Talk me out of getting a Ranger!

What’s that turn radius tho? Seems like a pain in the parking lot or the ass.

 

It's actually quite nimble from my test drive. It's smaller than a Taco so that helps too.

 

Where are you getting your numbers from? And also, the Ranger still gets better MPG's while adding an extra 40 torque than the Tacoma which makes daily driving liveable.

 

I finally saw the first one yesterday in Lowe's parking lot, hard to believe it took until August!

 

Was it so nice you are going to trade in ur taco and leave us ?
Wait! You are a man! Never mind! Lol

 

This has been a good thread for some laughs these last few pages. My girlfriend is sitting next to me, smug AF because she drives a Wrangler (manual), so clearly superior to all of us.

Yes, when I trade my taco for a ranger, I'll have to put a leveling kit in, and park it head first in my driveway so I don't have to look at that yucky tailgate. With any luck, the 2021 rework will be a bit more pleasing to look at and have "rock" mode in the terrain management system. If they get those two things right, they'll have a winner.

Of course, nothing will ever look as abysmal as a Gladiator tail end... ugh, that thing makes the ranger look like a Bentley.

 

I should add that I don't argue that the taco will last longer without a rebuild, but it's not because it's built better. The ranger makes a ton of power for a small engine. Higher power out of a smaller engine means higher pressures and more stress. The rest of the truck is likely to last just as long if not longer than the taco given the same level of care.

Also, I haven't seen any difference in pricing, other than the lack of dealer incentives for the ranger because it's still new, and supply can't keep up with demand yet. As far as MSRP, the two trucks are on even ground.

 

1 mpg is better, but not by much.
I get my numbers from:
Fuelly.
Car magazine reviews.
Test drives.

Owners like to take screen shots of instantaneous mpg readout's....that's not the same thing as pump-to-pump averages. The ecoboost engines do not get great mpg's when they are in boost...and when those engines are powering heavier weights (like trucks) they're in boost quite a bit.

In fact, there is even a lawsuit aimed at Ford concerning this very issue.

 

Er... have you seen the sales figures? The factory’s production capacity dwarfs the number that they sell, they’re having no issues keeping up with demand. Hell, come to Ford of Kirkland here in WA, they’ve had the same two out front for months and a storage lot with 15 or so that haven’t moved since they got them months ago. Sales wise the Ranger appears to be a flop, and I’m no Ford hater. I loved my 2 F150’s, but the Ranger is a dud.

 

You still haven't listed any links. Fuelly still has higher numbers than you're staring. And even with the lawsuit, real world owners are reporting stellar MPG numbers.

 

That may be the case now since they're not offering any incentives. Their early figures showed a different story, even without incentives. I don't expect it to outsell the taco, since people still think the new taco is built like the old Hilux on top gear, but when the ranger gets incentives like the taco, it will start hitting the road more frequently. The current lease pricing is a joke. 8% for the ranger compared to 2% for the taco makes a several hundo difference per month at the same MSRP.

 

Don't have to remove any tires to do an oil change LOL. The access panel is convenient,

Tacoma oil change is not much better.

 

Where do you people get your information? The 2.3 in the Ranger is not stressed at all at 270HP. That same engine is capable of 385 HP with a tune. The engine is used at various HP for other Ford vehicles. Running it at 350HP may be cause to worry but 270HP @87 Octane is a Cakewalk for the 2.3

As far as MPG I routinely get 22 around town and 27 + on the freeway,

The 2.3L version of the EcoBoost engine debuted in the 2015 Lincoln MKC crossover and has been implemented in many Ford and Lincoln vehicles with various outputs.

Applications

• 270 hp (201 kW; 274 PS) at 5500 rpm, 310 lb⋅ft (420 N⋅m) at 3000 rpm
  • 2019– Ford Ranger
• 280 hp (209 kW; 284 PS) at 5600 rpm, 310 lb⋅ft (420 N⋅m) at 3000 rpm
  • 2016–2019 Ford Explorer
  • 2020– Lincoln Corsair
• 285 hp (213 kW; 289 PS) at 5500 rpm, 305 lb⋅ft (414 N⋅m) at 2750 rpm
  • 2015–2019 Lincoln MKC
• 300 hp (224 kW; 304 PS) at 5500 rpm, 310 lb⋅ft (420 N⋅m) at 3000 rpm
  • 2020– Ford Explorer
• 310 hp (231 kW; 314 PS) at 5500 rpm, 320–350 lb⋅ft (434–475 N⋅m) at 3000 rpm
  • 2015– Ford Mustang EcoBoost
• 286–313 hp (213–233 kW; 290–317 PS) at 6000 rpm, 350 lb⋅ft (475 N⋅m) at 3200 rpm
  • 2016–2018 Ford Focus RS[49]
  • 2016- Zenos E10 R[50]
• 385 hp (287 kW; 390 PS) at 6000 rpm, 369 lb⋅ft (500 N⋅m) at 3200 rpm
  • 2016–2017 VUHL 05 RR
• 276 hp (206 kW; 280 PS) at 5500 rpm, 310 lb⋅ft (420 N⋅m) at 3000–4000 rpm
  • 2019– Ford Focus ST (2020)

 

I didn't say it's a timebomb. I was saying that 270hp and 310ft/lbs out of a 2.3 demands much higher pressure and more stress than 270hp and whatever anemic torque comes out of the 3.5 in the taco. More pressure, higher temps, and more stress results in more wear. Never did I say the 2.3 was anywhere near its mechanical limits. In fact, I have posted several times that I think the 2.3 will live a long healthy life because the EB engines are over engineered. The limiting factor in my 2.7 Fusion is the turbos that ate rated for only 200hp each, and the transaxle rated for 550 newton meters (~405ft/lbs, easily exceeded by a mild tune). The 2.3 will not last as long as the 3.5 simply because it will wear faster due to higher cylinder pressures, and more force being applied to each piston. If you don't think those things are a factor in engine longevity, you are silly.

 

Just coming back from Rocky Mountain Overland Rally in Gunnison, CO. Probably half or better of the vehicles there were Toyota (Tacoma, Tundra, 4 Runner, some Landcruisers). Then a mix of Ford F series, Chevy, Dodge, Jeeps, even a couple of Ridgelines and Nissans. 3-4 Jeep Gladiators.
Exactly 0 Rangers. I wonder why?

 

This thread will never end will it?

 

Call me silly then. I found zero research the 2.3 EB won't outlast the 2.7...Much fewer moving parts not working hard at all... I don't agree the 2.3 is working hard at 270HP @5000RPM when the same engine is tuned well above that in other applications which have been around since 2015. The Ecoboost engine was designed to be turbocharged. Turbocharging an engine with 14psi boost pressure effectively doubles the engines displace meant. What that means is that the 3.5 litre Ecoboost engine running 14psi boost becomes a 7 litre engine. That would double the torque output.


I did a ton of research on the EB engines before I made another mistake like the 3rd Gen Tacoma. Substantially, the EcoBoost with 2.3-liter displacement was built on the framework of 2.0-liter EcoBoost Generation Two and is often denominated a “stroker”. Though these motors are manufactured at the same plant in Valencia (Spain), the 2.3-liter modification was strengthened to cope with greater power and have better endurance.

With 500K EBs in only the F150 on the roads, I would say the EcoBoost engines are bulletproof. Plenty of the 2.3s in Mustangs and Lincolns as well.

The 2.3L engine block has enlarged oil and cooling passages and a structural ladder frame (strengthening ribs molded around the cylinders) with integrated main bearing caps. The increased displacement was achieved by applying new forged 4340 steel crankshaft with 94 mm stroke (2L has 83.1 mm stroke). The engine also uses forged steel connecting rods (they are shorter than 2.0L conrods) and lightweight high-strength pistons with steel piston ring carriers and fully floating pins. The new pistons have low-friction skirt coating and less oil drainage holes for better lubrication and lower friction. The bottom side of cylinders is cooled with oil constantly sprayed by special oil jets inside the engine block. The bottom of the engine includes a chain-driven oil pump, balance shaft, and a die-cast deep-sump aluminum oil pan with a baffling area which helps help prevent oil slosh and maintain oil delivery during active driving.

 

Dude, we get it, the Tacoma sucks and your Ranger is where it's at. Why are you trying so hard to sell everyone here on the Ranger?

 

Misery loves company

 

But the Ranger is butt ugly.
I do understand that some folks want to be outliers and drive the Pacers, Pintos and Mavericks of their day. I imagine in 2-3 years that Ford will adjust the aesthetics to make the ranger a desirable truck.