On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:28:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:




I won't argue about .8L of displacement but
the old age rule of "no replacement for displacement" isn't necessarily
true anymore with diesels, especially with the modern turbos that
produce more torque at lower RPM. Really depends on the design and how
they operate. The Dodge Ram 1500 with the little 3.0L diesel is rated
to tow 9,200 lbs.

The Volvo diesels I had in the Navigator had higher horsepower but were
half the size of the DD6-71's in Wayne's GB.
Difference is, the Volvo's will be used for mooring blocks while his
DD6-71's are still pushing his boat around the oceans.

I was surprised that my FILs new cadillac only had a turbo 2l (gas)
He says it is as snappy as his old Northstar v8 but I know that can't
be right. He does move right along tho.

wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:28:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:




I won't argue about .8L of displacement but
the old age rule of "no replacement for displacement" isn't necessarily
true anymore with diesels, especially with the modern turbos that
produce more torque at lower RPM. Really depends on the design and how
they operate. The Dodge Ram 1500 with the little 3.0L diesel is rated
to tow 9,200 lbs.

The Volvo diesels I had in the Navigator had higher horsepower but were
half the size of the DD6-71's in Wayne's GB.
Difference is, the Volvo's will be used for mooring blocks while his
DD6-71's are still pushing his boat around the oceans.

I was surprised that my FILs new cadillac only had a turbo 2l (gas)
He says it is as snappy as his old Northstar v8 but I know that can't
be right. He does move right along tho.


I rented a Jetta turbo diesel about 15 years ago in Italy. 1.8L and I
thought it was a premium gas motor. Ran down the road at 140 kph, and
would accelerate with gusto.

It does look similar to the F-150. In some ways a mini version of the bigger truck.

I don't have any engine or transmission information yet. If I get some I will post here. If I were to guess possibly the 2.7 Ecoboost currently in the 150 a 4 cylinder turbo-charged engine. Possibly the 2.0 turbo or the 3.6 V-6. These are current Ford engines. Then again they could possibly come out with something new just for the Ranger.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:48:19 -0600, Califbill wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:28:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:




I won't argue about .8L of displacement but
the old age rule of "no replacement for displacement" isn't necessarily
true anymore with diesels, especially with the modern turbos that
produce more torque at lower RPM. Really depends on the design and how
they operate. The Dodge Ram 1500 with the little 3.0L diesel is rated
to tow 9,200 lbs.

The Volvo diesels I had in the Navigator had higher horsepower but were
half the size of the DD6-71's in Wayne's GB.
Difference is, the Volvo's will be used for mooring blocks while his
DD6-71's are still pushing his boat around the oceans.

I was surprised that my FILs new cadillac only had a turbo 2l (gas)
He says it is as snappy as his old Northstar v8 but I know that can't
be right. He does move right along tho.


I rented a Jetta turbo diesel about 15 years ago in Italy. 1.8L and I
thought it was a premium gas motor. Ran down the road at 140 kph, and
would accelerate with gusto.

That was the experience we had with the Turbo diesel in the Jetta Sportwagon. Snappy little engine.

wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:35:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 8:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/16/17 7:56 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/16/2017 7:00 AM, RGrew176 wrote:
The next Ford Ranger.

[image: http://i65.tinypic.com/vnf7vc.jpg]

From the rear it looks similar to the current F-150 but maybe a bit
smaller. Any news of it's powertrain yet?

Probably not much more than the 2.7L EcoBoost. I doubt it will see the
3.5L.

To compete with Toyota and Chevy, the new Ranger likely will be
available with a four banger of about 2.5 liters, and a V6 of about 3.5
liters.

I'd love to see a small 2 liter (or thereabouts) turbo diesel developed
for it.
As weird as the "truck" business is these days they might make one
with the Coyote 5.0 LTi-VCT V8 in it.
I don't know how well this will format but the numbers on the HO 3.5L
EcoBoost are far better than the 5.0. Very unexpected.

Engine type

2.7L EcoBoost® V6 3.5L EcoBoost® V6 3.5L Ti-VCT V6 5.0L Ti-VCT V8
H.O. 3.5L EcoBoost® V6
Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 325 @ 5750 375 @ 5000 282 @ 6250 385 @ 5750
450 @ 5000
Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 375 @ 3000 470 @ 3500 253 @ 4250 387 @ 3850
510 @ 3500
Compression ratio 10.0:1 10.5:1 10.8:1 10.5:1 10.0:1
Bore (in.) 3.27 3.64 3.64 3.63 3.64
Stroke (in.) 3.27 3.45 3.45 3.65 3.41
Displacement (cu. in.) 164 213 213 302 213

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/16/17 8:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/16/2017 8:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/16/17 7:56 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/16/2017 7:00 AM, RGrew176 wrote:
The next Ford Ranger.

[image: http://i65.tinypic.com/vnf7vc.jpg]


From the rear it looks similar to the current F-150 but maybe a bit
smaller. Any news of it's powertrain yet?

Probably not much more than the 2.7L EcoBoost. I doubt it will see
the
3.5L.


To compete with Toyota and Chevy, the new Ranger likely will be
available with a four banger of about 2.5 liters, and a V6 of about 3.5
liters.


I'd love to see a small 2 liter (or thereabouts) turbo diesel developed
for it.

Well, a small diesel would be easy enough to source, but I don't think
a 2.0 liter engine will hack it, especially since the Chevy Colorado's
diesel is 2.8 liters.

It's not all about displacement.

wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:28:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I won't argue about .8L of displacement but
the old age rule of "no replacement for displacement" isn't necessarily
true anymore with diesels, especially with the modern turbos that
produce more torque at lower RPM. Really depends on the design and how
they operate. The Dodge Ram 1500 with the little 3.0L diesel is rated
to tow 9,200 lbs.

The Volvo diesels I had in the Navigator had higher horsepower but were
half the size of the DD6-71's in Wayne's GB.
Difference is, the Volvo's will be used for mooring blocks while his
DD6-71's are still pushing his boat around the oceans.
I was surprised that my FILs new cadillac only had a turbo 2l (gas)
He says it is as snappy as his old Northstar v8 but I know that can't
be right. He does move right along tho.

The wife's 3.0L has far more horsepower than the 8.2L in one of my
boats. Hers is 40 years newer.

On 1/17/2017 6:59 PM, Alex wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:35:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 8:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/16/17 7:56 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/16/2017 7:00 AM, RGrew176 wrote:
The next Ford Ranger.

[image: http://i65.tinypic.com/vnf7vc.jpg]

From the rear it looks similar to the current F-150 but maybe a bit
smaller. Any news of it's powertrain yet?

Probably not much more than the 2.7L EcoBoost. I doubt it will see
the
3.5L.

To compete with Toyota and Chevy, the new Ranger likely will be
available with a four banger of about 2.5 liters, and a V6 of about 3.5
liters.

I'd love to see a small 2 liter (or thereabouts) turbo diesel developed
for it.
As weird as the "truck" business is these days they might make one
with the Coyote 5.0 LTi-VCT V8 in it.
I don't know how well this will format but the numbers on the HO 3.5L
EcoBoost are far better than the 5.0. Very unexpected.

Engine type

2.7L EcoBoost® V6 3.5L EcoBoost® V6 3.5L Ti-VCT V6 5.0L
Ti-VCT V8 H.O. 3.5L EcoBoost® V6
Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 325 @ 5750 375 @ 5000 282 @
6250 385 @ 5750 450 @ 5000
Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 375 @ 3000 470 @ 3500 253 @ 4250
387 @ 3850 510 @ 3500
Compression ratio 10.0:1 10.5:1 10.8:1 10.5:1 10.0:1
Bore (in.) 3.27 3.64 3.64 3.63 3.64
Stroke (in.) 3.27 3.45 3.45 3.65 3.41
Displacement (cu. in.) 164 213 213 302 213



The formatting makes it difficult to line up (on my screen anyway) but
for a truck I am most interested in the torque ratings. Why is the 3.5L
EcoBoost V6 listed twice?

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2017 6:59 PM, Alex wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:35:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 8:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/16/17 7:56 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/16/2017 7:00 AM, RGrew176 wrote:
The next Ford Ranger.

[image: http://i65.tinypic.com/vnf7vc.jpg]

From the rear it looks similar to the current F-150 but maybe a
bit
smaller. Any news of it's powertrain yet?

Probably not much more than the 2.7L EcoBoost. I doubt it will see
the
3.5L.

To compete with Toyota and Chevy, the new Ranger likely will be
available with a four banger of about 2.5 liters, and a V6 of
about 3.5
liters.

I'd love to see a small 2 liter (or thereabouts) turbo diesel
developed
for it.
As weird as the "truck" business is these days they might make one
with the Coyote 5.0 LTi-VCT V8 in it.
I don't know how well this will format but the numbers on the HO 3.5L
EcoBoost are far better than the 5.0. Very unexpected.

Engine type

2.7L EcoBoost®
V6 3.5L EcoBoost® V6 3.5L Ti-VCT V6 5.0L Ti-VCT V8
H.O. 3.5L EcoBoost® V6
Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 325 @ 5750 375 @ 5000
282 @ 6250 385 @ 5750 450 @ 5000
Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 375 @ 3000
470 @ 3500 253 @ 4250 387 @ 3850 510 @ 3500
Compression ratio 10.0:1 10.5:1 10.8:1
10.5:1 10.0:1
Bore (in.) 3.27 3.64 3.64 3.63
3.64
Stroke (in.) 3.27 3.45 3.45
3.65 3.41
Displacement (cu. in.) 164
213 213 302
213



The formatting makes it difficult to line up (on my screen anyway) but
for a truck I am most interested in the torque ratings. Why is the
3.5L EcoBoost V6 listed twice?
The last is the HO (I guess high-output). The torque is 510@3500rpm vs
387@3850 in the 5.0L. I tried to reformat them.