This is 2.7EcoBoostRoost's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following 2.7EcoBoostRoost's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
2.7EcoBoostRoost
Recent Activity
Early, initial reviews are looking good https://www.autoblog.com/2018/12/18/2019-ford-ranger-first-drive-review-234kw78mjw/#slide-7488219
Don't look at the window sticker---Ford can make 3.5s for about the same money as 2.7s. think about it! No different than GM can build the 5.3 for about the same money as the 6.2 but they boost the hell out of the 6.2 option on the window sticker. You have not proven s**t! You never do. Ford made a wise move with the turbo 2.3 The punchy four cylinder will be very competitive with the trucks from GM and Jeep. It will smoke the Tacoma Posted by: papajim | Dec 18, 2018 5:59:36 PM @ fake papajim Riddle me this......If GM could fit the 5.3 in the Colorado and achieve the same mpg as the 3.6 would it not be the preferred engine? That's not to say the 3.6 is bad, just like I never said the 2.3 would be bad. I have said it will likely be class leading performance just as I have always said I didn't see it offering a mpg advantage over the 2.7. The 2.3 will be a class leader. The 2.7 would have been a class changer. Maybe in the real world nobody will want the 2.7? Maybe the 2.3 will over achieve? C'mon, it's okay to admit your failed logic is just ludicrous. Our discussion has always been about the 2.3/2.7 so please, just once, if you're going to get all emotional and offended, at least stay on that topic. Not, "well the 3.5 would be better"...Clown. Rest your neck old man!
probably saved a ton of $$, reduced development time DO YOU KNOW HOW STUPID YOU SOUND? Development time? This is a lipsticked version of a truck that the rest of the world could buy more than 5 years ago. Duh! Saved money??? What are you talking about! During the five-plus years that Ford had no mid-size even the bottom feeders like Nissan were making heaps of money selling their ancient Frontiers. There is a business cost called LOST OPPORTUNITY. Ford execs can spell that one for you. Good grief. Posted by: papajim | Dec 18, 2018 2:59:33 PM Not as stupid as you sound on here constantly blabbering about how the 2.7 wouldn't fit. As if you had some insider knowledge of the truck when it was really just you pretending you know everything and not contributing anything useful like you tend to do. After the official 2.3 mpg specs came out and I was proven correct (from the post you wanted to argue with me on from several months ago) that it wouldn't be much, if any better than the 2.7 F-150. And now that it's proven that other markets have a 5.0 fitting under the hood, you can't just move on because you're wrong. In your mind you can't be wrong. You resort to childish remarks or "put a 3.5 in" which would add to the already high cost. Are you saying Ford would have been able to make a clean sheet Ranger quicker and cheaper? You call it a lipstick version, but suggest it didn't save time and money. You clearly need a nap, a life or maybe both old man.
Please answer: Why not just bolt in the 3.5 ecoboost instead. It does everything better. Posted by: papajim | Dec 18, 2018 2:48:05 PM $$$$. The 2.7 would likely be a $1,500 option on an already pricey truck.
Yes the Ranger will take some potential F-150 buyers, maybe to include myself. I don't think it will cannibalize F-150 sales, but one needs to look no further than the Colorado and Canyon to see the GM 1/2 tons took a pretty good hit in the years following their release. I think it's part of the reason Ford did choose the 2.3 engine. Along with keeping the truck look "global" and not F-150 ish, they probably saved a ton of $$, reduced development time and differentiated from it's big brother. They are trying to reach a new demographic. From what I'm reading, it seems to be working. On the Ranger forums there's a lot of new users registered who are claiming to have never owned a pick up.
@papajim "hearing so much blather from the 2.7 ecoboost crowd I ask you---can you imagine trying to shoe-horn a V6 into that engine compartment?" Yes one better in Australia you can get a supercharged 5 litre Coyote V8 Posted by: Robert Ryan | Dec 18, 2018 2:25:07 PM Thank you for that info! The 2.3 will likely do very well. My argument is the 2.7 would be crazy powerful and return the same or maybe even better mpg. It would do EVERYTHING better than the 2.3 will. No sense beating the horse tho as the 2.3 was the choice for various reasons. That's not to say the 2.3 won't be good, I believe it will be class leading in performance. I also believe other manufacturers will follow, especially GM. The 2.7 4cyl will be a flop in the Silverado, especially with it's dismal fuel economy rating. It should be reserved to 2wd work/fleet sales. It would be a great engine, on paper, for the GM mid sized trucks. The real breaker for me is the price. Things have gotten out of control. My (F-150) 16' MSRP was $43,595. The exact same truck now has an MSRP of just over $48k. The mid sized trucks hit $45k pretty quick in 4wd and exceed it in some top of line configurations. No thanks. If I could get a Ranger XL FX4 optioned out for about $32-$33k ( sticker is $37k) I'd consider one when the time comes.
Wow, the discussion has really gotten off topic. Look forward to seeing this new Ranger. As for horsepower I might be in the minority but horsepower is not a major consideration for me when buying a truck. I want decent acceleration but I don't need to race. Not everyone wants or needs a full size truck and to say that a midsize truck is just a pretend truck and toy is not true. I use my trucks as a trucks full utilizing the bed and their capacities. The rest of the time I want to have a vehicle more nimble and easier to park. As for comfort today's midsize trucks are very different than the compact trucks of the past and most midsize trucks ride just as well as most passenger cars and trucks. Maybe if I were 7 foot tall I might find a midsize truck uncomfortable but being about 6'2" I have more than enough legroom and headroom and most of the seats have enough comfort. Many of the midsize trucks have a full frame under them just like their bigger brethren. Posted by: Jeff s | Dec 11, 2018 6:23:25 PM Yeah, it's every post on here. There's one or two people who post 75% of the comments. Most of time completely off topic. They then tell people to stay on topic. It's why I visit about once a month.
Will it be like the rest of the ecoboost and get less real world mileage? I've never seen any ecoboost get the claimed mileage on a continuous basis. Posted by: ram man | Dec 11, 2018 6:23:00 AM No doubt you've seen hundreds or thousands of ecoboost fuel mileage results. I get EPA out of mine in the real world, so, Every EcoBoost I've ever seen gets claimed mpg in real world test.
@ papa, your approach to logic---such as it is---sucks out loud. You say that the smaller 2.3 would be awesome, but the larger 2.7 would not. You, as usual, are just being contrary for the sake of it. I bet dinner time around your house is a real riot. See how easy it is to make you look bad?? Go take a nap, or change your screen name to the blue one and post 99 times in the next 15 minutes.
your approach to logic---such as it is---sucks out loud. You say that the larger 2.7 will be awesome, but the 3.5 would not. You, as usual, are just being contrary for the sake of it. I bet dinner time around your house is a real riot. Posted by: papajim | Dec 6, 2018 6:26:02 AM I see you like to fabricate what I said no matter what username you post under. Never said the 3.5 would not be awesome. I said it would have to be a $2,000 or less option. Wow your a real riot. And obviously not very smart. I see you referred to your ex in the last post. No wonder she's your ex you brain dead old man.
My point has always been that while the 2.3 will surely be adequate and maybe slightly better than the class, the 2.7 would have changed the class. With new players entering for the foreseeable future, the 2.3 will "average" almost immediately. Luckily, I think the 2.7 demand will force Fords hand.
@2.7 ecoboost Adding 400 cc's to the turbo 2.3 might be smart from a marketing perspective but I doubt it does very much otherwise. If you're gonna bump the motor, go all the way. Put a 3.5 ecoboost (or a small diesel) in it. The 3.5's exterior dimensions aren't that different and the cost of building them wouldn't be much different. On paper it would sound very tough. I have not read a Ranger review yet that trashed the 2.3 engine. All positive impressions regarding performance. Posted by: papajim | Dec 5, 2018 8:18:12 PM So far I've been 100% right on the 2.3L. I doubted it would beat the 2.7 in fuel economy by very much (Ford has touted the 2.3/10 speed as a means of achieving great fuel economy, yet it is a virtual tie with their proven rocket 2.7 F-150). Now with the 21/26 mpg for 2wd leaked vs the 20/26 mpg for the 2.7 F-150, which is likely 300-400 lbs heavier, I rest my case. If the Ranger puts out 0-60 times in the 5.7-6.0 second range, I'll be even more surprised. That 4cyll has to work much harder than the V6. It's about more than 400 c.c. As for a diesel, no thanks. You get a small bump in fuel economy for fuel that cost a good bit more in most parts of the country and comes with a lofty price increase. Plus they are anemic in performance. Diesels are meant to be big to have performance. The 3.5? Sure I'd take that, but the option has to be reasonable at $2000 or less. The 2.7 is a match made in heaven for a truck a few hundred lbs lighter than the F-150, where it already succeeds handily. I know you will never admit your wrong, but when the real Ranger is released, reviewed and put to the test I'll be here to say "I told you the 2.7 was a better option". It's only common sense that it would perform equally or better in a lighter truck.
I still think Ford blew it with the Ranger by only offering the 2.3 EcoBoost. Sure, it will tow better and probably be faster than the competing V6 engines and Ford's own 3.3 V6, but it is only getting near 2.7 Eco mpg. The 2.7 would have made the segment step up and take notice. Even if they made it a $1,500-$2,000 premium option it would sell like crazy. The mid size segment is just where the compacts left off before they were killed. Near full size price, full size fuel economy and less capable. The only thing they offer is (for some) the "just right sizing". No way would I pay $40k for a new mid size truck.
Wow. I don't know how that front end made it into final production. It is worse than the 2008 Super Duty, which was pretty bad also.
Where's EcoBoost roost now? I told him I wanted a comparison that wasn't non biased. Look who won. Lol!!!! Posted by: TNTGMC | Nov 13, 2018 12:03:35 PM Been hunting a lot and just don't visit this site or the comments section too much any more. If I read the results and picked a truck being non biased based off of what matters to me, I'd buy the Ram. All 3 judges picked it as their personal favorite and by a large margin. So a test was done, the judges picked a clear winner and that truck finished in 3rd place? Doesn't sound real non biased to me, but you got your wish. Some how, 2 identical GM trucks finished in 4th and 1st. That truly is something to lol about. Also the "expert" dyno operator seems to be way off. A 280 hp/tq truck finished near last on the dyno, (contrary to this very sites previous dyno runs) but somehow finished anywhere from .2-.5 seconds in every major performance test despite a 36hp and 46tq rear wheel disadvantage??? Sounds less than credible to me. The Edmonds.com judges picked the Ram and declared it the winner. (you called them biased) The PUTC judges picked the Ram and declared it 3rd best. (you say it's about time you got a non biased review) Okay.....lol
Who are we? 7 seconds! Wow, those 2.7 eco are eco-slow. See Silverado review below 5.7 seconds 0-60. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-chevrolet-silverado-1500-4x4-62l-v-8-8-speed-test-reviews Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Oct 28, 2018 11:17:41 AM https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-gmc-sierra-1500-denali-62l-v-8-4x4-test-review 5.6 secs with 8/spd. Thats a lot faster than 7 secs by that little gerbil motor Posted by: TNTGMC | Oct 28, 2018 3:11:55 PM Not sure why you "guy's" feel so threatened by an engine that is 2.29 times smaller than your 6.2 that you spew half truths. 7 seconds? Must have been a lot of wheel spin. Car and Driver tested a 2.7 4x4 @ 5.7 seconds 0-60. That is impressive for any truck. In the real world with real people not professionals, most of these trucks are basically a virtual tie. That is fact. Not sure why you guys get so upset about it. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-f-150-27-ecoboost-4x4-test-review TFL does more of a generic common man test when they do their 0-60 runs. Their results are below. A quicker truck doesn't necessarily mean a better truck so just relax. Drive what you like and be happy. https://www.tfltruck.com/tfltruck-hall-of-solo-0-60-mph/
Ford is unlikely to endure additional costs solely to pick up the additional 400 cc's you get from moving to the 2.7 The 2.3 will be a very popular drivetrain. 90 percent of drivers would not be able to feel the difference between the two engines. A turbo 2.3 with a properly programmed 10 speed will be an awesome design for this application. Posted by: papajim | Oct 24, 2018 6:20:59 AM I think the 2.3 will work fine and probably perform better than competing V6 trucks (or Ford's own 3.3L), but I don't think it has any advantages over the 2.7L. Unless it returns some crazy fuel economy numbers, which it will probably be a hair better than the 2.7 F-150. After towing a 5,500lb travel trailer 130 miles thru windy mountains this past weekend, I am just amazed more and more by the 2.7 Eco and how effortlessly it does it's job. I would imagine the 2.3 would pull the load sufficiently but requiring a good bit more work from the engine in doing so. A 2.7 4x4 F-150 has been tested doing 0-60 in 5.7secs. I know these aren't race trucks, but it is fun having that power come on so effortlessly. Imagine that in the mid size truck class.........I don't think the 2.3 will give you that.
@Clint--Ford would be concerned that a Ranger Raptor would take away from the F-150 Raptor. Additionally why would Ford release a Ranger Raptor now when they could save it for a later date to generate continued interest in the Ranger? I don't fault Ford for that. Posted by: Jeff S | Oct 23, 2018 12:40:11 PM I agree, sort of. I have read elsewhere that the Ranger will get a refresh in 2 model years. Ford basically went with the global design and 2.3 only to save development cost and time. If true, look for more engine options when the "new" truck arrives in 2021 or 2022. Maybe at that time Ford will deem a Raptor version feasible based on sales and introduce it a year after the updated truck?
So let me get this straight....... The Chevy won 6 of 10 performance test, The Ford 3 and the Ram 1. The Chevy and Ford were close enough that the average person would probably split the races 50/50 with the Ram being a good bit behind. All 3 judges had the Chevy in last place, 2 of 3 had it significantly in last and 2 of 3 preferred the Ram because it was more comfortable, more stable at doing what it was designed to do etc., but Chevy is the winner? If a normal person is to believe what the judges opinions are reading this comparison, and you're dumping that amount of cash on a 1 ton you should be buying the Ram. Good job Ram on making the best one ton truck. On a side note: The same people talking about how the Duramax "smoked" the Ford (by tenths) are crying that Edmunds picking the 19' Ram over the 19' Silverado was clearly biased.....lol.
Ford has taken this pricing approach knowing full well that Ranger success will come at the expense of the F-series, mainly their little full size the F-150. Look for the usual supplier constraint excuses as Ford attempts limit Ranger availability while it manages the cannibalism of their F-series. Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Oct 13, 2018 11:33:07 AM Seems i'm correct, again. HAHAHAHAHAHA Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Oct 20, 2018 8:54:21 PM What exactly do you feel you're correct about here?
If the Bronco is getting the 7-Speed Manual, I don't see why the Ranger wouldn't get it. Posted by: Frank | Oct 15, 2018 9:58:31 AM I'm not against the idea, but I don't think there's a huge market for in a mainstream mid sized truck with a manual. The 10 spd auto would likely get better mpg and acceleration. I believe it does so in the Mustang? I think the Tacoma is rated better mpg with the auto, not sure about performance though. To me, the 2.3 needs to beat the 2.7 F-150 by at least 2 mpg to prove it was the right option. I don't think it will. It would still be class leading if it tied the F-150's rated 19/24 (4wd), but you are not getting the awesomeness of the 2.7, no matter how capable the 2.3 is. MPG is the one area that mid size trucks are not up with the times (4wd). The Ranger could and should change that.
Sorry....I let those communist get me off topic.... I like The STX package. Rubber floor reminds me of the 70's and 80's trucks. I hope it doesn't flop in EPA testing like the Silverado 2.7 did. I still think the 2.7 EcoBeast in this truck would change the rules.
Not a fan at all. Looks like a Taurus! Wonder if it will have recalls for fires? I see the new Ford GT is getting recalled for fires. UNREAL! Posted by: TNTGMC | Oct 13, 2018 6:45:13 PM "Mr. Always stays on topic", never on topic....again. The Colorado looks more like an Equinox than this looks like a Taurus. Not even close. You wonder if it will have recalls for fires? You should wonder how far the Colorado will fall into 3RD place in sales. Kinda like the Silverado was in 3rd quarter behind the Edmunds.com confirmed, superior 2019 Ram.
Big Al-- This is an insightful link into the consequences of income disparity. Most of the guys on this site assume that the ability to afford full size loaded down trucks will last forever not realizing that what created the American dream is no longer true. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014_full.html#.U7GSFTlVpG5 Posted by: Jeff S | Oct 13, 2018 4:28:52 PM I don't know what's worse. Liberals feeling they have the right to politicize everything or the GM guys who just can't stay on topic. I didn't read your propaganda, I have better things to do. But, I agree with one sentence in your post: "what created the American dream is no longer true." That one thing that is missing in 2018? Hard work. Hard work made the American dream a reality for millions. Now people demand income equality regardless of effort, work or qualifications. I worked minimum wage jobs as a teenager and a young adult. When doors were closed in my face, I joined the Army to give myself more options in life. I used my Army college fund to give myself a competitive edge. I'm not rich, but I am living better than the average American. I could have been killed, wounded or whatever, but that was a chance I took to have my piece of the dream. I should hand that to some liberal millennial punk who thinks he should have free college and management pay? Get a life dude!
This " new" Chevy is a rerun with a new shade of lipstick. The RAM is way ahead. Sorry to break the news to you. Posted by: Ramtastic | Oct 11, 2018 9:16:19 PM Save your time. This guy thinks he knows everything. You are talking about the 2019 Ram 1500 being ahead of the 2019 Silverado 1500. We get it. The Ram line will likely pass Chevrolet for the #2 spot in 2019. "They" will say "but GM sells more trucks". Ford will likely pass GM for total truck sales in 2019 when the Ranger goes on sale. Gonna be a lot more crying next year. There's 2 or 3 guys (same guy) who will spin it with irrelevancy to try and make GM look better. Just ignore him/them. It's kinda funny....