Ford Fn Ranger-Who is this competing with?

[HammaMan]

I audibly laughed at the 3.8 Stroker EcoBoost comment. What a weird pipe dream. A small aluminum block turbo engine has no place in any 3/4 ton. It doesn’t have the displacement for engine braking, it doesn’t have the bore spacing for the cooling requirements. It’s just sub-par compared to the 7.3 Godzilla on every front. Worse mileage, worse heat management, worse longevity.

The 3.5s don't have a thermal management issue, they have an undersized rad issue for high/hot/heavy. If it were coupled with the aviator's phev system (with better trans) it'd have significantly more engine regen than the 7.3. For regular towing duty the 5.0 is a more logical choice (with the PHEV parts) due to the turbo motors being eco or boost.

Sponsored

 

[JExpedition07]

The 3.5s don't have a thermal management issue, they have an undersized rad issue for high/hot/heavy. If it were coupled with the aviator's phev system (with better trans) it'd have significantly more engine regen than the 7.3. For regular towing duty the 5.0 is a more logical choice (with the PHEV parts) due to the turbo motors being eco or boost.

The 5.0 nor the 3.5 will ever land in a Super Duty. The 7.3 and 6.8 platform are brand new from the ground up with both direct injection and hybrid planned. Look at the block and bore spacing on the 7.3, it’s a much superior engine for truck duty to our half ton powertrains. You will also notice a dimple in the Godzilla head to punch out as-cast for direct injectors.

 

[Pedaldude]

The reason why the Ranger is so half assed is that Ford is afraid of it cannibalizing F150 sales. They could easily make them cheaper but so could everyone else.

The Tundra sells so poorly that Toyota has more freedom with the Tacoma. Though to be fair; the previous gen. Tacoma loses in nearly every regard to the Ranger and we’ll know pretty soon about the current generation.

Some things that the new Tacoma has over the Ranger:

Manual transmission option.

Hybrid option.

Locking center differential for part time and full time 4x4.

A cult like following despite the increasing MSRPS and the crazy resale value where 10+ year old 100K mile trucks in certain configurations are selling for more than their original MSRP.

Don’t worry though, as soon as people stop paying the obscene prices that the manufacturers are asking; they will magically figure out how to make affordable trucks again.

Ford isn’t dropping the ball. They hamstrung the Ranger deliberately and they are playing a shell game with the F150 and Superduty trucks to trick buyers into ‘settling’ for the King Ranch and Platinum trims because the XL and XLT are such shitty values when buying new.

 

[belairbrian]

All of these trucks: Ranger, Maverick, Frontier, Tacoma, Colorado seen to have come from a trend to make the old small trucks bigger. Now the original small trucks: Ranger, S10, T100 are commanding ridiculous prices. My daughter drives a 09 Ranger 4 cyl with just over 60K miles. Around hear it would sell for about 10K dollars.

 

[GypsyDanger]

I have a ranger on order but at 47k(loaded lariat/Aplan) I started looking at 21+ F150s used and it seems like the dollar goes much further. The whole new thing loses its shine to me after the first 10k miles for me so used under 50k or so miles just rings better. I love the idea of smaller trucks packing a solid punch but at 6'6" I am hesitant on trying to comfortably fit. I had a 22' maverick and that was actually not bad but still limited. Ill go take a look at the ranger when it comes in as my Mom is interested but the 21-23 150 XLTs seem to have all the features of the top trim Ranger. Just depends on your wants and needs.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

I'm not on the Chevy forums, so I wouldn't know.... But I thought their 2.7 was supposed to be a well thought out motor as for workhorse. Not easily broken.
So they are having teething problems? Or more serious?

Yeah it's their least reliable motor in the Silverado. AFM on these is poorly planned. Also, I ain't accepting such garbage mpg from a tiny 4cyl.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

The reason why the Ranger is so half assed is that Ford is afraid of it cannibalizing F150 sales. They could easily make them cheaper but so could everyone else.

The Tundra sells so poorly that Toyota has more freedom with the Tacoma. Though to be fair; the previous gen. Tacoma loses in nearly every regard to the Ranger and we’ll know pretty soon about the current generation.

Some things that the new Tacoma has over the Ranger:

Manual transmission option.

Hybrid option.

Locking center differential for part time and full time 4x4.

A cult like following despite the increasing MSRPS and the crazy resale value where 10+ year old 100K mile trucks in certain configurations are selling for more than their original MSRP.

Don’t worry though, as soon as people stop paying the obscene prices that the manufacturers are asking; they will magically figure out how to make affordable trucks again.

Ford isn’t dropping the ball. They hamstrung the Ranger deliberately and they are playing a shell game with the F150 and Superduty trucks to trick buyers into ‘settling’ for the King Ranch and Platinum trims because the XL and XLT are such shitty values when buying new.

This is probably the best point here. The maverick just further complicated everything.

I would have much rather saw a hybrid ranger option released two years ago in the 2024 body that everyone else has already been using. Don't get me wrong, the maverick was good idea, but not even close to as useful as a solid 28-32mpg ranger. Soooooo much was lost in sales by fucking up the launch and letting Chebby and that ugly Tacoma hit shelves first.

 

[GypsyDanger]

This is probably the best point here. The maverick just further complicated everything.

I would have much rather saw a hybrid ranger option released two years ago in the 2024 body that everyone else has already been using. Don't get me wrong, the maverick was good idea, but not even close to as useful as a solid 28-32mpg ranger. Soooooo much was lost in sales by fucking up the launch and letting Chebby and that ugly Tacoma hit shelves first.

A 30ish MPG Ranger would crush maverick and f150 sales. Really solving the issue with the midsize segment is the fuel economy being pretty much the same as a full sized.

 

[amschind]

I audibly laughed at the 3.8 Stroker EcoBoost for an HD comment. What a weird pipe dream, and a way to lose massive sales volume. A small aluminum block turbo engine has no place in any 3/4 ton. It doesn’t have the displacement for engine braking, it doesn’t have the bore spacing for the cooling requirements. It’s just sub-par compared to the 7.3 Godzilla on every front. Worse mileage, worse heat management, worse longevity.

The 3.5 is an open deck engine; the chief complaint is that is has TOO MUCH bore spacing. As Hammaman said, the weak link in cooling a working 3.5 is the undersized radiator in the F150, not the engine. As for engine braking, a hypothetical 3.8l/100HP motor HYBRID would come very close to a 6.7 because when braking, the wheels are forced to turn a 75 kW generator (i.e. the hybrid motor). For comparison, a Detroit Diesel 4-71 is typically used to power a 75 kW generator. A 6.7 can absolutely WASTE more braking energy, but it has a relatively small advantage in terms of overall braking.

Note that I'm comparing this to the HO 6.7; Today's Powerboost with a radiator upgrade is already the second best towing engine that Ford makes. Anecdotally, I stop my Powerboost without utilizing the brakes 60-70% of the time, and it only has a 47 HP motor.

There is an inaccurate idea that because engines using high boost turn in less MPG that more boost=less efficiency. Under the surface, that's actually the opposite of true. For both the Diesel and Otto cycles, higher pressure means higher thermal efficiency (stated in terms of lb fuel/HP*hr). Forcing more air and fuel into the cylinder raises the effective compression ratio which burns MORE FUEL MORE EFFICIENTLY. The disconnect arises because the engine RPM is fixed to wheel RPM by gears. A highly efficient 1000 HP IC engine turning a wheel at 500 RPM will have significantly worse miles per gallon than an inefficient 100 HP IC engine turning the same wheel at 500 RPM. The issue isn't the engine, it's correctly matching the engine to the wheel RPM with gearing. The reason why a smaller electronic wastegate turbo engine is a great idea for a light truck that may carry a #30k gooseneck or just one dude and his dog is that by opening the wastegate, the 3.5 is a small naturally aspirated V6 but with the wastegate shut, it INSTANTLY blows the 7.3l out of the water. Electronic wastegates are useful even on a big Detroit for an 18 wheeler, but they are almost essential for a bigger light truck whose load conditions vary by a factor of 4.

A small e-wastegate turbo V6 paired with a relatively large electric motor fits perfectly into a Superduty because it specifically addresses all of the points that you raised better than the alternatives (i.e. larger hybrid or conventional engines). Perhaps the most important contribution from the hybrid, apart from very effective engine braking, is that it allows for wider gear spacing which in turn means more torque down low AND even taller gears in 9th and 10th (i.e. OD gears that only get used when cruising unladen). Wide gears (say 5.1:1 up to 0.5:1 vs 4.6:1 to 0.64:1 now), a big electric motor and a relatively small e-wastegate turbo V6 means that the powertrain has an enormous range of torque that it can apply at nearly any speed: 12700 lb-ft (1st, wastegate shut, electric motor pulling) down to 250 lb-ft (10th, wastegate open, electric motor disengaged).

 

[Eskram]

I liked my 2020 Ranger, but not as much as my F150. The size was great for parking, etc., but practicality was an issue at times. The cab felt cramped, the bed was smaller, and there wasn't much interior storage or tech goodies.

The 2024 Ranger solves some of that, but I couldn't wait for them to arrive. The Ranger Raptor could be pretty fun though, but I'd still have some of the same grievances with the size. And, I think I'm officially an F150 guy now.

 

[JExpedition07]

The 3.5 is an open deck engine; the chief complaint is that is has TOO MUCH bore spacing. As Hammaman said, the weak link in cooling a working 3.5 is the undersized radiator in the F150, not the engine. As for engine braking, a hypothetical 3.8l/100HP motor HYBRID would come very close to a 6.7 because when braking, the wheels are forced to turn a 75 kW generator (i.e. the hybrid motor). For comparison, a Detroit Diesel 4-71 is typically used to power a 75 kW generator. A 6.7 can absolutely WASTE more braking energy, but it has a relatively small advantage in terms of overall braking.

Note that I'm comparing this to the HO 6.7; Today's Powerboost with a radiator upgrade is already the second best towing engine that Ford makes. Anecdotally, I stop my Powerboost without utilizing the brakes 60-70% of the time, and it only has a 47 HP motor.

There is an inaccurate idea that because engines using high boost turn in less MPG that more boost=less efficiency. Under the surface, that's actually the opposite of true. For both the Diesel and Otto cycles, higher pressure means higher thermal efficiency (stated in terms of lb fuel/HP*hr). Forcing more air and fuel into the cylinder raises the effective compression ratio which burns MORE FUEL MORE EFFICIENTLY. The disconnect arises because the engine RPM is fixed to wheel RPM by gears. A highly efficient 1000 HP IC engine turning a wheel at 500 RPM will have significantly worse miles per gallon than an inefficient 100 HP IC engine turning the same wheel at 500 RPM. The issue isn't the engine, it's correctly matching the engine to the wheel RPM with gearing. The reason why a smaller electronic wastegate turbo engine is a great idea for a light truck that may carry a #30k gooseneck or just one dude and his dog is that by opening the wastegate, the 3.5 is a small naturally aspirated V6 but with the wastegate shut, it INSTANTLY blows the 7.3l out of the water. Electronic wastegates are useful even on a big Detroit for an 18 wheeler, but they are almost essential for a bigger light truck whose load conditions vary by a factor of 4.

The most efficient and clean burning engines are high compression naturally aspirated engines. Look at the Skyactiv 14:1 engines from Mazda. Hell, my 5.0L puts out almost exactly the same carbon emissions and NOx as the 3.5 EcoBoost due to the high 12:1 static compression the V8 is running. The 5.0 is just a cleaner burning engine because of the 12:1 compression and higher DI rail pressures. Add a hybrid and you wouldn’t even need to leave V-4 mode ever on the highway, and you don’t need to dump gas to cool the turbine or intake charge as you do with a turbo. Why would you go through all that work you mentioned when you can just raise the compression of the 7.3 add DI and add a hybrid? Ain’t gonna happen. You can also stop forking BorgWarner funds for 3rd party turbos. You can build your own connecting rods and pistons for dirt cheap in house.

 

[amschind]

The most efficient and clean burning engines are high compression naturally aspirated engines. Look at the Skyactiv 14:1 engines from Mazda. Hell, my 5.0L puts out almost exactly the same carbon emissions and NOx as the 3.5 EcoBoost due to the high 12:1 static compression the V8 is running. The 5.0 is just a cleaner burning engine because of the 12:1 compression and higher DI rail pressures. Add a hybrid and you wouldn’t even need to leave V-4 mode ever on the highway, and you don’t need to dump gas to cool the turbine or intake charge as you do with a turbo. Why would you go through all that work you mentioned when you can just raise the compression of the 7.3 add DI and add a hybrid? Ain’t gonna happen. You can also stop forking BorgWarner funds for 3rd party turbos. You can build your own connecting rods and pistons for dirt cheap in house.

The statement regarding naturally aspirated engine efficiency is factually inaccurate. You've clouded the issue by referencing SkyactivX, which is a spark-controlled hybrid Otto/Diesel cycle gasoline engine whose efficiency greatly benefits from a turbo. We know this because SAE has done a large amount of research on HCCI and clearly illustrates the efficiency benefits of turbochargers for that application. Here's an illustrative example: Google is your friend.

As for the 5.0, it has higher AND lower compression than the 3.5 (or any wastegate turbo engine for that matter). The 3.5 has a minimum 10.5:1 compression ratio set by its mechanical compression ratio, but at 18 PSI boost its EFFECTIVE compression ratio is far higher. With regard to emissions being nearly equivalent between the 3.5 and 5.0, you're exactly right. I addressed that issue at length in the post that you quoted; see the section on gearing. The DI rail pressures have zero effect upon efficiency for gasoline engines; you've confused the efficiency benefits that higher injection pressure has in a DIESEL FUEL DIESEL CYCLE engine for any benefit in a gasoline engine. Diesels burn with a diffusion flame, like a log in a fireplace, on the surface of a gazillion fuel droplets. Gasoline is far more volatile and thus burns as a premixed flame which acts kind of like a diffusion flame in a spark engine. This is the reason why HCCI engines like the Skyactiv X that you referenced are awesome, as they combine the benefits of a Diesel cycle with the benefits of gasoline fuel which can burn in a premixed flame. Diesels need 25k+ PSI injection pressure to get MORE and SMALLER fuel droplets (e.g. like using tinder to start a fire vs one Yule log), in gasoline engines once the droplets get small enough they just vaporize. This is why gasoline DI injector pressures (2500-3000 PSI) are FAR lower than Diesel DI injector pressures (40-60k PSI).

Harry Ricardo was discussing the early use of super and turbosuperchargers in airplanes, and addressed the confusion regarding displacement and mechanical compression ratios then: "The output of an engine is determined not by its displacement, but by the amount of air which it can be made to efficiently consume." The displacement and mechanical compression ratio is the floor; effective compression is the ceiling. A smaller engine with a bigger variable turbo gives you more options.

 

[JExpedition07]

Meh not really. There is a reason Fords efficiency hybrid offering for the Explorer and Maverick is an N/A 3.3 with 12:1 compression. Forced induction 100% of the time reduces overall engine efficiency for a given displacement as more air and fuel are now being injected into the same space. A certain portion of fuel in the case of an EcoBoost is also wasted on cooling the ram intake charge to stop detonation on pump gas. Where we drive (90%) of the time, static compression is everything. Nobody drives with their foot to the mat 24/7. Dynamic compression does not come into play for the big picture of emissions, and gasoline F/I efficiency deteriorates much more under load than an N/A.

On another note, an air pump can easily be modified without a turbo. Bigger valves, more rpm, cam timing, variable displacement, intake charge velocity. The 5.0 is over 100% efficient, approaching 110% on 3rd and 4th gen motors with the larger intake ports/valve diameters and improved intake manifolds. A typical LS (also N/A) is only 85-91% efficient. Ford can get more air into the cylinder with increasing intake velocity at higher RPM coupled with retarding when the intake valve opens (intake charge velocity feeds into the cylinder even on start of power stroke). The 5.0 is more than 12:1 compression at wide open throttle *if* you compare to base ingestion rates of air at part throttle. It consumes more air per stroke on the intake cycle at differing RPM due to the head design (this gets into TB, manifold, cam timing). There are some good reads on this on the Mustang forum. The increase charge velocity under wide open throttle stuffs the cylinders with more air than under normal circumstances where it’s 12:1. It’s still 12:1 of course (a unit of mechanical compression, but cylinder pressures are now higher). Also, the CFM spread on a current 5.0 vs a gen 1 cylinder head is nuts. It’s still the same cubic inches (well close 302 vs 307). General Motors new 5.5 N/A makes 670 HP or 120 HP per liter and can ingest the same amount of air as a 10.0 liter of yesteryear, all naturally aspirated. Lots of ways to modify how many CFM an engine can pump.

 

[HammaMan]

The engine braking capability of a gasoline engine is bad -- like real bad. The PB's 3.5 w/ electric motor produces 3+ times the braking capability of the 5.0 right up until the battery is full which takes about 2 minutes to achieve. If it were combined with 10x the battery size, it'd be able to regen 10x as long, and that'd come with a motor twice as powerful with a touch more torque putting engine braking on-par with a diesel except that it's capturing the energy (or returning the energy back to the batt that it burned on the way up).

As for the 3.5's fuel burn rate, it's not being used to cool the charge air, it's being used to keep EGTs down. For the rolling hills around here I'd much prefer ford have done a leaner burning strategy for low power demands. It's a little to happy to go into boost when it's not warranted while taking the AFR richer than it needs to be. All this just to save a few pennies on EGT probes and wiring. Perhaps it's good-nuff for now and they're hoping the next gen refresh to find another 1-2 MPG.

 

[Snakebitten]

I have normally aspirated vehicles. Both with grin factor scores pretty high. (Miata SkyActive 2.0L & Porsche's magical flat 6 boxer)

Love both.

I have the Powerboost, of course, and it's my 4th personal twin turbocharged V6 F150. I'm obviously smitten by the way it does its thing.

And I now have the absolute KING of torque drivetrain too. Can't believe it's legal to own or insure without taking some kind character test. ~650ftlbs at 1 rpms. Pure insanity.

Wish my grandpa was alive. He'd think all 4 were science fiction.

Sponsored