2019 Ford Ranger - Page 3 - Escape Trailer Owners Community

Go Back   Escape Trailer Owners Community > Escape Tech > Towing and Hitching
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-10-2018, 08:29 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Mike Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa County, Florida
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve dunham View Post
The problem is the engines were still running fine but the truck bodies had rusted away .

Last month when driving through Michigan I passed a business that had pickup truck beds stacked outside, four deep. A sign said "Out of State Truck Bodies". I guess they were for that situation.
__________________

__________________
Mike Lewis
Photos and travelogues here: mikelewisimages.com
Mike Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 08:40 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Mike Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa County, Florida
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
Ford might fail to design and equip the Ranger's engine properly, but there is nothing inherently problematic about the size, number of cylinders, or the use of a turbocharger.
A generation ago diesels were considered to be more suitable to turbocharging because they were built more ruggedly to withstand the high compression ratios used in diesel combustion. I don't know if this is still the case.

I'm still skittish about turbos, but at this point my reaction is mostly psychological due to their problems in the past.
__________________

__________________
Mike Lewis
Photos and travelogues here: mikelewisimages.com
Mike Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 08:52 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Mike Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa County, Florida
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 1,831
I drove a 1990 Ford Ranger pickup with a 4.0 V-6 for eighteen years. I sort of overdid it, putting more into parts and service than it was worth in the later years. I had no major mechanical problems with the truck but eventually the minor repairs were beginning to approach a monthly car payment, so I finally got rid of it.

I did have one problem with the Ranger that makes me hesitate to buy another Ford: after several years the paint started coming off the truck. I had to have it repainted at my own expense. From what I read at the time the EPA increased the requirement to remove pollutants emitted from auto paint shops. Toyota and others put in better filters, etc., to remove the emissions in their facilities; Ford just used cheaper paint that met the EPA guidelines without the need for more pollution controls, paint durability be damned. Conduct like that inhibits development of a loyal customer base.
__________________
Mike Lewis
Photos and travelogues here: mikelewisimages.com
Mike Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 08:58 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Oldtimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: DFW, Texas
Trailer: 2018 21 Sept 7 2018
Posts: 355
I had a 2002 4x4 v6 4.0 ranger loved it was still going strong after 218000 miles on only issue I had with it was the front hubs had to change them out at 150k. It was a sad day when I sold it a yr ago still miss the old battle wagon as I called her
Oldtimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 09:07 AM   #25
Site Team
 
Donna D.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Trailer: 2014 Escape 5.0 TA
Posts: 7,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewis View Post

I did have one problem with the Ranger that makes me hesitate to buy another Ford: after several years the paint started coming off the truck. I had to have it repainted at my own expense.
I had the same thing happen with a Chevy truck. I think this was a major issue with all the vehicle manufacturers in the early 1990s. Biodegradable paint!
__________________
Donna D.
Ten Forward
2014 Escape 5.0TA
Donna D. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 09:25 AM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: San Diego, California
Trailer: 2018 Escape 21
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewis View Post
I drove a 1990 Ford Ranger pickup with a 4.0 V-6 for eighteen years. I sort of overdid it, putting more into parts and service than it was worth in the later years. I had no major mechanical problems with the truck but eventually the minor repairs were beginning to approach a monthly car payment, so I finally got rid of it.

I did have one problem with the Ranger that makes me hesitate to buy another Ford: after several years the paint started coming off the truck. I had to have it repainted at my own expense. From what I read at the time the EPA increased the requirement to remove pollutants emitted from auto paint shops. Toyota and others put in better filters, etc., to remove the emissions in their facilities; Ford just used cheaper paint that met the EPA guidelines without the need for more pollution controls, paint durability be damned. Conduct like that inhibits development of a loyal customer base.
Most manufacturers had that problem a few years back. It was mostly due to faulty formulation of the primer I believe. Honda has an open campaign where they are painting pretty much any Civic peeling top surfaces for free.
jeffrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 09:54 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Mike Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa County, Florida
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 1,831
It just crossed my mind that modern gas auto engines may be more amenable to turbocharging than those in the past. The advent of these eight- and ten-speed automatic transmissions leads me to believe that auto makers are trying to constrain the engine's RPM band in order to increase fuel efficiency. If so, then the new engines mimic the narrow RPM ranges of diesel engines and piston aircraft engines, both of which are quite adaptable to turbocharging.


So now I can transfer my well-honed paranoia from turbos to these new transmissions which are constantly shifting. Hmm...
__________________
Mike Lewis
Photos and travelogues here: mikelewisimages.com
Mike Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 10:52 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewis View Post
Last month when driving through Michigan I passed a business that had pickup truck beds stacked outside, four deep. A sign said "Out of State Truck Bodies". I guess they were for that situation.
Maybe, but also many trucks are purchased with a box which is immediately removed and replaced with a special-purpose body (usually a service body); the surplus boxes are then available for anyone who needs them, whether due to rust or collision damage. Even if there is nothing wrong with them, pickup boxes should rust more than cabs, because their paint gets damaged by cargo (and inept cargo loading and unloading). I doubt that this is specific to any brand.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 11:10 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewis View Post
A generation ago diesels were considered to be more suitable to turbocharging because they were built more ruggedly to withstand the high compression ratios used in diesel combustion. I don't know if this is still the case.
I don't think it's the construction at all. If you turbocharge a diesel engine, you need to make it even stronger than it would need to be without the turbo.

There are two factors which make diesels and turbocharging a natural combination:
  • Supercharging (including turbocharging) increases the tendency for preignition (a.k.a. "knocking") in a spark-ignition (gasoline) engine, increasing the requirement for octane or reducing the maximum compression ratio; in contrast, supercharging reduces combustion problems in a compression-ignition (diesel) engine. Boost causes problems in gas engines and fixes them in diesel engines.
  • For the same displacement, a diesel engine will have lower power output than a gasoline engine... so low that engine size is a real problem for vehicles. The fix is turbocharging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewis View Post
It just crossed my mind that modern gas auto engines may be more amenable to turbocharging than those in the past.
Yes, because both combustion chamber design and engine management have improved. The key feature need to make turbocharged gasoline engines really effective, while maintaining a good compression ratio, is injection of fuel directly into the cylinder, much like a diesel. Now most auto manufacturers have direct gasoline injection engines - Ford calls theirs EcoBoost, while other use terms such as TFSi (VW), GDI (Hyundai), SkyActiv (Mazda), D4 (Toyota), and SIDI (GM).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewis View Post
The advent of these eight- and ten-speed automatic transmissions leads me to believe that auto makers are trying to constrain the engine's RPM band in order to increase fuel efficiency. If so, then the new engines mimic the narrow RPM ranges of diesel engines and piston aircraft engines, both of which are quite adaptable to turbocharging.
Yes, more ratios allows engine operation at a more optimal speed. This is actually more valuable in non-turbo engines, but turbocharged direct-injection engines and many-speed transmission both happen to be current trends.

Aircraft piston engines are not particularly good at handling boost (they are antiquated designs); however, operation at high altitudes makes boost very useful. Instead of running a lot of boost for higher peak power, turbocharged aircraft engines maintain power as altitude increases much better than non-turbo engines. The same thing never happened with cars because altitude was never much of a concern.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 06:21 PM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Trailer: 2014 Casita FD, I have completed a mod on the swivel chair area. Couch/bed...
Posts: 3
Tow Vehicle

Hello, Late last year i sold my fiberglass travel trailer. I towed it with my White 2016 GMC Canyon SLE diesel and never knew it was following me.!!
I have decided to downgrade and am going to sell my GMC. It has 47,000 miles on it and is in great shape. While pulling my TT (3200#) it posted between 18 to 22 mpg and while unloaded (except for the LEER cap) it gets between 28 and 31 mpg. It is a Perfect TV for all TT's up to 5,000#'s.
Best regards,
Frank (Frankster) Baldwin
Horseshoe Bay, Texas
__________________

Frankster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off






» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Escape Trailer Industries or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.