
      Some dour cliches come to mind:
      1) “Me too”
      2) “Too little and too late”
      3) “Behind the eight ball”
      4) “Johnny come lately”

      No doubt it will have a following, but sweep the market this time? No way. Tacoma and Colorado have really gotten that segment wrapped up. The only way this new Ranger could penetrate a fortress like Tacoma would be warfare based on price, IMO….


      1. Agreed. This isn’t a bad truck at all but I feel Ford really needed to have something that blew the competition out of the water in at least one area. There really isn’t anything that stands out here that you couldn’t get in another midsize truck. GM was able to hit the market strong because it was a major improvement over everything else available at the time. I don’t think Ford will be able to replicate the success GM had.

    9. @ Bernie
      Could not agree more. That 2.3 Ecoboost is a real disappointment. Ranger would be nowhere here with that engine ” lineup” here. What is Ford thinking? They have gone from 2nd to 5th in Australia despite the success of the Global Ranger. US now calls the shots here now previously it was Australian management and they seem pretty lost.

      1. As a potential buyer of this truck, I am greatly disappointed. I will not be buying this urban commuter truckette.
        Ford has lost their mind, and they have some idiots working as product planners.
        Whoever is in charge of the ranger program should be fired immediately.
        No v6, no diesel, no crew cab with the
        6’ bed = no sales. If this does 30k units in the first year I would be surprised.
        I will be looking at the Jeep Scrambler mid size truck or the Colorado Diesel.

      1. Don’t get your hopes up over the Ranger’s 2.3 making the same power as the Mustang. Truck versions of engines are typically detuned to deal with the added load they experience. Especially when it’s going to be tuned to do it on 87 octane junk gas.

    10. Lots of people bitching about 1 engine choice. What other engine do you need?

      diesel? too close to F-150 price and GM has it for now. Ford will wait perhaps to see market demand.

      V-6 na? Done by all and alot less power.

      2.7tt? Not really that big of a power difference and perhaps it was a package fitment issue. Also, the 2.3tt may get better mpg on the smaller truck just like the 2.7tt does better than the 3.5tt in the F-150. There could be 20 different reasons.

      Ford came to sell trucks. They chose the engine for a reason regardless of what a few meatheads on the net want.

      Until you see this truck perform in the real world (TFL STYLE!), it is arogant to judge it in any manner.

      1. Some people want the better reliability and long-term durability of a naturally aspirated engine. They could have easily offered a Duratec V6 but they’re turning their back on those customers. That’s a mistake.

        1. I really have to laugh when I see the long term durability of a natural aspirated engine threw out there every time a ecoboost is mentioned. The ecoboost win’s every competition up the ike gauntlet and if for not having to stay at the speed limit will embarrass about every v8 or v6 by a very large margin up the ike.It usually does this at half the rpm of a chevy or fiat.It doesn’t have to turn 6000 rpm’s. Pull the same load every day up the ike and the ecoboost will last twice as long because it’s not working half as hard as a naturally aspirated v8.The ford ecoboost 4 will do the same thing all day long. Wait until the ranger takes on the Toyota and gm twins up the ike and again it will hand those two there ass just like the 2.7 and 3.5 out pull and out run the gm and fiat brands.

          1. Until it breaks down.

            What? no diesel?

            Can’t Ford just drudge up an old Peugot diesel from 1999 and slap a Powerstroke label on it for this Ranger?

            Oh, that would be doing two things at once.

          2. The 3.5 Ecoboost has been plagued with issues for as long as it has been in an F-150. Timing chains, cam phasers, turbo failures, busted rods/pistons, etc. Sure there was that one F-150 in Daniel’s youtube video with 200k miles but there are thousands of threads filled with F-150 owners that have issues with their Ecoboost. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a naturally aspirated engine.

            And it’s a simple matter of fact, the higher the specific output, the faster an engine will wear. Sure you can massively overbuild an engine to make it last as long as tame NA engine, but it would cost way too much for auto manufacturers. Ford could solve the timing chain stretch problem in an instant by gettingbrid of the cheap inverted tooth chain and either going to a gear driven cam design or choosing an extra tough roller chain, but that costs a lot. The same applies to many of the other ecoboost issues.

            1. Na engines all have timing chains, cam phazers, and etc, infact the Ford engine with the longest chain award goes to the 5.0v8.

              Same problems plague all engines running timing chains, eventually they stretch.

              Turbocharged engines are more demanding on their oil so people that don’t service properly or not enough run into problems sooner.

              This is one of the major reasons diesels have much larger oil capacities and to deal with soot.

        2. It is 2018 not 2008. Customers are much more accepting of Fords Turbo engines. If the 2.3tt can do everything the 3.3 na can and better, why even bother with a few “select” customers.
          This will not be as high volume as the F-150. The midsize market is crowded again and stagnate.

          Best to keep things as streamlined as possible in the assembly plant.

          1. Consumers aren’t more accepting of Ford’s turbo gas engines, we aren’t even given a choice these days. Where’s the 5.0 option in the Raptor or Expedition? Where’s the plain V6 this Ranger should have?

    11. Do we know if this 2.3 EB is dual injection yet? I have the TSI in my Tiguan, and I love GDI engines with turbos. However, I do worry that over time the valves will develop tons of gunk on them like most DI engines do. Mine is a lease, so no big worry. However, if I were to look at an EB 2.3 in the Ranger, I’d want dual injection to help clean the back of the valves.

      1. Ford’s website only mentions direct injection for the 2.3L EB in the Ranger. All gas engines in the F-150 for 2018 are dual injected.
        I was really hoping this would be a replacement for my V8 Sport Trac.
        I’ll wait to see what engine they put in a Raptor version, assuming we get one. Unless it comes with at least the 2.7L EB I’m out.

    12. You old farts are going to always be stuck on the old myths – V8 better than V6tt – V6 better than turbo 4cyl and etc.

      Truth is this is going to be class leader in the midsize group. It will easily have best power/acceleration, best mpg in gasoline, and I’m sure payload and towing will be there as well.

      Did I wish for the 2.7tt and was let down? Yup! However that 2.3 inline 4cyl is a powerful robust engine that is really going to work great with the 10spd.

      If you’ve never driven the Mustang or any of the others cars with this 2.3 Eco engine, it’s awesome. Don’t knock it because it really is a great engine and better than any other naV6 out there!

      Hell I would take Toyota’s 2.7inline 4cyl any day over their new 3.5v6!!!

      It also keeps this truck light on its feet and mpg / performance should be awesome.

      Basically, it will deliver everything most in this category are looking for; lower price point, better mpg, smaller more manageable size, great offroad, and practical to own!

      Another benefit is it’s based on the global Ranger which is tested to much higher extremes than the US markets.

      In those markets they demand things like much better shock absorbers, deeper water fording depths, better payload, higher ground clearance, and larger, better air filtration.

      They also demand Diesels which is surprisingly lacking considering Ford’s competitor GM has one?

      1. None of that will matter when resale plummets on a 4cylinder. Old farts exist and they have a wallet. Their wallet will never step on Fords lot regardless of its actual performance.

        1. Just like the ecoboost V6’s are so frowned upon in a 1/2 ton market of V8’s? Oh wait, they make up majority of the sales of the leading half ton truck.

        2. really that’s what everyone said about the ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7.They will never sell good or out sell the v8’s. Next was they will never last because they need to spool up to make there power when quite the opposite is the truth.Next was they will have awful resale value when again there resale value is out the roof.The old farts bought the ecoboost v6’s to make it fords most popular engine.Tow with one and you’ll never want another v8. I’m sure ford has tested and tested and tested to make sure it will not only compete with Toyota’s weak v6 but trounce it along with the gm twins.

          1. Take forever for the Ranger to win that game. Ford kept their V8 option for a reason. There is nothing in the Ranger lineup for the folks who wont buy a 4 cylinder. Some wont even buy a V6. Toyota has a different heritage. Those 22R engines were loved by many. No way the Ranger will come in with a 4 cylinder and win any crowns. Very niche market will buy them.

            1. ford will win the mid size war first yr out.It looks better the interior is nicer and the ecoboost will out perform all in its class. Just like the 2.7 and 3.5 ecoboost it will out class everything in its segment.

            2. I would pay extra to get a Tacoma with Ford’s 2.3 Ecboost rather than the enemic 3.5v6 they put in the current Gen!!!!

              Now I don’t have to.

      2. I agree it looks like it will have best performance out of the current midsize. Thats about the only positive thing I see about it personally. I wouldnt consider this truck.

        I think all the negative comments stem from the fact that their are alot of Ford fanboy’s that use forums and voice their opinions. They are accustomed to Ford being very competitive in the full size market and one upping regularily. They didn’t take that approach as thoroughly here and anyone who is bothered by that means they believed they would be new and innovative to the same extent and are spouting off angry comments about a pickup truck that they dont have to buy because they were wrong and venting their frustrations. Essentially they were shocked at what Chevrolet brought earlier and Ford didn’t have the ammo to shoot it down.

        1. You are correct. The ecoboost will be a more powerful engine than any of the competitors, far more usable torque throughout the rpm range.

          Aside from that though, nothing really special about the rest of the truck.

          And I myself am dissapointed, was really looking forward to the 2.7 eco putting the HO Raptor to shame in 1/4 mile tests

      3. Don’t expect the Ranger’s 2.3 Ecoboost to be the same as a Mustang with a 2.3 Ecoboost. It will be tuned differently for a truck application. Truck engines are almost always detuned for engine longevity. They see a lot more load and severe conditions compared to a relatively light car with the same engine. This engine will definitely be J2807 certified and that means big engine loads in high temp conditions while running on 87 octane junk gas. I’m sure it will be a good engine but it won’t be a rocket in its stock form.

    13. Disappointed. The 2.3 would be a good base engine but no 2.7tt or diesel is an obvious miss by Ford. It seems they still are committed to selling you an F-150 whether you want one or not.

      … And Bueller, Bueller? Has anyone seen Nissan Bueller?

    14. How many engines does the tacoma have?
      How many engines does the Colorado have?
      How many engines does the frontier have?

      On performance which one of the midsize will perform the best outside of economy??? Up the ike towing? on quickness???

      America really isn’t economy minded. That is why we are all about trucks, and SUV’s. We have a love obsession with power and cheap power. Diesel are all anemic and slow, its just the way they are designed. Also I think you will see another engine choice in the next model year or so. Have to give the consumer a reason to upgrade.

      Didn’t the colorado have one engine choice when it was released?

    15. I would not buy one. Too big and tall, beltlines and bedsides too high, no AWD or full-time 4WD, and no naturally-aspirated engine.

      Those of us wanting smaller trucks will have to wait until at least 2020, then maybe we will get a new Nissan Frontier and possibly small trucks from Hyundai, Mahindra, or one of the Chinese manufacturers.

        1. That might be true today but it wasn’t in 2007. My Sport Trac has a fully boxed frame and AWD along with a 2-speed transfer case for true 4WD high and low range.

    16. I’m interested. While I would be intrigued by a diesel option, I don’t want to pay for one. The 2.3 sounds about right, and will hopefully save some weight. Those numbers for the Mustang are plenty for a mid-size truck. Even decreasing the HP by up to 40 would be fine during their re-tune. I am concerned about the complexity of all these turbo, dual injection, etc engines, though.

      Cost is a big determining factor for the midsize market. So, I’m fine if they took a middle of the road approach to powertrain and body type. Just don’t require loading up the offroad version with all the convenience bells and whistles.

    17. I believe ford is making two mistakes with this new ranger. firstly, why would they only give you one engine. ford always seemed to realize better than other manufacturers that greater engine choices = greater sales. and as many have pointed out, there are plenty of customers [mostly older ones] that you couldn’t pay to buy a turbo charged engine. Secondly, and this is a biggie, why in hell would they not give this truck an aluminum bed and cab after bragging about its benefits over the last several years. This makes gm’s claim about the benefits of steel beds over aluminum ones seem justified!

      1. They didn’t go aluminum because it would take a significant amount of money to engineer the body and retool the Ranger plant to build them. Ford made the numbers work for doing aluminum F-series trucks because they make the same cab for both trucks and the beds are similar in construction other than sheetmetal thickness. When you can build 800-900k of them each year, you can spread the extra cost of it. The expense of an all-aluminum Ranger would have to be spread across 100-200k trucks built annually. Some day the Ranger will be all-aluminum but not today. If the Ranger does well in the next few years, I could see Ford going the route GM is with the full-size trucks: a combination of aluminum doors/hood/tailgate and a steel body. It makes more sense and allows a more gradual conversion of their plants over to aluminum.

        1. The biggest reason they haven’t done aluminum yet on the entire Ranger body is because this exact same body is and has been built in three other plants world-wide. The only aluminum parts on the US version are the hood and tailgate which are also the only parts that are different from those used elsewhere. Again, the body shell itself is not. The cost to convert the existing plants would be too high, especially considering that the Ranger is due for a major redesign in two or three years anyway. By doing it this way they might be gauging Ranger sales here first before deciding if the next gen Ranger will have enough sales world-wide to justify the cost of converting four plants to build aluminum bodied Rangers (along with Everests and Broncos). My guess is that decision has already been made.

    18. I am too very disappointed the 2.7L is not offered and I also think it is to protect the F150 sales.

      Ford may be waiting to see how US Ranger sales will be before adding content. One thing that is positive for sure: GM will not be forced to improve their midsize interior quality that is only so-so by today’s standards and start offering all expected gadgets and safety features to remain competitive for customers seeking higher trim med size pickup trucks.

      1. “GM will not be forced to improve their midsize interior quality that is only so-so by today’s standards”

        GM is already working on a remodel of the current Colorado/Canyon for 2019.

      2. GM has a history of being reactive to competition but maybe for once they will be proactive and make some changes. Afterall, many of the features lacking in the truck line can be found in moderately priced vehicles (push start, rear vents, LEDs etc.). I saw that the Silverado is finally getting rear vents. Miracles do happen.

    19. Did I call it for what. Soooo many people were convinced Ford would throw a 2.7EB in this Ranger. Sorry guys but the 2.3 Ecoboost’s power numbers and fuel economy lined up way too well with the Tacoma’s 3.5 V6 and GM’s 3.6 V6.

      Plus fitting a 2.7 Ecoboost in that small engine bay would be more difficult and thus expensive to engineer. And the 2.7 Ecoboost no doubt costs more to build than a 2.3 Ecoboost.

      1. The size wouldnt be an issue, as the ranger already comes with a 3.2L I5 diesel engine, which is much larger then the 2.7 ecoboost.

        And just because the 2.3 is good enough…doesnt mean we wanted ford to be good enough. The 2.7 would have flattened the competition, and that is what we wanted, for the market to move forward, not just accept the status quo.

        1. That’s not entirely true. The 3.2L diesel is an inline engine and not nearly as wide as the 2.7L EcoBoost which is a V6 with a turbo hanging off each cylinder head. Just because the 3.2 has more internal displacement doesn’t make it a wider engine. BTW, the exhaust manifolds on the 2.7 are cast as part of each cylinder head, not a separate piece like on the 3.5L EcoBoost. That makes relocating the turbos to fit in a narrow chassis a potentially much more expensive undertaking.

            1. I have seen that Coyote conversion. Keep in mind they used custom built exhaust headers on that swap. You can’t do that so easily on the 2.7 EB because there are no separate exhaust manifolds to replace. It might actually be easier to adapt the 3.5L EB to the Ranger chassis since it does have separate exhaust manifolds that can more easily be reconfigured to relocate the turbos to clear things like frame rails and suspension components.
              I’m not saying that is the real reason they didn’t make the 2.7 an option but it could be part of it.
              Don’t forget, the T6 has never had anything but in-line engines.
              Or it could be that they are just a bunch of cheapskates. LOL.

      2. Ford salesman: ” Oh you want the good stuff? Step over here and let me show you a fully loaded F-150 ”
        I can’t say I blame them if that’s where they think the numbers to profitability are but the premise that most mid-size truck buyers will be interested in a full-size is false.

      3. I don’t think people were as much convinced as just hoping for it. Ford is reluctantly bringing the “Ranger” back after years of stating they wouldn’t so I was not expecting anything but just waiting to see what Ford offering was going to be as I suspect many were doing.

    20. So much for Fords claim that one size fits all. They caved and now the ranger is back uglier than ever. Perhaps some trims will look better. That orange one in that trim is awful though.

    21. As a Ford guy, this looks to me like Ford is trying to enter a segment as cheaply and minimally as possible. Sure, the truck isn’t bad looking but only one engine choice when GM has three? I mean, I guess Ford could offer a diesel down the road. The 3.2L EcoBoost has not gotten great reviews in the Mustang…believe it can be had in the Explorer as well.

      If it offers massive payload and towing and drives great I guess it could still be a winner.

      1. I agree. This whole thing reeks of Ford getting caught with their pants down and not willing to pull them back up. My only hope is that because they have been selling this same body elsewhere since 2011 it will soon be ready for a major make-over. My guess is that although this would seem to have been a perfect opportunity to pull that next generation truck forward to avoid having to retool the plant in MI again in just a couple more years they are probably not committed to the mid-size market in North America enough yet to justify a move like that. We also can’t dismiss the fact that this same body is built in plants three other countries. IMO, this is just a stop gap effort to get them by until the next gen Ranger is ready.
        On the engine front, how long has it been since the F-150 got its aluminum body and how long after that was it before they got their engine lineup updated? Hopefully it won’t take that long for us to get a better Ranger with more engine choices.

    22. Troverman, “this looks to me like Ford is trying to enter a segment as cheaply and minimally as possible”. There is really nothing else to add after saying this. This sums it up perfectly. This release also convinced me that Ford’s CEO should have “King of BS” after his title. He talked this truck up like crazy and went on and on about how they were going to nail this. Yep, great job. You pretty much carbon copied the global truck, made it less capable, stuck a cheap to produce engine in it, and now you want to sell us a bill of goods. The truck looks nice but it’s clear Ford’s F-150 ego is big, yet very delicate.

            1. I think you will by 2020 though. An entire new platform and form of power, electric drive will be in its first offerings in a pickup by a few companies now. Keeping a vehicle past its warranty really doesnt save much anyway. They lose money every year regardless.

      1. Agreed. And on the CEO topic: IMO Hackett is very bad news for the company: he reminds me a lot of Jac Nasser who almost destroyed Ford after losing focus on what automotive core business is all about. We shall see but it would be a darn shame after seeing how Ford was successful surviving the 2008 crash without government handouts.

        1. @ Chris
          Guess who inherited Jac Nasser? We did!! . He started working on the assembly line atc Ford Broadmeadows in Melbourne and worked his way up. Now sits on the Board of BHP. Same problem he losrsz focus of the core business

          1. Poor you! I saw he was now working for BHP in Australia. Sorry Robert but it was a good riddance for anyone having Ford’s interests at heart and I am glad he made it all the way to the other side of the planet 🙂

            1. @ Chris
              Very much agree. This Lebanese Boy made good should be somewhere else. He is seemingly doing nothing on the BHP board

      2. @ Moondog
        You would get a lot more negative reaction if you tried to sell the US Ranger in Australia.
        I am really wondering what the Ranger Raptor is going to be like with a 210hp 2 LITRE DIESEL? Firstly when Toyota tried a TRD HILUX(4litre Turbocharged V6) a few years ago it bombed dramatically.So it was an answer to a question none asked here.

      3. They may be actually being smart. The midsize market is quickly becoming saturated again, which led to the demise of all but two of the midsize trucks. Minimal investment, but still a quality product. For the others that are putting much more investment in, it could be a poor return on investment. This truck will compete very well with everything currently on the midsize market. The 2.3L EcoBoost makes as little as 280HP and 310lb-ft or as much as 350HP/350lb-ft depending upon application. I would expect closer to the original 280/310 figure, as used in the Ford Explorer. Overseas, this Ranger sells for a lot of money, so you are not getting a chintzy vehicle.

      4. From the news I’ve read since Hackett took over as CEO, it doesn’t sound good. Phrases like cutting costs and slashing budgets are never a good sign. It worries me about the future of Ford when I read about R&D for gas engines being cut in half to help pay for self-driving cars and electric cars.

    23. Why only one engine? Motor Trend said the 1-4 in the Colorado didn’t help economy. So you have a V6 in the Colorado that will get beat by the Turbo in the Ranger. So what difference does it make that there is only one? Ford killed two birds with one stone.

      1. The only bird Ford killed was that reputation of that wacky cuckoo bird named Hackett. That 2.3 is not that impressive. My son hated the one he had in his Mustang and had to run premium fuel just to have any power and his foot had to stay in it. When the foot stays in it the fuel economy sucks. People want choices. Like it or not there will always be a run of the mill 4 banger crowd. There will always be a manual tranny crowd. There will always be people like Rambro that want, if not demand, more power. Diesel. Anyone? Ford offers everything and the kitchen sink on the F-150 so based on that logic, which single engine should Ford come out with for the F-150 next year? You can only pick one. They offer 5 now. Why not the 2.7 for the upper trim Lariat? Where is the diesel?

        1. People want choices. But the diesel wasn’t on the Colorado either at first and they only had two engines choices. They just had the I4 and V6. Ford is skipping the I4 because it is repetitive. With EB you get best in class torque, so you beat both the V6 and I4 with one engine.

        2. Moondog I think the diesel was cancelled. I just watched yhe Ford reveal on TFL now and they are spending 11 billion on an EV plant dedicated to EV vehicles. They are very late to the table. I think the diesel trucks Ford did build is part of the plan to meet CAFE standards but it was their old plan. I think they are dumping the Ranger plans and spending the least amount of money possible. Ford is worth 50 billion give or take and we have seen the CEO for Toyota admit Tesla got it right just a few months ago and this is from a 200 billion dollar car company. I think the auto industry has finally figured out to ditch the CAFE plans and move to electric drive or become irrellevant. Tesla is already worth 30 billion and they will exceed GM’s worth and Fords very soon and they are a young car company. No one has been able to penetrate the auto industry like this. This is going to turn everything upside down. Competition is only getting started. The new trucks we are seeing is part of the planning prior to the auto industry admitting Tesla got it right. Now they see it and many ideas likely went to the chopping block. Like I have been saying diesel is a waste of time and the current diesels we do see are likely from pre planning. Ford just admitted they are all in for electric now.

        3. Yup that was what I noticed about the Ecoboost Mustang too. A good buddy of mine traded in his 08 GT for one and loved it at first. He started noticing the same things. It pulls pretty good but the fuel economy isn’t great in the hills which we have a lot of. He says he runs 91 octane because the car just doesn’t run as good or strong on 87, especially in the summer heat. He also had engine problems with his. Once the engine got warm enough to heatsoak the intercooler, the ecu would start pulling boost during hard acceleration. The boost gauge would jump all over the place. He also had a turbo seal go but I guess that’s one of those luck of the draw deals. Warranty took care of it.

          I don’t think I would be interested in a 2.3 ecoboost Ranger to be honest. Still looking forward to seeing how it stacks up against the Tacoma and Colorado.

        4. The F-150 is the best-selling vehicle in Ford’s portfolio, so that makes sense why there are a lot of engine choices. Not to mention, many of the engine choices in the 150 are hardly “exclusive to the 150” and can be added cheaply. The 2.7L would be cool in the Ranger, but such overkill. It would mop the floor of all competitors very badly. I’m guessing Ford decided it might harm the reputation of the F-150 with this engine, or perhaps it is hard to fit in this vehicle’s engine compartment, or perhaps it produces too much torque for the version of the 10-speed found in the Ranger. As for diesel…I love diesel…but it may not make much sense in a small pickup which will never be towing much weight. Ford has the inline-5 diesel from the Transit van which could work, but it is still always an option down the road. GM did not immediately introduce a diesel on the Colorado and no other small truck maker is offering one.

        1. Over 2 years of waiting haha. This is the kind of disappointment I was used to getting from GM back in the day. It always seemed like Ford would deliver just a little more than anyone expected. I thought for sure they would have some kind of game-changing V6 or V6 EB. The exterior looks pretty good, the interior looks great, but no choice of what engine or transmission I get in my Ranger? I guess Ford is genuinely worried the Ranger could cannibalize F-150 sales. Gotta protect that famous F-series ad tagline I guess. God forbid you can’t brag about how many F-series “truck” you have sold over the years.

          What a bizarre truck news weekend. First Ford shocks the world with a US Ranger that has all these trims but one engine and one transmission. Literally no engine *options*. THEN, GM proved that they can actually listen. They actually LISTENED to what everyone disliked about their full-size truck.

          Here’s to hoping GM continues to listen and does something about the Colorado/Canyon interior. It’s the most glaring weakness with it. This new Ranger and the Tacoma blow it away in that aspect.

          1. I guess when a base 150HP 4-cylinder engine is offered, you get all excited? Maybe we should ask Ford to introduce a transmission with fewer speeds, too? Class-leading engine and transmission as standard. Terrible!

            1. But that lower base engine and simpler tranny choice could lower the price of the base truck and bring even more buyers into trucks. I know a lot of the younger crowd that would be a buyer but costs generally prohibits it.

    24. The 6.5′ bed crewcab is the biggest F150 they make. If you go up to a go up to 6′ bed crewcab Ranger you might as well be buying a F150. The idea for the Ranger is for it to be smaller.

    25. Conservative styling but still nice looking! I love the front-end styling of the Colorado, however, from some angles, I like the Ranger better.
      I wonder what engine they will install in the Ranger Raptor?

    26. @ TFLTruck, the 2.3 Turbo Engine is most likely the same unit from the Explorer which makes 280 BHP @ 5600 RPM and 310 Lb-Ft @ 300O RPM, which is competitive when compared to the Tacoma, Colorado and Frontier V6’s. Also, being that this turbo 4 is lighter in weight and will be coupled to a 10 speed auto will help with Fuel Economy ratings, towing, and climbing higher elevations. Look forward to your testing when you eventually get your hands on one…

    27. If this truck’s engine numbers were going to be impressive they would have been announced at the show! Also if Ford’s new compact truck is only going to have 1 engine choice why would they make it a powerhouse. They didn’t do that with the first rangers and they won’t do it now.

        1. Ford gave them small economical motors with little power. I think Ford is doing it again. This 2.3 engine is not the powerful engine that you and I have been hoping for.

          1. 2020 looks promising. Thats why I bought my Tundra. Bide my time with that until 2020 and buy something great. I knew nothing significant would change in the current industry. Good on Ford though spending 11 billion to electrify but its a bit late but welcomed.

      1. Dan Bush – you are correct, my friend. If these numbers were so impressive Ford would have been shouting them from the rooftops. Look for more “me too” if not “meh” performance. Think middle of the road and maybe more buzzwords like “class leading torque” while not mentioning HP. I look forward to Ford trying to confvince everyone this truck is special or class leading when it has one engine choice with a tranny that has been having its fair share of growing pains in other applications. Why bring out a diesel in the fullsize when you have a 3.2 that already fits in the global Ranger and not put it in the Ranger to at least try to keep up with your biggest rival, GM? I could almost buy the argument of not needing the base 4 banger version and not needing the 6 because of the boosted 4 but the single engine choice is even more proof positive that Ford will go to great lengths to retain their beauty queen, uh, I mean fullsize sales title. We wouldn’t want little brother to get any attention, would we? A little is ok but not too much.

        1. By extension, if GM’s numbers for their new truck were so impressive they would have published them as well? Only RAM listed their HP/Torque, payload and towing. The Ranger is one year away from hitting showrooms. That means final design is not set in stone. This is a turbo engine which already puts out several different ratings. Ford will likely see where they need to position power and torque to be most competitive.

          1. Maybe, maybe not. I bet it is around 300hp and 350 ft lbs of torque. Either way, one engine choice shows they are not that committed (or they are but can’t be for fear of taking away 150 sales). Words always come back to bite these manufacturers and to me it appears Chevy actually listened (rare, but they did) to their customers for the fullsize offerings and Ford gave the old tried and true “we know best, so here’s your Ranger”. Ford could and should have done so much better. This is disappointing.

    28. I am a Ford guy and I want to like this truck but having only 1 engine option ticks me off. It’s like Ford didn’t put much effort into this truck. I’ll have to see one and maybe drive it to see what its like. The Raptor Ranger will be shown next month in Asia.

    29. I have been researching the mid-size truck segment for a couple years now. I come from only ever owning sedans, and my current is running perfect and 10+ years of ownership. I have the increasing need for the use of a bed and have test driven all current offerings, but none are getting me to drop my savings on their respective product.

      I always expect minimal work from auto manufacturers, especially if it isn’t their “crown jewel” product line, in this case, full-size vs. mid-size. It is frustrating as a consumer when you have limited choice or when the auto manufacturer basically makes the decisions for you, oh, “it didn’t need it”, or “this is the end all solution”. That is not how you gain customers, but that is how you protect the flagship segment from the segment below from encroaching. This just isn’t Ford, but this is the most latest example, and it is extremely obvious.

      The Ranger:

      Exterior, I like it. Very clean, just enough style. I am a sucker for the LED headlight and taillight accent trend, Ford did well with that on the Ranger from what I can see. The stamped tailgate, hell yeah! Another design que I am happy to see return to pickups in general. The metallic painted surface of the front and rear bumpers as well as the wheel arches are nice and brings it together on that Lariat trim level and what I can assume to be the Sport Appearance Package. I am not a fan of that Saber color, I feel Ford should have shown it in the Hot Pepper Red or White Platinum colors. Of which leads me to, I finally have a choice of a mid-size pickup that offers a “pearl white” type color, looks better than “work truck white”, but I don’t make purchased based off color alone, obviously. Exterior gets a 8.5/10.

      Interior, I at first look on this preproduction model, not blown away. I like the aesthetics, has some nice design cues, but just doesn’t appear substantial. I do question the lower center stack, especially with the lost storage space of a manual hand brake?! I know of many “sport” trim levels of cars that should have on, but don’t! It just sit doesn’t se m like they put much thought into it and typical parts bin from a visual stand point. I will reserve additional comment on physical protestors post test drive. I don’t know, the whole lower center stack screams 90’s commuter car. Interior gets a (visual) 6.5/10 score.

      Engine, I’m not against the 2.3L Ecoboost, kind of like it actually. I don’t really want to comment further, but I will say one choice is not good for the consumer. I will reserve comment for the power numbers later, both on paper and real world driving. I can only compare numbers to this version in the Explorer which as stated by others 280HP/ 310TQ. Not sure if they would use the 310/350 from the Mustang, considering they are targeting best in class torque. Given minimal effort as I discussed above, they would just drop it is as a Explorer tune and be done. The weight of the Ranger will come into play. I personally would like to see the 2.3L Ranger tune to be 315/350, but I guess I would be dreaming to have this segment have any decent power numbers. Again, a test drive will be required. The 10 speed is a great choice, which Ford I am sure did to just reduce costs, but good for me in this aspect. Powertrain, which is difficult to score without numbers or a test drive, I would say 6/10, losing at least for me, one to two point for having one option.

      These next thoughts may come in time, but two additional trim level such as King Ranch and Limited with Ford’s 2.7TT engine option. They have people paying crazy money for top trim F150’s, why not allow the consumer to do the same with Ranger? As stated above, the mid-size truck gets its legs chopped off even before it hits the market, but when compared to mid-size SUV/CUV, the mid-size truck can not have any overlap as such, but there can be segment overlap in SUV/CUV segments. Someone above said to perfectly. The mid-size truck market and product packaging will always be the “Bastard Child” of the full-size truck. The mid-size customers can never have anything good or have any product segment overlap.

      I don’t need, want, or require a full-size truck, but I do want a well equipped, well appointed, great power to weight mid-size truck. I kind of figured this would be a “just enough, not too much” offering.

      Again, I will have to test drive to make a full assessment, but first look and what has been presented by Ford, I am not getting my hopes up.

      1. All of this info, as good as it is, really doesn’t matter all that much at this time because it is being reported (Automobile Magazine and others) that the Ranger won’t be released until early 2019, so after all these years of talk and build up, this truck is still over a year away. Does it really take that long to change the steering wheel side and “touch” the sheet metal as Ford says? Geez, they basically rebadged the global truck and gave one whopping engine option. Not that it matters to me because this truck is not on my list after Ford made it absolutely clear we would get a “me too” midsize entry. If I ever decide to buy anything not named Taco I won’t have to visit the Ford lot. To me this is just more of Ford trying to make double dog sure their beauty queen F-150 keeps it sales crown. Disappointing because with all the powertrain options Ford has this could have been a very special truck. The midsize truck/stepchild saga continues…..

        1. Good post, my friend. And may I add that this is a great example why someone should never put off buying a new vehicle( if you need one) just because there are rumors, be it from the maufacturers, truck sites or wherever. That some great new vehicle is going to be built or resurrected. Examples: jeep pickup, Ford bronco, Ford ranger or some 2022 EV vehicle. By the time most of these “rumors” come out and are out long enough to reveal all their faults. It will almost be time for another new vehicle.

          1. I agree completely, my friend. I have learned over the years that the waiting game, especially if it could be a lengthy one, is seldom worth the wait. I have been kind to Ford in my posts over the years and have had good luck with the few Ford trucks I’ve owned over the years but Ford deserves to be criticized with this softball debut. I keep asking how long again has everyone been waiting for this truck? And, the Bronco? To me this is almost as laughable as waiting for the original Camaro to debut many years ago. Heck, I was tired of seeing that thing by the time it really got here. I’d respect Ford more if they came out and said “OK, North America, we screwed up and got caught with our pants down” and/or “we totally misread the midsize truck market” and we are trying to fix a mess we made. We know they are too political to come out and tell us we are only getting the 2.3 (read potentially good but a mixed bag) engine and 5 foot Bed to protect the might F-150 sales but all this talk for basically a rebadged global with a single engine choice? No thank you.

    30. People complaining about the motor, is 300ish/340ish not good enough? It is plenty and beats all the other competitor gas engines. A 2.7 would be a big jump in this class that isn’t needed or used. Maybe for a sport truck version down the road?

      1. Would not be used is a stretch. I would use a 400HP Full time AWD midsize luxury off road variant in all its glory and foe work. TFL proved a midsize trucks revs its balls off climbing the gauntlet and burns more fuel than a full sized truck. Even on their 98 mile loop pulling the exact same trailer weight the larger heavier full sized truck with a proper motor got better fuel economy and did not struggle pulling a trailer.

        1. Here you go common sense, try to make sense of this. Here is a trip down memory lane. I posted two TFL mashups. Full size diesel vs gas with a 7000Lb trailer in tow. Remember the 1/2 ton is heavier as well and cuts through the wind worse due to size. The first video is a diesel vs gas in the midsize segment with only 6100lbs in tow in a lighter truck.

          Guess what both 1/2 tons get better mpg. Why does this make sense? Because the midsize is a bastard child to the 1/2 ton and their motors suck ball sacks. Their gutless motors work too hard and burn more fuel than a more powerful 1/2 ton. But we dont need a better engine. Fck you Ford GM and Toyota, Nissan too. You can cross shop with powerful midsize SUV’s but know one has the balls to offer the public a better midsize truck because you want to play beaty queen sales numbers while the customer has to suffer. Posted below is proof. Good reminder too for upcoming mashups.


          1. Here you go common sense, try to make sense of this. Here is a trip down memory lane. I posted two TFL mashups. Full size diesel vs gas with a 7000Lb trailer in tow. Remember the 1/2 ton is heavier as well and cuts through the wind worse due to size. The first video is a diesel vs gas in the midsize segment with only 6100lbs in tow in a lighter truck.

            Guess what both 1/2 tons get better mpg. Why does this make sense? Because the midsize is a bastard child to the 1/2 ton and their motors suck ball sacks. Their gutless motors work too hard and burn more fuel than a more powerful 1/2 ton. But we dont need a better engine. Fck you Ford GM and Toyota, Nissan too. You can cross shop with powerful midsize SUV’s but know one has the balls to offer the public a better midsize truck because you want to play beaty queen sales numbers while the customer has to suffer. Posted above is proof. Good reminder too for upcoming mashups. Look at the mpgs and the 1/2 tons do better with more powerful engines.

      2. Really? No diesel. We have good reason to complain.

        And no naturally aspirated reliable engine.

        This is just another throw away truck.

        I give it 200 k maximum.

        While the Toyotas will be going 500 k.
        Twice the truck for about the same price and a heck of a lot less trouble.

        How can you not see that?

    31. I hope when Nissan decides to upgrade their frontier that it’s mostly a superficial one! There are lots of midsize truck buyers who are looking for something that already has a good track record rather than taking a chance on something that might be good or might be a nightmare!

      1. Take a look above Dan Bush. Took me awhile to find these two mashups but you can clearly see the more powerful motors in the 1/2 ton pulling more weight get better mpg than the bastard child midsize with their bias stupid weak engines that the auto industry insists its all we need. We would be better off with a 3.5EB as it would improve fuel economy especially when towing and not have to rev at 4500Rpm with just 6100Lbs in tow up a mild incline. Ridiculous.

        1. Exactly, but remember the 3.5 ecoboost
          has been out for years now. It had several common problems the first year of two after release. So if you bought one when it was first released you could have had these problems. Now after several years of “improvements” the 3.5 ecoboost seems like a fairly reliable choice. Now my point, their are many people like myself that don’t want to spend say 40 or 50 thousand of our hard earned money just to be used as a “guinea pig” by car manufacturers. I prefer to let someone else to buy into these new technologies first. If that technology proves to be a positive, good I’ll buy into it next time. But if it proves to be a nightmare. It will be someone else’s. This is just good common sense to me.

    32. There will be a 2.7 in the Ranger raptor.. There will be a diesel eventually.. And there will be a na v6 3.3 from the 150 they just need time to ramp up production over the next year or so

    33. 230 and counting! Most of them why Ford didn’t offer 2.7 eb ? Cafe! You thank your government for this. It is odd Ford stated more less this the only engine you ever need, someone in the press should ask Ford why you have 5 engine options for f-150 then?

      Maybe a handful of people talked about no aluminum ranger. Well this ranger should have been all aluminum body. Your full size trucks has it, but your ranger don’t ?

      Samething gm did not announce hp tq numbers. What the hell!? That is most important number in any vehicle introduction. Sure all them other things is nice , but everyone wants to know how much hp it makes. They are not interested in what kinda of leather seats are in the lariet or all the electronic gaugits it has.

      1. @Marc Hartman
        I too would have liked to see more widespread use of aluminum on the Ranger, but this truck, aluminum gets limited to just hood and tailgate.

        Same thoughts could be said with trim levels, F-150 gets 6 (7, if you include Raptor), Ranger gets 3. Now this may change in a model year or two, but where is that sexy interior of the King Ranch from the F-150 for the Ranger?

        The theme continues, of the midsize segment intentionally being snuffed, i.e. limited, when compared to the fullsize segment.

        As Moondog stated above, this could have been a special truck, super light, great power to weight, but the midsize segment gets the shaft,… again.

        Side comment: I’d personally rather see a Ranger ST before we got a Ranger Raptor.

      2. Marc a more powerful motor saves mpg. Take a look at my comparison above as proof. When you hold lower rpms with more power you can save fuel because it reduces the fuel in fuel out cycles which reduces wear and frictional energy.

        1. I wasn’t talking about a more powerful motor, I was talking about the fact the manufacturers like Ford go to this naias with out hp and tq numbers. This is what we all are waiting for is it not rambro? It is like Bollinger introducing there truck and not telling us how much hp this electric truck makes. Yet the manufacturers know that the people want this important info.

      3. Marc
        Your post sums up nicely what so many of us are saying in those 230+ posts above. And even though so many of us are frustrated by many of these future trucks. Please remember “we”, the customers have the last laugh. We can simply buy something else. I believe these manufacturers are “shooting themselves in the foot”, by ignoring what their customers want and expect. There are many of us, like you and I, Marc that still buy a truck for its utility, reliability, and it’s ability to do actual work. On this we won’t compromise!

        1. Hackett on the job, but missed out on the ranger. F-150 has options galore when comes different types of engines, but only one in the ranger.

          All his full size trucks are all aluminum bodies , but not the ranger.

          Couple of you guys mentioned this. The premium trucks sell and it is what the manufacturers make money on. No kr or platinum ranger.

          Hackett needs to step it up or they will not sell rangers.

          I will say that ranger isn’t bad looking truck and let me state that 2.3 probably do well on Ike being turbo. Where the rest of the competition will just be sucking wind. It will be good over all engine.

      4. My comparison above proves a diesel Ranger that pulls all the time wont get better mpg than the new Ford 1/2 ton diesel so why make a diesel ranger unless they were willing to give it the same diesel engine but that is forbidden. The Ram eco diesel beat the lighter smaller diesel in the Colorado so what is the point to making a diesel ranger.

    34. Ok, so after reading all of the nonsense and arguing back and forth, and then to endure Rambro’s consistent rhetoric about electric’s, and how a Tesla model 3 is cheaper to own over 5yrs study than a Honda Civic? WTF – has a secret Tesla Model 3 been around 5yrs for this study???

      Here’s my latest thoughts about the new Ranger and others from the Detroit Auto show.

      There very similar to my first thoughts, except one:

      2019 Ranger is in my opinion the best looking, simple but elegant, sporty yet not overweight looking new designed Truck introduced!

      Go to Ford’s website and look at it in other colors, especially the Lariat’s Sport pkg without chrome and simple XL’s with STX package!

      This truck is styled just right for what it’s intended market and use is. It doesn’t have Gills, Bug eyes, Whale mouths, or protruding Pig Snouts like we seem to be consistently getting from others, especially Toyota!!!

      It’s also got great ground clearance, short overhang bumpers, and for crying out loud – round freaking wheel wells!

      Here’s what I predict it will become despite so many whining about the 2.3Ecoboost and 10spd:

      #1Selling Midsize
      Sharp Competitive pricing
      Best looking Midsize by far! (can’t stand GM’s Square wheel wells and Tacoma’s Pig Snout front end)
      Best in class mpg – gasoline
      Best in class torque – gasoline
      Best in class 0-60mph
      Best in class quarter mile
      Best in class payload
      Best in class or equal HP
      Best in class or equal towing

      ….and a future release of a Raptor model with 2.7Eco!

      ….Diesel maybe, but it just doesn’t make sense if the 2.3 is getting close to 30mpg.

      Most of you guys are trying too hard to get a truck that should be everything for everyone? It never works because one size doesn’t fit all!

      If it’s going to be a midsize it’s going to be smaller, lighter and everything should be less.

      It’s also supposed to cost less and adding larger engines or other standard engines just makes cost go up and mileage go down.

      Seriously, you guys wanting a na V6 – why??? So it can be slower, and get worse mileage, and you can pretend your in the 80’s-90’s? You can argue all day about supposed reliability but none of it’s accurate in the least. Besides who wants to listen to na V6 screaming rpm’s to get up a hill or tow something.

      A DOHC V6 has 2 extra pistons, 2 extra cylinder, 4 longer camshafts with 8 extra lobes, 8 extra valves, 8 extra valve springs, 8 extra valve spring retainers, 8 extra valve guides, 1 extra cylinder head, 1 extra cylinder head gasket, multiple extra gaskets and seals to leak, 2 extra journals on the crankshaft, 2 extra valve covers, 2 extra spark plugs, 1 extra exhaust manifold, 1 crossover pipe, larger intake manifold, much heavier, and much more cramped to work on!

      That’s well over 60 extra parts counting all the numerous gaskets and seals to have a naV6 that makes less power and uses more fuel???

      Lets see a Twin Scroll Turbo has 1moving part and 1 electronically controlled waste gate. The 2.3 Eco has a Forged Crank and Connecting rods as well!

      Look around you and come out the dark past! Turbocharged engines have been around a long long time, and recent technologies are only making them better and more efficient. They have so many benefits – especially altitude!

          1. You forgot peoples perception, something not so easily fixed and it affects the bottom line whether you or Ford think its better. Ford needs to ad choice. You will not force someones perception and most salesman wont have a clue how to sell it. All my experiences with salesman led down a path where I was teaching them. So good luck with you theory but Tacoma will continue to lead sales.

            1. The bottom line is that Ford’s management in their Truck division knows how to build trucks that sell and sell very well!

              If investors were to put money in a company to best build a #1 selling truck right now they would put it in Ford! They’ve had the #1 selling model claim for decades.

              Maybe a daring, risk taking investor should go with Toyota right now to dominate the truck market?

              By the way, until 2015 I’ve been that diehard Toyota guy since 1979 when the 1st Toyota 4×4 came out. I’ve since owned an 76’ Landcruiser, 81’ Truck, 2- 85’s 87’ with Turbo, 97’ Tacoma, 97’ Landcruiser FJ80, 98’ Tacoma, 98’ Landcruiser FJ100, 02 Sequoia, 04 Tundra, 06 Tundra, 07 RAV4 and 08 Tundra.

              Whew, that was a lot to remember and great memories in all!

              Early Toyota’s were simple and tuff. Best built was the 97’ Landcruiser FJ80 with lockers front and rear.

              98’ Tacoma 4×4 Extracab V6 was my favorite truck and 2006 Tundra was the best truck I’ve ever owned. It was also the most trouble free vehicle I’ve ever driven!

              Sorry if I’ve offended any of you with Toyota’s, as I’m frustrated with their last 10yrs of direction on many levels!

              The Tacoma will not continue to dominate sells by sitting on its reputation from the past.

              Everything is moving forward at too fast of a pace and the competition is not playing the sitting game like Toyota!

            2. Drifter, Toyota has slipped and slipped hard and far. No offense taken. I’m disappointed with the Ranger because I wanted it to push the market forward as opposed to being just another truck. I was hoping they would come in and be the “Swiss Army Knife” of the midsize truck market and force Toyota out of their conservative shell. I was also hoping they would nail this delivery because it could have been a future option for me, especially if Toyota continues to have their heads in their rear over the howling rear differentials. Now if I have to change, I guess I will be stuck looking at something I don’t want – a fullsize. Make mine a Trail Boss I guess….LOL

          2. The Tacoma will continue to dominate the Ranger and Colorado in sales. It may not be the most refined but it is the most proven and respected. To each their own on the looks of the Taco. Those that drive them like the way they look, me included. The Ranger looks like a Ridgeline to me but I’m sure it will do well on the road. I actually like the looks of it but it’s clear Ford went all money saving on us when they could have been a handful to contend with had they simple chose to be. They didn’t choose to be great because they are so afraid of taking a single sell away from their beloved F-150. The F-150 will continue to lead fullsize sale just as the Big Mac will continue to hold the burger sales crown. I guess by that logic it means the Big Mac must be the best burger, right? Peace and I look forward to saying I told you so this time next year.

            1. I would add that I’ve always been a fan of smaller turbo engines and think the 2.3 will be competitive but I’ve heard this engine has had its share of issues. My son’s Mustang had the same engine and it was at best inconsistent and neeeded higher octane fuel or else the power loss was noticeable. Maybe Ford will straighten it out but generally one engine choice is something I’d expect from a lower volume truck like the Ridgeline. I think even a slightly detuned 2.7TT as an optional choice for higher trims (with a suped up version for the Raptor) would have been great. Add in a small diesel from the Transit and we’d be singing a different tune. I also wonder why they won’t have a long bed option for the crew cab? My last 2 Tacos have had the long bed and I love the extra room for gear. I’ve never needed what approach and departure angles I’ve lost from the extra foot of bed and think there is a market for the long bed out there. Anyway, to me this gets a C as in average grade. Best to all.

            2. Good point on the longbed, I bet the 4 door long bed is the current leader in all midsize sales. Another sure fire reason why the Ranger will not outsell the Tacoma

            3. I too am disappointed by the lack of engine and other choices on the Ranger. But when you look at what Ford has done is starts to make perfect sense. No V6, no diesel, no Raptor, no single cab, no etc., etc. What do all those things have in common? They are all available on the F-150. I don’t think that is by accident. If you want any of those things in a Ford truck you still have to buy an F-150.
              Most of the things that we can’t get here (yet?) in the Ranger can be had in other markets that already sell the T6 Ranger. Why is that? Do you think it is maybe because the F-150 is not available in those markets?

            4. Great points, Bill. It is clear that Ford is clearly willing to sacrifice Ranger sales to preserve the status of the mighty F-150. On one hand Ford is being a bit hypocritical by saying that the Ranger crowd is a different dynamic than the F-150 customer base. But, just to be sure, they are not giving any options on the engine and no long bed, just to be sure there is no cross shopping….

      1. @Drifter64

        Excellent post.

        I too am glad Ford did not go with an NA V6, we may be in the minority. That said, I’d still advocate for 2.7TT as an option on a higher trim level or two.

        I at initial thought was like really, a 2.3L Ecoboost? Then I started to think about it from a weight savings perspective, just not as in depth as you did above, but still came to the same conclusion – less weight and moving parts, while maintaining or achieving greater performance compared to a NA V6, with the benefits of an I4 from a fuel economy perspective. I am also glad Ford is bringing the 10 speed into this segment. I may have been furious if Ford announced a sole 3.3L NA engine/ 6 Speed transmission combo!

        I also agree from an aesthetic stand point of Ranger design vs. the competition, Ranger looks the best to me. I still feel the interior could use some adjustments.

        I mentioned colors in a previous post of mine. I like the Lariat trim level, Sport Appearance in either Hot Pepper Red or White Platinum, both of which I feel should have been used for the debut rather than the Saber color Ford chose.

        I do admit, I fit their target demographic pretty much 100%.

        Again, great post.

      2. Great post! However, there are a couple of potential issues with the 2.3L EB that need to be mentioned. First of all, there have been concerns about the “open deck” design of the engine block on other models that use this engine. Open deck means the water jacket area surrounding the cylinder walls is open at the top and is sealed by the head gasket. The concern with that design is that cylinder wall stability is also dependent on the cylinder head and the head bolts. That may not be an issue on vehicles that are not under constant load but it could be an issue on a truck towing a few thousand pounds up a steep grade. If the cylinder walls “walk” that could eventually lead to head gasket failures. I have heard that Ford is building a special 2.3L truck engine line at their Cleveland engine plant so maybe that is an area that will be changed.
        The other concern is the fact that Ford has chosen to upgrade all of it’s other gas truck engines to their dual port/direct fuel injection design. There is an obvious performance gain from this design but there is also the side benefit of a clearer burning and more reliable engine. Why does the 2.3L still use only direct injection? My understanding of the concern with direct injection only is that there have been issues on some engines with carbon buildup on the back side of the intake valves. This is supposedly caused by reintroducing crankcase blow-by into the intake tract through the PCV system. Those crankcase fumes carry oil vapor and that is what causes the carbon buildup on the intake valves. By incorporating port fuel injection there is now a way to clean that area before it has a chance to build up those carbon deposits. Installing an oil separator into the PCV system might be a way to eliminate the problem and perhaps Ford has done or will do that with this engine.

        1. Hey Bill,

          Great points to bring up but and your right no engine is perfect.

          The closed deck design is obviously a true high performance builders dream, but in mass production engine of this volume there are so many other factors at work.

          Something as small as 2.3 is going to have such a small individual cylinder size that I don’t believe your going to see much walking going on? An open deck design does inherently promote more rapid and uniform cooling advantages though.

          This 2.3 Eco is a very robust engine block and design, purpose built for high boost from the ground up!

          In regards to the Direct and Port injection I also agree that they should of could of done it, but again expense and other factors can all add up and be at play here.

          On a side note, every diesel engine on the road today has only direct injection without port injection. How do they manage to run hundreds of thousands of miles?

          Also GM has been Direct injection with their small block 5.3 & 6.2 for years now and it never really gets a 2nd thought? Only Ecoboost haters seem to drudge it up every time?

          Diesels have a much higher failure rate because of the direct injection valve coking and the masses of EGR soot re-injested back in to their systems. Again it’s never mentioned?

          Now that this 2.3 Eco engine appears to be possibly the only none dual injected engine (too soon to tell) from Ford, I guess it’s the one for them to pick on???

          In the end I believe the Cylinder head design, scavenging, and the burn characteristics play the most important roll in excess build-up of deposits. Is dual injection better – yes. Is it always needed – not necessarily.

          1. @ Bill From PA
            Great post.
            I have had similar questions, some were answered via self research, just never put them into the form of a question on here. A lot of fear mongering on ANY engine, on any vehicle, where there are enthusiast specific forums. One really has to learn to sift through and come to their own educated conclusions this day in age. Anyway, I didn’t know Ford was adding an additional dedicated 2.3L truck line to their Cleveland engine plant, I’d like to know more about that.

            I recall, at launch, there were some Ford representatives discussing the 2.3L Ecoboost for Ranger will be tailored for truck duty, including Forged Pistons and Crankshaft – doesn’t the version of the 2.3L Ecoboost in the 2018 Mustang have those forged components already? I am trying to gauge, maybe a bit too early, if Ford is really going to make additional modifications to the 2.3L Ecoboost for Ranger; truck duty, that requires a new engine line specifically for truck.

            @ Drifter64
            Nice response.

      1. Rambro,

        I watched and endured that link just for you!

        I want to like and drive electric’s with generators or range extenders, but we are not even close in the truck world yet.

        The Tesla 3 has not existed for 5yrs? How can you reliably fall for this bullshit or believe any type of statement or comparison with something that doesn’t exist or hasn’t existed yet???

        They also are not factoring into their propaganda the cost of replacing a 5yr old battery pack in the Tesla either? Everything I own with rechargeable batteries usually lasts about 3yrs, never more, sometimes less! Performance always go down too.

        People understood Tacoma in the past because it was in a class all by itself. I was one of them. That is not the case now and it desperately needs to evolve!

        My pleasure on the compliment, as I’m always a giver!

        1. Drifter that post was not propaganda it had really good information and based it on the model s which has been out for five years. They have an idea of ownership costs. Tesla is very basic yet has the safety luxury and performance beat in all its classes in its price range. Why do you say the post is propaganda. You sounded so smart and now you fold. Its an independant study not done by Tesla and they had some really good points. I did not see them account for rising fuel costs either. It was not one sided at all. Get your humble on man. Battery packs do fade but they last a lot longer than five years. You would be into a ten year study at that point. The battery depleting some does not cost you money, you just lose some range.

    35. Ok I admit it was actually very thorough study except…

      I’m not buying it until I see an actual comparison with a model 3 that’s been out at least 5yrs.

      There using a model S as reference point that’s a much different price point car than an economy car with different depreciation schedules also.

      I still adamantly believe range anxiety will be worse and performance will be shortened in 5yrs and a fresh battery should be factored in!

      …and it only applies to cars!

      1. Drifter, we do not factor in a new engine, the battery is the engine and I doubt it will be dead in 10 years either. I believe there is a 25 year warranty, nothing lasts forever and that is factored into the depretiation. With the rise of electric cars a combustion engine in the Civic may depreciate to near nothing or become a door stop compared to the ramp up for electric, gas stations will become scarce and fuel prices will rise. I know you will crush that but that is my belief. Range anxiety is no more, Tesla has superchargers available everywhere even in rural areas and continues to add a minimum of 2 more every day. Google supercharger map. The cars even tell you where they are and if you have enough miles to make it there.

    36. In 10yrs @average mileage of 12,000-15,000 per year, I would 100% guaran dam tee that the the Honda Civic engine will be running as good as new if properly serviced!!!

      In 10yrs for the Tesla battery I would need your Credit Card to make that guarantee!

      1. Drifter I learned the Model 3 has a 70% gauarntee battery warranty for 8 years. The civic only guarantees the motor for 5 years. The civic only guarantees the mileage up to 60,000 miles the model 3 is guaranteed for 100,000miles or 120,000miles double the Civic mileage on the battery. The vehicle is good for 4 years or 50,000miles the Civic is 3 years 60,000miles.

        Again a 10 year study is not available the 5 year is pretty accurate and the average length of ownership for a vehicle in the US is 6.5 years which makes the Tesla look that much better.

        Rant and rave about history of a Civic yet you think a Ranger will outsell a Tacoma LOL. History would save the Civic, stats show the Model 3 is a better choice just like your Ranger theory, but those numbers are not even known yet.

        1. And I will add the model 3 is twice the car the Civic is. It is safer, incredibly faster, faster than my 2002 SS Camaro, cheaper to travel and more luxuries with way more tech. It falls into Mercedes and BMW performance cars more closely than a comparison to a Civic.

          1. Sounds good, but it’s still just a car!

            Let’s revisit this in 5 – 10yrs and see how those batteries play out in the real world.?

            Trucks keep me excited! 😜

            1. I think you called bllsht on my Model 3 comment that was originally made to combat Zviera about traction control and then I get sidetracked. Had to go back and look at why we are talking about cars LOL But it was a good analogy with regards to Civic/Ranger vs Tesla/Toyota regarding sales. By your own admission with the Civic being tried and true the Tacoma will still outsell the Ranger, it doesn’t even offer 4 door long bed which is another big hit. With regular fuel I think the Ranger wont have more than 270HP but those Turbos work well in all rpm ranges so it may beat the Ridgline or Colorado. I still say the manual Tacoma and Manual Frontier are the fastest of the bunch to beat however, but we will never see that mashup. Colorado also offers a factory exhaust that bumps it up 10 HP to 318HP but again we will never see that mashup either.

    37. Oh Rambro,

      You are definitely quite the character!

      Most days it seems you are in Electric LaLa land saying everything else is junk yet we don’t have any electric trucks yet. Some days your in Turbocharged land, and some days your still stuck in supercharged V8 Tundra land happy to get 12mpg as long it sounds good?

      Don’t Electric’s and cool sounding gas guzzling supercharged V8’s contradict each other?

      You know better than to never bet against a turbocharged engine vs na?

      One thing is certain? Nothing new from the Detroit Auto Show has stirred more interest, excitement, and comments than this 2019 Ranger!

      We are at 267 posts and counting, and TFL just released another new post with all of the Ranger trim packages and its off and climbing.

      With this much magic, activity, interest, whatever you want to call it, this new Ranger will be a hit!

      You wait! Then watch again what happens when they do a Ranger Raptor!

      You see I have a sixth sense about me regarding new Trucks, SxS’s, Dirtbikes, MTN bikes, and just about anything centered around Offroad vehicles.

      I call it a curse because it always plays out that if I like something it becomes popular then I end up waisting money on it!!! Then I eventually sell and later wish I still had it, and the crazy cycle repeats itself over and over!


      1. I explained to you before I want a V8 in a midsize with at least 500HP that is Supercharged. Toyota/Tacoma already did this in 2011 but of course it did not make it as a off road production vehicle. I will even settle for the TRX. Problem with Electric is the offer better acceleration for cheap, whereas the auto industry wants to rape you every time they offer something that accelerates well. Plus electric is simple and more robust and doesnt stink and its cheap if you have a heavy foot; it dont matter but it is quiet which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Electric drive has way too many benefits to just say the sound of a V8 wins my vote. As you said Electric is not here yet with regards to a truck so my preference is a midsize with a boosted V8 and the market wont even give us that in a half ton but its available in several SUVs. Same goes for midsize SUVs. You can get a 3.5EB in an explorer but somehow a 2.3 is acceptable for you in a midsize truck, like that is being fair to the consumer. Why? Because you made a story and say its just enough that it will compete with the rest of the garbage, you cant go any lower than this, a donkey can run circles around the midsize class.

        And yes I do back up turbo engines as better than a naturally aspirated engine. This is where diesel got its power, is from turbos. The new gas turbos litre for litre beat the low end torque of a diesel.

        Non of this will matter when a truck with good off road chops shows up for me with electric drive. Even workhorse with there first truck has the industry beat in many categories. Electric when it gets here mainstream in 2020 will blow away gas turbos.

        As for help, I cant help you. But you definately are wrong about the Ranger. Most of the feedback on it is negative. Yes many expected more and the frustration brings on the comments. I would Rather be a Ram Truck with over 300 comments that are mostly positive.

        People thought I was wrong by the masses when I said in 2015 that the Colorado would never outsell the Tacoma and I even had journalists on Off road dot com argue with me. Im still right to this day. The Tacoma by majority is the prefered truck by more buyers whether its made from coco puffs or titanium it is the better choice for more buyers and that will continue. However, with the introduction of the ZR2 Colorado stands a good chance but Moondog was right, Taco still ahead, even had me second guessing. The Ranger in its current form will never outsell the Tacoma regardless of what it is or is not. So it may help you to be wrong here as it is a humbling experience. Its happened to me before and I lived.

    Leave a Reply