Ranger - pros/cons considering maintenance/reliability

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
Never heard of twist either! The real difference at the end of the day is 'rated' vs 'continuous' and associated longevity....HP is HP, torque is largely a useless direct metric relative to ability to perform work, but can aid in drivability particularly when it comes to torque rise, luggability and gear driven drivetrains. But throw a Corvette engine in a situation it can run full HP, maybe as a generator supplying power to an electric motor....it's going to do the same work as a 15L diesel engine with same HP.
Until it blows up, then you also get into duty cycle.

The big ol diesel is designed to run at full load all day every day, the corvette engine is built to do it once a twice a year on a dyno in front of spectators.

Hence why the Ecoboost has never graced a super duty...

Massey Furguson tried that in the 70's with combines. Great way to rid the world of 318's and 350's, they neither lived long or prospered. The optional 100hp Perkins would run forever.
 

nickw

Adventurer
Until it blows up, then you also get into duty cycle.

The big ol diesel is designed to run at full load all day every day, the corvette engine is built to do it once a twice a year on a dyno in front of spectators.

Hence why the Ecoboost has never graced a super duty...

Massey Furguson tried that in the 70's with combines. Great way to rid the world of 318's and 350's, they neither lived long or prospered. The optional 100hp Perkins would run forever.
Of course - that's why I said 'rated' and 'continuous' and longevity....and why 'torque' matters, indirectly, since it points to a slower revving, lower stressed, more robust engine...but has no direct meaning relative to the ability to do work. Those old steam tractors had incredible amounts of torque at super low RPM, hence relative low HP and last 50 years, but get demolished by modern machines....

I have a strange fascination with gas engine tractors, I remember going to a junk yard back in the 80s as a kid and they had a large front end loader with a swapped in junk yard SB 350 from the previous diesel....he'd start that up and just pin it, plenty of power for lifting old cars and dragging engines around....he must have had some sort of gear reduction added on.

I don't see why an 'Ecoboost' couldn't work in a SD, it's going to be larger displacement, so less stressed, but turbos are turbos, diesels use them and don't have issues. I don't see why a 5.0 Ecoboost, iron block, forged internals, etc, de-rated slightly to match or exceed the 7.3, couldn't be viable....and more simple than a diesel without all the emissions stuff. I'm sure marketing and cost are large factors, an Ecoboost would be more $ than the 7.3 and the 'small' engine is likely not seen as an appropriate SIZE for a 1 ton truck....but things may change.
 
Last edited:

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
Of course - that's why I said 'rated' and 'continuous' and longevity....and why 'torque' matters, indirectly, since it points to a slower revving, lower stressed, more robust engine...but has no direct meaning relative to the ability to do work. Those old steam tractors had incredible amounts of torque at super low RPM, hence relative low HP and last 50 years, but get demolished by modern machines....
Kinda sorta...

They are so stupid heavy that they would be hard to deal with as far as pulling power. VERY awkward and clumsy and the drag chains steering makes it kind of a herding situation to drive them. Lots of them are buried in rivers because bridges couldn't hold their weight. Their main job was to run thrashing machines, sawmills and open prairie though. Considering their fuel literally grew on trees a modern traction would have a rough go of it in their world.

They made 100+hp steamers, it wasn't until the late 60's that 100+/-hp gas/diesel tractors became common.

This is a entertaining video and the description has some more details about it:


I have a strange fascination with gas engine tractors, I remember going to a junk yard back in the 80s as a kid and they had a large front end loader with a swapped in junk yard SB 350 from the previous diesel....he'd start that up and just pin it, plenty of power for lifting old cars and dragging engines around....he must have had some sort of gear reduction added on.
I have 5 gas tractors (I do not own a single diesel anything)

Actual gas tractor engines are as robust as their diesel counterparts though, some (especially the newer ones) can just be very thirsty though.

I don't see why an 'Ecoboost' couldn't work in a SD, it's going to be larger displacement, so less stressed, but turbos are turbos, diesels use them and don't have issues. I don't see why a 5.0 Ecoboost, iron block, forged internals, etc, de-rated slightly to match or exceed the 7.3, couldn't be viable....and more simple than a diesel without all the emissions stuff. I'm sure marketing and cost are large factors, an Ecoboost would be more $ than the 7.3 and the 'small' engine is likely not seen as an appropriate SIZE for a 1 ton truck....but things may change.
Ecoboost has been out 10 years this year and for some reason Ford hasn't crossed it over yet. I suppose in the land of "nobody cares" fuel economy and in trucks that will be in more "boost" mode than "eco"there isn't much advantage for the complexity. They did launch a totally different engine (6.2) with similar power the same time time the 3.5EB debuted (2011 model year) If one engine could have done both things... why did they take the time to design and build two?

I have heard rumors of a 5.0 (or bigger in general) Ecoboost diesel alternative but I don't know if has any base in reality though.
 

nickw

Adventurer
Kinda sorta...

They are so stupid heavy that they would be hard to deal with as far as pulling power. VERY awkward and clumsy and the drag chains steering makes it kind of a herding situation to drive them. Lots of them are buried in rivers because bridges couldn't hold their weight. Their main job was to run thrashing machines, sawmills and open prairie though. Considering their fuel literally grew on trees a modern traction would have a rough go of it in their world.

They made 100+hp steamers, it wasn't until the late 60's that 100+/-hp gas/diesel tractors became common.

This is a entertaining video and the description has some more details about it:




I have 5 gas tractors (I do not own a single diesel anything)

Actual gas tractor engines are as robust as their diesel counterparts though, some (especially the newer ones) can just be very thirsty though.



Ecoboost has been out 10 years this year and for some reason Ford hasn't crossed it over yet. I suppose in the land of "nobody cares" fuel economy and in trucks that will be in more "boost" mode than "eco"there isn't much advantage for the complexity. They did launch a totally different engine (6.2) with similar power the same time time the 3.5EB debuted (2011 model year) If one engine could have done both things... why did they take the time to design and build two?

I have heard rumors of a 5.0 (or bigger in general) Ecoboost diesel alternative but I don't know if has any base in reality though.
Those old steam tractors are so freakin' cool.

Thanks for sharing that vid - those sparks can't be safe when plowing a field though?
 

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
Threshing was the worst, they had spark arresters and the steamer was put downwind from all the dry chaff.

In the video caption it says they put sawdust in the firebox for dramatic effect since it was a night pull.
 

Chorky

Observer
So why is the ranger considered a mid-size? it has just about the same dimensions as the classic (pre-2019). Except towing ratings... I'm still waiting to see what 2022 brings as supposedly there will be a new version this fall.
 

pith helmet

Well-known member
I'm still curious what career requires 2-3k miles a month and a 3k payload.
I need a 4wd and do 2,000 up to 4,000 miles/mo work miles. Some guys I work with carry offroad diesel tanks, 5 gallon jugs of hydraulic fuel and tools. I know some contractors who drive overloaded 1 tons, but yeah, 3,ooo lbs is a lot!
 

calicamper

Expedition Leader
I'm still curious what career requires 2-3k miles a month and a 3k payload.
Pipe line welder. My cousin runs a F350 standard cab and he’s right about max payload with all his gear. He runs it stock for max mileage and reliability. He has a play truck 7.4L he lifted and put giant tires on not used for work. LoL

A ranger? Would be like my cousin trying to use a Honda Civic for a welder rig😆.
 

Grassland

Well-known member
It strikes me as the one vehicle is trying to wear too many hats
I gave up a long time ago and accepted the fact I need more than one vehicle. It took 4 years and lots of hard work to get from 1 to 2 vehicles, but having one dedicated to work makes life much easier, especially when you spend tons of time at work.
 

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
So why is the ranger considered a mid-size? it has just about the same dimensions as the classic (pre-2019). Except towing ratings... I'm still waiting to see what 2022 brings as supposedly there will be a new version this fall.
Externally it is a little wider.

Midsize sounds better than compact is my theory.
 
Top