2019 Ford Ranger

[Mike Lewis]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

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]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

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]

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.

[Oldtimer]

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

[Donna D.]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

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!

[jeffrow]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

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.

[Mike Lewis]

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...

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

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]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

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).

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

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.

[Frankster]

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

[Bobnjudy]

I wanted to to see the long delayed specs and so far there is only gas for the Ranger. Also the diesel for the 150 has no turbo braking which is a big flaw. The GM twins do.
If buying a TA, might have to check with the hitch installer re. the aluminum bed and the rail mounts. The Ridgeline looks like a super TV for a bumper pull.

[Mark James]

Tacoma has a composite bed which rules out a TA hitch or so the CAP IT guys told me. Aluminum should be okay as the F150 has an aluminum bed and they are a common tow vehicle for the fifth wheel.

[Ron in BC]

Originally Posted by Bobnjudy

I wanted to to see the long delayed specs and so far there is only gas for the Ranger.

Possibly not as long as I waited. I was waiting for it in 2011, didn't really believe that they'd really cancel the Ranger entirely. So I bought one of the last 2011's. I did see the Ranger that they're selling elsewhere in the world overseas and I kept waiting and waiting. Then they announced for sure that the new Ranger was coming but with a 4 cylinder gas engine.

Somewhere over the years I stopped caring. I'm really looking forward to getting my new F150 2.7.

Ron

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Bobnjudy

I wanted to to see the long delayed specs and so far there is only gas for the Ranger.

True. Worldwide, most Rangers are diesel, and Ford offers two engines: a 2.2 L 4-cylinder and a 3.2 L 5-cylinder. The 3.2 L (the only one likely to be offered here, if any of them make it) is already available here in the Transit (under the Power Stroke brand), so it should be an easy option to add if Ford chooses to do so. My guess is that it will be at least another year.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by Ron in BC

I'm really looking forward to getting my new F150 2.7.

You are going to love it Ron. For years and years I swore off a full size truck in favor of my Rangers. Now I can't figure out what took me so long. Room, comfort, quiet, economy, great towing and good power.

[Ron in BC]

Yes, I think the wait's going to worth it to get what we want. Evidently it gets hatched in 2 weeks. Might take up to another 4 weeks to get shipped here. Then it'll be a bit of a race to get enough miles on it before using it for towing.

Ron

[Chotch]

Originally Posted by Mark James

Tacoma has a composite bed which rules out a TA hitch or so the CAP IT guys told me. Aluminum should be okay as the F150 has an aluminum bed and they are a common tow vehicle for the fifth wheel.

🤔 Don’t know anything about the Tacoma, I have an aluminum body F150 that has been a great match for our 5.0TA. What I want to point out is that the pickup bed does NOT carry the weight of the hitch on a conventional 5th wheel no matter what it’s made of. The frame of the truck does. You have to drill through the bed to attach to irons that are attached to the frame. The one exception that I know of would be for the Scamp ,which is a different animal altogether 😎

[Chotch]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

You are going to love it Ron. For years and years I swore off a full size truck in favor of my Rangers. Now I can't figure out what took me so long. Room, comfort, quiet, economy, great towing and good power.

X10, couldn’t be happier with mine. Just wish they made parking spaces a little wider 😎

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by Chotch

X10, couldn’t be happier with mine. Just wish they made parking spaces a little wider 😎

After many years of driving Super Duty trucks, the F150 is a breeze to park in lots. I always back in and fold my mirrors in. The odd one is a wee bit tight, but still doable.

[Chotch]

Originally Posted by Jim Bennett

After many years of driving Super Duty trucks, the F150 is a breeze to park in lots. I always back in and fold my mirrors in. The odd one is a wee bit tight, but still doable.

No problem parking, it’s opening the doors. Not everyone is as careful as I am. Usually park way out where more sparsely populated. The walks good for me anyway😎