Save up to $1,300 on a Ford or Mopar (RAM, Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler) extended factory warranty for your new vehicle at Granger Motors! Ford: www.grangerfordextendedwarranty.com/ Mopar: www.buymoparwarranty.com/
Your @ss is going to fall asleep on long trips with that seating. Your knees are bent putting pressure on your tailbone, and your chest is inches away from the steering wheel. These mid-sized "trucks" are designed for people that are shorter than 5'8" and weigh 150#
Yeah I’ve done a ton of research. There are tons and tons of testimonials like yours and I’ve also researched the nano 2.7 itself extensively. This 2.7 may very well be one of Fords Best engines ever made. I cannot wait to build (customize) my 2024 2.7 Dranger!
@@tommytufguy3432 it’s a very limited number of recalls for dumb stuff that gives a bad rep. Honestly it’s one of the most if not most dependable right beside the 5.0… the coyote and the Nano… best two engines IMO and I don’t think I’m the only one believes this..✌🏼
I think that the mid-sized p/u's are 'full' sized now and the full-sized p/u's are now 'jumbo'' sized. And still lament the loss of the compact sized trucks of ago.
I have a 2000 Ram Quad 4x4. It’s my “junk”truck/rust ride 😂. I was at the gas station yesterday when a new Colorado pulled up. The Colorado was actually BIGGER than the dodge 😮.
Don't forget the Maverick, Santa Cruz and Ridgeline, all compact pickups. They sell in much smaller numbers, it's consumer choice driving the upsizing.
@@fuzzy3440 actually no, the Maverick are selling huge and they got problems keeping em in stock. They keep going up year after year. 2021, they sold 13,258 3 years later in 2024, 10 times that at 136 199...
The small engine trend is only a thing because of government regulation, lets not get this twisted that the companies enjoy building these complicated turbo engines. Not looking to argue but wanted to put it out there.
@@wolfgang_h3t performance wise yes, longevity is a no. Being that I work on vehicles for a living I only judge engines on how they preform from 100k to 200K taking into account if they still run or how much money someone will have to dump into them at that milage. The old basic engines might not win at the drag strip or sled pull but they will get ya where ya need to go cheaper. 20MPG combined on a V6 ranger is not very impressive in my opinion.
@@711slimshawny We are seeing well over 250,000 miles with just very maintenance. With the power and the fuel economy of the modern turbo engines. Is an easy choice.
I honestly miss the old days when trucks were simple and mechanical. I do like fuel injection , and a few things but I want a mechanical 4 x 4 system with a neutral mode. I think a big screen like it has is cumbersome and a distraction especially for people like me who like to fidget with stuff .
I had a 2020 F150 XLT FX4 with a 2.7. I absolutely loved it. That 2.7 was fantastic. Had to sell it. I now own a 21 Ram Rebel with a 5.7 and I miss the F150. The 2.7 is a great engine.
The ram is rated for over 11k towing.. payload is cumbersome. Only commenting because my work truck is a ram and its a work horse. It is the classic body style though.
@xXlURMOMlXx sold it because of a divorce and had to at the time. Bought the Ram used and paid less than the F150. Always been a Ford owner and wanted to try something else. The Ram is a great truck too.
I didn't like it when Ford started putting small displacement turbocharged engines in all their vehicles. Then, all the other car manufacturers copied what Ford was doing several years ago. Now that everyone else switched to small displacement turbocharged engines, Ford is now changing direction again and adding a turbocharged 6-cylinder. I prefer a naturally aspirated engine, but I appreciate what Ford is doing. In a mid-sized truck that weighs over 5,000 lbs, a small 4-cylinder turbocharged engine has to work hard when it's empty and needs boost (which destroys fuel economy) to move that much weight. The 1st Gen Tundra was the size of a modern Tacoma but the Tundra had a V8 and a wider cab with more rear legroom. When Mercedes teamed up with Nissan to build the Mercedes X-Class truck it had a body by Mercedes on a Navara chassis with a 6 cylinder engine. GM put a 5.3L V8 in some of the First Generation Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon trucks. John at LHT Performance in Florida put a naturally aspirated V8 from a 2020 Silverado into a 2020 Colorado, and the motor doesn't work hard, so he gets 28-30 MPG on the highway. Mid-sized trucks need a 6 or 8 cylinder engine to move the weight of the truck and use it to tow and haul cargo.
@chrisrauschning7376 It must be something about Europeans that don't appreciate trucks as a daily driver and think they are delivery and farm vehicles. Stellantis bought into Jeep/Ram because the brand was popular in North America but slowly ruined it with one bad decision after another. Where I live in Alberta, Canada, I still see Dodge Dakota trucks on the road. Even though they are old and a little beat up, the owner's love those small trucks. After the success of the Maverick, I thought Stellantis would bring back the Dakota as an affordable truck for the laborers and tradesmen who have been loyal Dodge owners for decades. Instead, they decided to turn Dodge into a luxury brand like Land Rover.
@@ljmorris6496Probably so, but it would be nice to have some different bed sizes and cab configurations on the mid size trucks. To me the bed gets pretty useless when it gets smaller. Of course, they aren’t really making the trucks to be trucks. They are making them to be family haulers with a small bed to carry a few bags of mulch. Look at how the majority of the pick up trucks sold today are used.
It's pretty nice that ford decided to throw the ttv6 2.7 in the ranger when you consider this powerplant is more capable than 90% of f150s from just 10 years ago. 7500lbs for a mid size is strong towing numbers as well and based on the f150s with this powerplant it's safe to assume you could expect 24-26 mpg on the highway with one of these.
I'd love to see review channels actually test those max tow ratings in a panic stop...I'd bet that truck ends up out of control rather quickly.....or any of these mid -size truck and the 1/2 tons. Cool you got 7500 pounds moving but what's more important is being able to stop it safely and controllably.
Ford was spotted testing a long bed crew cab one a few years ago as well, I'd be really interested in that option since it'd give a 6' bed while still being shorter overall than a 5.5' bed F-150.
Ford added the wrong 6 to the Ranger. Instead of having an optional 6 cylinder engine, they should be more concerned with an optional 6 foot bed. Until they do that, Ranger will be 3rd place behind Tacoma and Frontier
I just bought a basically identical Ranger in the chili pepper red and I love it so far. I do wish that it had come with the trailer brake controller but I figure I can probably get one down the road if I really wanted it. I put a tonneau cover on mine and got about 24.3mpg running to the farm and back (I was babying it but I wanted to see what it could do, sue me) over about 120 miles round trip. I'm interested to see what it will do when the engine is broken in.
I’m glad they brought the 2.7 into the lineup. Was definitely considering this truck/engine for a new vehicle purchase a little while ago. Hopefully the reliability is good.
2.7 had a few issues in the Bronco. But basically none elsewhere. The F150, the Nautilus, the Edge Sport, and the Ranger it has not just a decent reputation, but an excellent one. In the F150 especially it's almost impossible to find common issues with it, it's lauded as one of the best most reliable modern Ford engines. Not sure where you heard there were issues in the F150 Andre.
@@davidheckart639 Yeah exactly. I had a 2017 F150 with the 2.7 and now own both a 2021 F150 and 2021 Nautilus, both with the 2.7. I absolutely adore the 2.7 as a powertrain. Never had an issue, never heard of anyone else having an issue outside of the little Bronco debacle. Powerful, reliable, and pretty good mpg. What else could you want?
I'm surprised that you didn't mention the other mid sized truck with a V6. Nissan frontier. More horsepower and better payload. Same tow rating. Better value. Made in the USA.
Yeah, you don’t hear or see too much about the Frontier in the mid-size truck world. They don’t look too bad to me and would seem like a viable option.
Yeah I'd buy a Frontier before I bought any of these turbo charged engine trucks....funny Nissan used to have the Frontier with an optional supercharger, they don't have that anymore either LOL.
Nice to see V6. It or jeep, or Nissan are only Little trucks I’d buy new once my 2023 Tacoma v6 gets tired. Like my big trucks with V8s and little trucks with V6. But think I’d rather just buy used and put little money in older trucks and rebuild it to make it drive like new truck.
Looks nice, and I'll bet it will move too. I got the 2.7 in my 23' F150, and it is pretty quick so I could only imagine what it's like in a smaller lighter truck.
Believe it or not, the Ranger and F150 weight damn near the same. That being said, I built my little bro's X-cab 2020 F150 with the 2,7l out to 500Hp at the wheels with simple bolt on's and a tune. We stopped at 500 because it just couldn't keep the wheels stuck to the ground. Nothing makes your butt pucker faster than having your tires snap loss on the freeway at 75 mph an a throttle dump lol.
2024 F150 2.7L 4x4 curb weight: 4941 lbs width (no mirrors): 79.9" height: 77.1" length: 232" 2024 Ranger 2.7L 4x4 curb weight: 4415 lbs 89.4% width (no mirrors): 75.5" 94.5% height: 74.4" 96.5% length: 210.6" 90.8% relative to the size of F-150: 92.8% 2024 Maverick 2.0L AWD curb weight: 3731 lbs 84.5% width (no mirrors): 72.6" 96.2% height: 68.7" 92.3% length: 199.7" 94.8% relative to the size of Ranger: 92.0% A 526 lbs difference between the Ranger and F-150 would definitely have some real world fuel/mileage/acceleration implications barring no other differences. Based on these size stats alone, small/mid/full-size trucks seem to typically be within 92% the size of the next step up, at least for this generation.
Honestly, if I was in the market for a truck this would be very intriguing. The Ranger with a 2.3 is a plucky little thing; putting the 2.7 in it has to be awesome. Those HP and torque numbers are fantastic for a truck this size, without going to a Tacoma Hybrid. I like the size of this truck, too. I think this was a good move by Ford.
I drive one for work doing deliveries. It gets 22 mpg. Has a few bugs. The windshield washer pump failed. The tailgate latch failed. The hvac controller has a few glitches. The transmission sometimes locks me out of 9 or 10th gear. But I have 56500 miles on it. It’s is comfortable. Brakes are really grabby when cold.
I’m guessing fuel economy will be better than stated since I’ve seen many 2.7 F150’s get 22-24mpg pretty easily. The 2.7 in a Ranger will be an awesome truck compared to the other mid size offerings, that’s coming from a Tacoma nerd. Not to mention, the price is more inline with what it should be.
@@diesel6916 all Rangers are 3.73 except the Raptor which is 4.27 according to Fords website. But I agree it would have been nice just for clarification.
I have the 2.7 in my 2023 F150. I researched problems before I bought it. I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no major problems with this engine. The 2.7 and the 5.0 are the 2 best engines in the F-150. The 3.5L is the one that ends up needing new cam phasers right when your warranty runs out.
@@kevinvoss220 I have had the 2.7l in the bronco and also an F150 and have researched them a lot. I have not seen one example of the wet belt in the 2.7 causing problems.
@@AndrewJohnson-x2eonly the 1l or 1.5l wet belt have problems if you use crappy oil and don't change it on time. I only use motorcraft oil as that it what oil is used for the durability testing on fords.never ever heard of any ford engine other than the small ones having issues with wet belts.
We are so spoiled these days, we get a 300hp midsize truck and it seems normal. I live in Argentina and we only have this truck with diesel engines. I would love to have a gas option.
I actually decided to stick with the 2.3l in my Bronco because of all the commotion around the 2.7l at the time. Unfortunately it turns out that it was around 100 motors in the Bronco that had issues. If I need to switch to another Bronco, I'll definitely get the 2.7l V6 next time. I'll also immediately get that ProCal tuner.
Do you feel like the bronco with the 2.3 is underpowered? I was considering it for a Bronco, most reviews seem to say it’s adequate for the application
I had a 2.3l Bronco and it was great. Hauled ass and got consistently over 20MPG. Only had the stock 32" tires. So maybe Sasquatch with 35" would be a different story? Only traded it in to get a Gladiator Max Tow so we could pull our larger trailer.
It's great that Ford now offers a V6 in the Ranger. I've never owned a Ford but I'm thinking I'll buy this to replace my V6 Canyon (since GM has gone 4 cylinder only in their midsize segment). Great to see options again
I live in Australia where we don't mind having diesel engines. I have a TDV6 Ranger Wildtrak (upper spec) these are single turbo diesel engine. They are great for towing and its smooth quiet engine. I believe you have this engine in the F150. Yeah it dose have a history of problems in its days in Land Rovers and there are some issues in the Ranger but thats what warranty is for.
The 2.7L is the best ecoboost engine Ford makes. It may not make the most power, but it's efficient and rock solid. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the one big problem the 2.7L had with its intake valve stems fracturing, which was remedied a couple years ago. New engines do not suffer from that problem. For those who have 2.7L ecoboost engines manufactured from 2021-2022, there is a recall for them. The thing to note about the intake valve problem is that it wasn't a design problem with the engine, it was a manufacturing problem with the valves.
Does it not have a wet belt running the oil pump? Seems like a fairly massive liability considering how they performed in every other wet rubber belt vehicle ever.
@@t4thfavor1212 yes, the 2.7 has a "wet belt" running the oil pump. I don't know why they went with a belt instead of a chain, but it's probably the one thing I'd change out of an abundance of caution. That said, premature degradation of a wet belt usually only occurs if you have other problems with your engine such that the oil is being contaminated. It's the contaminates that lead to wet belts degrading faster than expected. If you take proper care of your engine, stick to the recommended maintenance cycles, and use good oil and filters, you're not likely to have a problem.
That's the exact model that Ford Australia need in their range. The 2.7 is a great motor that's been around for a while, makes good power, is Tuntable and presents a great option to the Australian 3L V6 deisel. I guess the fact that the Australian rangers still come with the twin turbo 2L 4cyl deisel means that Ford can't introduce this engine into the range as it'll kill the 2L deisel and they'll lose development $$
G'day, In Australia the Lariat is called a Wildtrak. I noticed that the Payload figure was 612 kg, in Australia the Payload is 966 kg. The interior looks pretty similar. We get the trailer break controller, cup holders beneath the dash air vent and Auto 4x4 on high traction surfaces like roads.
Nice review, I like that Ford is giving customers engine options, although 4WD Auto is missing. And the price seems to be higher in comparison to V6 Ridgeline and V6 Frontier but their interior is not as nice as the Ford. Gas milage also seems to be on par for a turbo V6, so I think Ford Ranger will be excellent option for the mid-size market.
I have the 2.7 in my 2021 Bronco and it has been an awesome motor after 30k miles of use. I am trying to find out if I am affected by the recall. Based on my trouble free experience I would be shocked if it is affected. Fingers crossed. 🤞
I have to say at that weight class that engine should be more than adequate. It does not have to be a V8. Nor does it have to be the 3.5 V6. I have a friends that bought F150 at the same time 1 with the 2.7 the other with the 3.5. Neither have any complaints or issues with them.
I miss my 87 Ranger which had the 7 foot bed....wish automakers would build trucks that have a usable bed rather than catering to the buyers who should have bought a car instead of a pickup.
I have the 2.7 in my f150. I was skeptical at first. After 100k miles, I love this engine. Great power. Great fuel economy. And very reliable. That will be a great engine for the ranger. That truck needs more power.
If you think the 2.7 has a lot of power in your F150...try out the F150 with the 3.5 Ecoboost...400hp 500ft lbs of torque. It is a beast. I have a 2023 F150 XLT. It pulls stronger than my 2017 Mustang GT ever felt.
On paper it has a little more HP but a little less Tq than the GM 2.7. I would imagine the V6 is smoother running than the GM turbo 4 and hopefully it sounds better - I know as I have a '24 Trail Boss.
@@0HOON0 interesting opinion. What exactly do you base that on? I'd be interested to see a side by side comparison for acceleration, towing, and fuel economy in both situations.
Having driven all trucks that are currently equipped with a 2.7L turbo, that's from both GM and Ford, the Ford is snappier, even if it makes less torque. I really believe the GM 2.7L makes the power GM states, but the GM engine is just lazier, like a diesel, feeling more sluggish in comparison. It doesn't exactly enjoy boosting up and reving out, it wants to just lumber along, which is fine if you like diesel-like power delivery. But the Ford 2.7L feels much like a hot rod in comparison, or at least it does in the F150. I would imagine it being the same or better in the Ranger. What's more, the GM 2.7L can really be harsh sounding. It's fine under light driving, and it even makes a nice turbo whistle, but it gets really grindy, making those typical unpleasant 4 cylinder sounds at higher RPM. The Ford 2.7L V6 is, well, a V6. It just sounds better and smoother overall.
Like the addition of the 2.7 as an option on the Ranger. I just wish they had a 6ft bed option with the 4 door. I had a Nissan Frontier P4X and while I loved that truck, the smaller bed is pretty limiting.
This 2.7 is the new 302 Windsor. Works great in everything it’s in. Quiet, smooth, torquey, it feels a lot like a well tuned fuel injected V8. My Bronco Sasquatch 2.7 returns 20 mpg on average which is exceptional given the weight and aerodynamic of the Bronco. Great engine and a real differentiator for Ford in the midsize class.
I've driven both. The 4 is absolutely adequate. The 6 feels a little more relaxed. The Lariat has nice features, but XLT is definitely the sweet spot. The canyon has a much nicer interior at that price point. For 50k+, it's missing features competitors have
If we do some basic economics that is $35,000 in todays dollars for comparison. And this is a $50,000 truck, but maybe a higher end model than yours. It's 30% more expensive than an equivalent 1990's truck perhaps?
I’m really happy that Ford decided to use the 2.7 on the Ranger… I love this engine and the problem the engine had was because a problem with the intake valve manufacturing process and they were breaking but Ford already took care of that… people have no idea how strong is the engine block (compacted graphite iron) + the engine produces more torque per liter than the 3.0 power stroke did which is amazing and the engine is capable of producing way more power. The Raptor’s 3.0 is the same 2.7 engine but with more stroke to get the additional 0.3 displacement.
I think the 2.7 should have been an option from the beginning and I would definitely prefer that over the 2.3, "but" given the problems Ford has had with the 2.7 lately, things that there's simply no excuse for, I'm glad I don't have one. Also, as TheDisBeat says below, "Over 50k for a Ranger that's insane." I totally agree, and that applies to what they're charging for just about every truck out there regardless of the manufacturer.
I agree it should have came with a trailer brake controller. I'm waiting on ventilated seats and heads up display as options before they get me in the showroom. I've got a full size truck but looking to downsize and when these two options are offered I'll consider this truck.
Just got a 2.3 XL (literally this week) and it's great! I will say it kind of sounds like a tractor though coming from a V6 😂. But I'm sure I'll get used to it. More than enough power for a smaller truck.
1. I don’t need a sunroof - bald head gets sunburnt…lol. 2. Side steps are great for those of us who are vertically challenged and shrinking due to age…hahahahahaha
It still strikes me weird, that the Americans aren't getting the full range of ranger options. Here in Europe we can get the Ranger in a single cap + longer bed configuration, plus we can get the 3l v6 Diesel engine.
Because we have the F150. Ford won't allow the Ranger to dominate because of it. In the US, the Ranger is considered more of a "lifestyle" vehicle, while the F150 is the more configurable tool.
Geeez. You can get a ZR2 Colorado for that kind of money, and for not much more you can get a ranger raptor. This price point doesnt make sense. With discounts I paid 52k for my 23 v8 Silverado rst 4wd.
Every now and then Ford has a good idea. And IMHO the 2.7L in the Ranger was one of those good ideas. However, you do have to get the 4x4 to get that engine. Thanks for the review Andre, I've been waiting to see a video featuring the 2.7L Ranger. I own a full size truck now, and it seems to grow bigger every year. It won't be long until I'll be ready to downsize, and the 2.7L Ranger is at the top of my list.
2.7 in my 2019 F150. It’s got some pep and no issues at 60k miles so far. I bet it be a hoot to drive in a ranger. Problem is cost. 50k ballpark for it in a ranger is a no go. Especially when 50k can get you it in a lower trim 150. Ranger size is perfect for me but if prices are about equal I’ll go lower trim f150 all day. Happy with the 2.7 but may go 5.0 on my next f150 because who know how much longer the V8’s will be around. Prices stupid high everywhere for sure.
$43,630 starting price for std 4wd Ranger XLT !! $50,520 with most of the options. The F150 4wd starts at $51,030 and is $57,460 with similar options !!
I got the same truck only in a V4 in May. The V4 is very impressive and I have not once wished it had more power. Such a pleasure to drive around town.
i have a 2019 with 78K miles. I got 19ish after things settled in, and it went down slightly when I added the BFG K02 Load Range E tires because they are heavy. The tow rating on this truck is the same as the 2019 with the 2.3L and it has plenty of power to tow that weight or more. For comparison, my wife gets 20-23 in her Yukon XL with the DI 5.3L...
I have a Lariat 2.3 and it's plenty of power. I originally going to wait for the 2.7 but I decided to pull the trigger and honestly I don't need it. I tow my boat which is 4000lbs and it's easy. I use it as a daily driver so I'm happy with my MPG and good power.
@@user-tb7rn1il3qat that stage the engine comparison is apples to oranges and the size of the vehicles are as well. I liked my OG 2001 ranger. S10s. Sr5 etc. back then everyone knew what the truck was for and could and couldn't do .. people now want their "midsize" trucks to act like full size and well now they also have full size prices
It's the best engine for the f150 aswell. Just amazingly strong motor. Always willing to blow a v8 away an tow anything it's meant to and get amazing mileage
@@AkioWasRight sales data of models that do offer the 6ft bed like the Tacoma, and sales data of full sized trucks like the F-150. The four door 5ft config outsells all other configurations by a longshot.
These trucks are cool and all but two things that keep on drawing me to the Colorado is the 4WD auto, and rear seat vents. A lot of the competitors don't put these features in unless it's at the highest trim level.
I think it's stupid you can't order a lot of vehicles anymore with the options you want. What if I wanted a Supercab Ranger with the 2.7? The 2.3L Ecoboost is no slouch compared to my 99 Ranger's 3.0L, but at least I've got a manual transmission.
What many people don't understand, is that the government isn't requiring smaller engines. They're requiring cleaner and more efficient engines. It has little to do with mpg which is why all these small engine vehicles don't get basically the same MPG as the NA engines they are replacing. If it were an MPG requirement, every vehicle would have a diesel. A turbo increases air to help ensure complete combustion which in turn will produce more power with the same amount of fuel. The reason why they're small engines is because it's easier to accomplish this in smaller, high pressure turbo engines than large NA engines.
MPG and emissions can be related to each other. The problem is that these smaller engines often fail to deliver real-world benefits, so they just game the EPA. Also, a larger N/A engine increases air, but it does so naturally. That's because it's a larger displacing engine. All a turbo does is force more displacement, taking the place of the physical cylinder displacement. And mind you, that doesn't necessarily reduce emissions. That can increase emissions, in fact. When you force more air into an engine, you must also increase fuel, which results in more emissions.
I have this truck and I love it. Great speed, capability, tech, parking is easy, fuel economy, and people can sit comfortably in the back seat. Also, if your 5ft 9inches or bellow you will need the side steps. I got a xcal and student rebate. The 2.3 works too hard and the 2.7 will move.
I'm happy Ford offers this for those who want it. But you pay 2.2k for no additional towing, less payload, and less mpg. On top of all that, the 2.3 base engine is no slouch.
Been looking at getting a new mid sized pickup to replace my 2013 Frontier. Currently have a king cab and wanted the same thing as I use my truck to haul stuff and not people. Only Nissan and Toyota offered the smaller cab so the Ranger was out of consideration
Didn’t we go through the “Shrink the engine, and slap a turbo on it” back in the eighties and nineties already? I agree on how big full size trucks have become. I have a 97 Chevy WT, std cab, short bed. It is more than enough for items that I, or most people haul.
Save up to $1,300 on a Ford or Mopar (RAM, Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler) extended factory warranty for your new vehicle at Granger Motors!
Ford: www.grangerfordextendedwarranty.com/
Mopar: www.buymoparwarranty.com/
Your @ss is going to fall asleep on long trips with that seating. Your knees are bent putting pressure on your tailbone, and your chest is inches away from the steering wheel. These mid-sized "trucks" are designed for people that are shorter than 5'8" and weigh 150#
Just on the offchance Brighton Ford reads this ... Yes, I bought my Ranger Raptor with you guys, because you support TFL. So sponsorship does work.
Goated you were able to find one lol
Way to let advertisers know they're doing well. You sure are doing the Lord's work.
These prices need to come down. Over 50k for a ranger that’s insane
Yeah that’s silly. I know it’s a different time and different truck but I bought a brand new extended cab 4wd ranger in 2000 for 21k.
@@pryme2013 Bro that's 24 years ago lol.
@@pryme2013I remember those days too. I bought a new 2002 Mazda B3000 Dual Sport (rebadged Ford Ranger Edge) regular cab for just over $13,000.
@@dpcoffeythat's about 38k in today's dollars
They need to go back to pre covid pricing
I just hit 100k on my 2016 F150 2.7 with no issues. Love this engine and its power!
The new one uses a wet belt to drive the oil pump and sales.
Same here
Yeah I’ve done a ton of research. There are tons and tons of testimonials like yours and I’ve also researched the nano 2.7 itself extensively. This 2.7 may very well be one of Fords Best engines ever made. I cannot wait to build (customize) my 2024 2.7 Dranger!
Yeah in always thought these were excellent engines I'm surprised to hear him talking bad about them.
@@tommytufguy3432 it’s a very limited number of recalls for dumb stuff that gives a bad rep. Honestly it’s one of the most if not most dependable right beside the 5.0… the coyote and the Nano… best two engines IMO and I don’t think I’m the only one believes this..✌🏼
Love the 2.7 V6. It's an excellent engine. Smooth, quiet, and plenty of power in my edge st.
Uhhhh isn’t that the 3.5? Not the 2.7?
@@nusudahwdo3181 uhhh edge is a 2.7, explorer is 3.5.
the NA 3.3 V6 will last much longer
@@fortheloveofnoise anything to back that claim up?
@@naf2579 The wet rubber belt in the 2.7 is all the evidence needed.
I think that the mid-sized p/u's are 'full' sized now and the full-sized p/u's are now 'jumbo'' sized. And still lament the loss of the compact sized trucks of ago.
I have a 2000 Ram Quad 4x4. It’s my “junk”truck/rust ride 😂. I was at the gas station yesterday when a new Colorado pulled up. The Colorado was actually BIGGER than the dodge 😮.
Don't forget the Maverick, Santa Cruz and Ridgeline, all compact pickups. They sell in much smaller numbers, it's consumer choice driving the upsizing.
@@fuzzy3440 actually no, the Maverick are selling huge and they got problems keeping em in stock. They keep going up year after year.
2021, they sold 13,258
3 years later in 2024, 10 times that at 136 199...
I agree. I think midsize is plenty big for residential truck use. If you need a truck for business then you should be looking at a HD.
Maybe outside, but midsize back seat is really cramped and bed is very short.
I have that engine in my Edge and it’s been amazing! Super reliable and very powerful.
The small engine trend is only a thing because of government regulation, lets not get this twisted that the companies enjoy building these complicated turbo engines. Not looking to argue but wanted to put it out there.
These 'small' engines are still upgrades over the minivan engines prior gens of midsize trucks had
@@wolfgang_h3t performance wise yes, longevity is a no. Being that I work on vehicles for a living I only judge engines on how they preform from 100k to 200K taking into account if they still run or how much money someone will have to dump into them at that milage. The old basic engines might not win at the drag strip or sled pull but they will get ya where ya need to go cheaper. 20MPG combined on a V6 ranger is not very impressive in my opinion.
Well said. Many of us want naturally aspirated.
@@711slimshawny I'm about to do a valve cover gasket on a 2014 1.6L Ecoboost in my driveway this weekend.
Complicated is an understatement!
@@711slimshawny
We are seeing well over 250,000 miles with just very maintenance. With the power and the fuel economy of the modern turbo engines. Is an easy choice.
I honestly miss the old days when trucks were simple and mechanical.
I do like fuel injection , and a few things but I want a mechanical 4 x 4 system with a neutral mode.
I think a big screen like it has is cumbersome and a distraction especially for people like me who like to fidget with stuff .
They still sell fleet trucks.
@@davidberkovits9738 buy an old truck, your future is clear
I've already seen an base/steel wheel '24 Ranger used by a company, have to look for one..
Nissan Frontier
I had a 2020 F150 XLT FX4 with a 2.7. I absolutely loved it. That 2.7 was fantastic. Had to sell it. I now own a 21 Ram Rebel with a 5.7 and I miss the F150. The 2.7 is a great engine.
Why did you sell it and go for a more expensive truck?
@@xXlURMOMlXx Possibly needed more towing ability?
@@Ichibuns the rebels towing ability is terrible since it only has about 1100lbs of payload
The ram is rated for over 11k towing.. payload is cumbersome. Only commenting because my work truck is a ram and its a work horse. It is the classic body style though.
@xXlURMOMlXx sold it because of a divorce and had to at the time. Bought the Ram used and paid less than the F150. Always been a Ford owner and wanted to try something else. The Ram is a great truck too.
The disappointment in Andre’s voice… this truck has no bed liner… love it Andre love how much you love truck stuff!
Awesome Engine. Crazy that they now added it to the Ranger, in addition to the F150, Fusion and Edge. Versatile platform
I didn't like it when Ford started putting small displacement turbocharged engines in all their vehicles. Then, all the other car manufacturers copied what Ford was doing several years ago. Now that everyone else switched to small displacement turbocharged engines, Ford is now changing direction again and adding a turbocharged 6-cylinder. I prefer a naturally aspirated engine, but I appreciate what Ford is doing. In a mid-sized truck that weighs over 5,000 lbs, a small 4-cylinder turbocharged engine has to work hard when it's empty and needs boost (which destroys fuel economy) to move that much weight. The 1st Gen Tundra was the size of a modern Tacoma but the Tundra had a V8 and a wider cab with more rear legroom. When Mercedes teamed up with Nissan to build the Mercedes X-Class truck it had a body by Mercedes on a Navara chassis with a 6 cylinder engine. GM put a 5.3L V8 in some of the First Generation Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon trucks. John at LHT Performance in Florida put a naturally aspirated V8 from a 2020 Silverado into a 2020 Colorado, and the motor doesn't work hard, so he gets 28-30 MPG on the highway. Mid-sized trucks need a 6 or 8 cylinder engine to move the weight of the truck and use it to tow and haul cargo.
@@aerynlovell4754The Dodge Dakota had that V8 and seemed to be great
@chrisrauschning7376 It must be something about Europeans that don't appreciate trucks as a daily driver and think they are delivery and farm vehicles. Stellantis bought into Jeep/Ram because the brand was popular in North America but slowly ruined it with one bad decision after another. Where I live in Alberta, Canada, I still see Dodge Dakota trucks on the road. Even though they are old and a little beat up, the owner's love those small trucks. After the success of the Maverick, I thought Stellantis would bring back the Dakota as an affordable truck for the laborers and tradesmen who have been loyal Dodge owners for decades. Instead, they decided to turn Dodge into a luxury brand like Land Rover.
We need more bed length options.
the bed on my 2019 is 1" wider than it is long, it's absolutely not a useful bed as far as trucks go.
And cab options too.
Really agree! They had a longer bed, I would have considered Ranger. Stopped as soon as I saw the bed length/volume.
They're gonna push you towards an 2.7 F150...
@@ljmorris6496Probably so, but it would be nice to have some different bed sizes and cab configurations on the mid size trucks. To me the bed gets pretty useless when it gets smaller. Of course, they aren’t really making the trucks to be trucks. They are making them to be family haulers with a small bed to carry a few bags of mulch. Look at how the majority of the pick up trucks sold today are used.
It's pretty nice that ford decided to throw the ttv6 2.7 in the ranger when you consider this powerplant is more capable than 90% of f150s from just 10 years ago. 7500lbs for a mid size is strong towing numbers as well and based on the f150s with this powerplant it's safe to assume you could expect 24-26 mpg on the highway with one of these.
I'd love to see review channels actually test those max tow ratings in a panic stop...I'd bet that truck ends up out of control rather quickly.....or any of these mid -size truck and the 1/2 tons. Cool you got 7500 pounds moving but what's more important is being able to stop it safely and controllably.
FYI: I'm seeing reports that the 2025 Ranger will be offered in an Extended Cab (i.e. with suicide doors) and a 6' bed.
Here's hoping. That's God's cab configuration
Hopefully. It looks like a honest truck
Ford was spotted testing a long bed crew cab one a few years ago as well, I'd be really interested in that option since it'd give a 6' bed while still being shorter overall than a 5.5' bed F-150.
I'll believe it when I see it, I read somewhere that Ford is going away from the supercab in the F150
That would be the one I would buy. A long bed crew cab would be nice too.
This engine rocks in my F-150, I can imagine how nice it would be in the smaller lighter truck.
Simple, but brilliant move by Ford to add the six
Ford added the wrong 6 to the Ranger. Instead of having an optional 6 cylinder engine, they should be more concerned with an optional 6 foot bed. Until they do that, Ranger will be 3rd place behind Tacoma and Frontier
I just bought a basically identical Ranger in the chili pepper red and I love it so far. I do wish that it had come with the trailer brake controller but I figure I can probably get one down the road if I really wanted it.
I put a tonneau cover on mine and got about 24.3mpg running to the farm and back (I was babying it but I wanted to see what it could do, sue me) over about 120 miles round trip. I'm interested to see what it will do when the engine is broken in.
I’m glad they brought the 2.7 into the lineup. Was definitely considering this truck/engine for a new vehicle purchase a little while ago. Hopefully the reliability is good.
I had a F150 with the 2.7 and it was a great engine. No issues with power, you could never tell it was as small as it is.
2.7 had a few issues in the Bronco. But basically none elsewhere. The F150, the Nautilus, the Edge Sport, and the Ranger it has not just a decent reputation, but an excellent one. In the F150 especially it's almost impossible to find common issues with it, it's lauded as one of the best most reliable modern Ford engines. Not sure where you heard there were issues in the F150 Andre.
A very small batch of Broncos had bad valves from the supplier. During ‘Rona lockdown panic. A very small batch.
@@davidheckart639 Yeah exactly. I had a 2017 F150 with the 2.7 and now own both a 2021 F150 and 2021 Nautilus, both with the 2.7. I absolutely adore the 2.7 as a powertrain. Never had an issue, never heard of anyone else having an issue outside of the little Bronco debacle. Powerful, reliable, and pretty good mpg. What else could you want?
@@davidheckart639 they recalled 91k vehicles, not all Bronco's.
Well, notwithstanding the 91k vehicle recall for broken valves. It's an anecdote, but my buddy's 2.7TT F150 cracked a cylinder head at like 60k miles.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention the other mid sized truck with a V6. Nissan frontier. More horsepower and better payload. Same tow rating. Better value. Made in the USA.
I'm pretty sure the Nissan has a lower tow rating. That's really my only beef with the frontier.
Yeah, you don’t hear or see too much about the Frontier in the mid-size truck world. They don’t look too bad to me and would seem like a viable option.
Yeah I'd buy a Frontier before I bought any of these turbo charged engine trucks....funny Nissan used to have the Frontier with an optional supercharger, they don't have that anymore either LOL.
Nice to see V6. It or jeep, or Nissan are only Little trucks I’d buy new once my 2023 Tacoma v6 gets tired. Like my big trucks with V8s and little trucks with V6. But think I’d rather just buy used and put little money in older trucks and rebuild it to make it drive like new truck.
These types of videos helped me choose my F150. Thank you for these videos.
Not sure if it's the same as my 16 f150 but I've been loving my 2.7L especially the fuel efficiency I'm getting from this engine
Imagine with a 10 speed
Case comes in like the guys that call me. “I’m trying to reach you about your cars extended warranty.”
Looks nice, and I'll bet it will move too. I got the 2.7 in my 23' F150, and it is pretty quick so I could only imagine what it's like in a smaller lighter truck.
Believe it or not, the Ranger and F150 weight damn near the same. That being said, I built my little bro's X-cab 2020 F150 with the 2,7l out to 500Hp at the wheels with simple bolt on's and a tune. We stopped at 500 because it just couldn't keep the wheels stuck to the ground. Nothing makes your butt pucker faster than having your tires snap loss on the freeway at 75 mph an a throttle dump lol.
@@TdrSld this!! I used to search the weights of f150 raptor and ranger raptor. It turns out they weigh quite similarly. I got shocked at the time...
@@mikahoIic That aluminum cab is lite as hell aint it.
@@mikahoIic aluminum vs steel
2024 F150 2.7L 4x4
curb weight: 4941 lbs
width (no mirrors): 79.9"
height: 77.1"
length: 232"
2024 Ranger 2.7L 4x4
curb weight: 4415 lbs 89.4%
width (no mirrors): 75.5" 94.5%
height: 74.4" 96.5%
length: 210.6" 90.8%
relative to the size of F-150: 92.8%
2024 Maverick 2.0L AWD
curb weight: 3731 lbs 84.5%
width (no mirrors): 72.6" 96.2%
height: 68.7" 92.3%
length: 199.7" 94.8%
relative to the size of Ranger: 92.0%
A 526 lbs difference between the Ranger and F-150 would definitely have some real world fuel/mileage/acceleration implications barring no other differences. Based on these size stats alone, small/mid/full-size trucks seem to typically be within 92% the size of the next step up, at least for this generation.
Honestly, if I was in the market for a truck this would be very intriguing. The Ranger with a 2.3 is a plucky little thing; putting the 2.7 in it has to be awesome. Those HP and torque numbers are fantastic for a truck this size, without going to a Tacoma Hybrid. I like the size of this truck, too. I think this was a good move by Ford.
I have a 2018 F-150 with the 2.7 and I couldn’t be happier with it. Makes great power, tows well, and gets good fuel economy
Not exactly a fan of Ford turbo trucks, but I have to say, I drove an 2018 f150 with the 2.7 and it was legitimately fast. I was kinda shocked.
I drive one for work doing deliveries. It gets 22 mpg. Has a few bugs. The windshield washer pump failed. The tailgate latch failed. The hvac controller has a few glitches. The transmission sometimes locks me out of 9 or 10th gear. But I have 56500 miles on it. It’s is comfortable. Brakes are really grabby when cold.
I’m guessing fuel economy will be better than stated since I’ve seen many 2.7 F150’s get 22-24mpg pretty easily. The 2.7 in a Ranger will be an awesome truck compared to the other mid size offerings, that’s coming from a Tacoma nerd. Not to mention, the price is more inline with what it should be.
I wish he mentioned gearing in the quick drive
@@diesel6916 all Rangers are 3.73 except the Raptor which is 4.27 according to Fords website. But I agree it would have been nice just for clarification.
I have the 2.7 in my 2023 F150. I researched problems before I bought it. I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no major problems with this engine. The 2.7 and the 5.0 are the 2 best engines in the F-150. The 3.5L is the one that ends up needing new cam phasers right when your warranty runs out.
Wet oil belt will break happens all the time on these engines inside the oil pan bad design Don’t know why they don’t mention it in the video.
@@kevinvoss220 how many miles typically on that? I want to know if/when I should buy the extended warranty. 😂
@@kevinvoss220 I have had the 2.7l in the bronco and also an F150 and have researched them a lot. I have not seen one example of the wet belt in the 2.7 causing problems.
@@AndrewJohnson-x2eonly the 1l or 1.5l wet belt have problems if you use crappy oil and don't change it on time. I only use motorcraft oil as that it what oil is used for the durability testing on fords.never ever heard of any ford engine other than the small ones having issues with wet belts.
We are so spoiled these days, we get a 300hp midsize truck and it seems normal. I live in Argentina and we only have this truck with diesel engines. I would love to have a gas option.
AMERICANS WOULD LIKE THE DIESEL OPTION TOO...
My 2015 f150 with the 2.7 was crazy good on fuel. Will be interesting to see how the Ranger does in that department
Man that thing must be a rocket ship
A coyote in one of these would be awesome!
Hair would get all over the seats.
Now that would be a Ranger Raptor!
@@woodjunkjrjr2689😂😂😂😂
@@woodjunkjrjr2689Just think if it was Godzilla?
Pair that Coyote with a manual transmission and it would be even more awesome!
I actually decided to stick with the 2.3l in my Bronco because of all the commotion around the 2.7l at the time. Unfortunately it turns out that it was around 100 motors in the Bronco that had issues. If I need to switch to another Bronco, I'll definitely get the 2.7l V6 next time. I'll also immediately get that ProCal tuner.
Do you feel like the bronco with the 2.3 is underpowered? I was considering it for a Bronco, most reviews seem to say it’s adequate for the application
The 2.3 is garbage unfortunately
@@wasupfool5692 say more…
I had a 2.3l Bronco and it was great. Hauled ass and got consistently over 20MPG. Only had the stock 32" tires. So maybe Sasquatch with 35" would be a different story? Only traded it in to get a Gladiator Max Tow so we could pull our larger trailer.
I do like the 2.7 in a small platform. We have it in our Edge ST and it will scoot. I still think I would choose the Frontier Pro-4X.
It's great that Ford now offers a V6 in the Ranger. I've never owned a Ford but I'm thinking I'll buy this to replace my V6 Canyon (since GM has gone 4 cylinder only in their midsize segment). Great to see options again
I live in Australia where we don't mind having diesel engines. I have a TDV6 Ranger Wildtrak (upper spec) these are single turbo diesel engine. They are great for towing and its smooth quiet engine. I believe you have this engine in the F150. Yeah it dose have a history of problems in its days in Land Rovers and there are some issues in the Ranger but thats what warranty is for.
The 2.7L is the best ecoboost engine Ford makes. It may not make the most power, but it's efficient and rock solid.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the one big problem the 2.7L had with its intake valve stems fracturing, which was remedied a couple years ago. New engines do not suffer from that problem. For those who have 2.7L ecoboost engines manufactured from 2021-2022, there is a recall for them. The thing to note about the intake valve problem is that it wasn't a design problem with the engine, it was a manufacturing problem with the valves.
One of the quickest half tons made right now
Does it not have a wet belt running the oil pump? Seems like a fairly massive liability considering how they performed in every other wet rubber belt vehicle ever.
@@t4thfavor1212 yes, the 2.7 has a "wet belt" running the oil pump. I don't know why they went with a belt instead of a chain, but it's probably the one thing I'd change out of an abundance of caution. That said, premature degradation of a wet belt usually only occurs if you have other problems with your engine such that the oil is being contaminated. It's the contaminates that lead to wet belts degrading faster than expected. If you take proper care of your engine, stick to the recommended maintenance cycles, and use good oil and filters, you're not likely to have a problem.
Ford 5.0 & 2.7 both run wet belts to drive oil pumps. Fire the engineer that designed it and the bean counter that approved it !
That's the exact model that Ford Australia need in their range. The 2.7 is a great motor that's been around for a while, makes good power, is Tuntable and presents a great option to the Australian 3L V6 deisel. I guess the fact that the Australian rangers still come with the twin turbo 2L 4cyl deisel means that Ford can't introduce this engine into the range as it'll kill the 2L deisel and they'll lose development $$
G'day, In Australia the Lariat is called a Wildtrak. I noticed that the Payload figure was 612 kg, in Australia the Payload is 966 kg. The interior looks pretty similar. We get the trailer break controller, cup holders beneath the dash air vent and Auto 4x4 on high traction surfaces like roads.
Why do the Aussies get all the good stuff??
@@kennak476 Trailer brake controller is available as an option.
Nice review, I like that Ford is giving customers engine options, although 4WD Auto is missing. And the price seems to be higher in comparison to V6 Ridgeline and V6 Frontier but their interior is not as nice as the Ford. Gas milage also seems to be on par for a turbo V6, so I think Ford Ranger will be excellent option for the mid-size market.
I have the 2.7 in my 2021 Bronco and it has been an awesome motor after 30k miles of use. I am trying to find out if I am affected by the recall. Based on my trouble free experience I would be shocked if it is affected. Fingers crossed. 🤞
I have to say at that weight class that engine should be more than adequate. It does not have to be a V8. Nor does it have to be the 3.5 V6. I have a friends that bought F150 at the same time 1 with the 2.7 the other with the 3.5. Neither have any complaints or issues with them.
Would love that engine here in Australia
Great video, Andre! Can't wait to get one in a long bed!
I miss my 87 Ranger which had the 7 foot bed....wish automakers would build trucks that have a usable bed rather than catering to the buyers who should have bought a car instead of a pickup.
I have the 2.7 in my f150. I was skeptical at first. After 100k miles, I love this engine. Great power. Great fuel economy. And very reliable. That will be a great engine for the ranger. That truck needs more power.
If you think the 2.7 has a lot of power in your F150...try out the F150 with the 3.5 Ecoboost...400hp 500ft lbs of torque. It is a beast. I have a 2023 F150 XLT. It pulls stronger than my 2017 Mustang GT ever felt.
The wing foot logo as part of the tread block is awesome 😊
It'll be interesting to see this compared to the Colorado/Canyon with their 2.7L turbo four.
On paper it has a little more HP but a little less Tq than the GM 2.7. I would imagine the V6 is smoother running than the GM turbo 4 and hopefully it sounds better - I know as I have a '24 Trail Boss.
Real world, the Ford is far more powerful.
@@0HOON0 interesting opinion. What exactly do you base that on? I'd be interested to see a side by side comparison for acceleration, towing, and fuel economy in both situations.
@@codycoquat5953 Getty Adventures channel has towing tests. Timed acceleration runs under load.
Having driven all trucks that are currently equipped with a 2.7L turbo, that's from both GM and Ford, the Ford is snappier, even if it makes less torque. I really believe the GM 2.7L makes the power GM states, but the GM engine is just lazier, like a diesel, feeling more sluggish in comparison. It doesn't exactly enjoy boosting up and reving out, it wants to just lumber along, which is fine if you like diesel-like power delivery. But the Ford 2.7L feels much like a hot rod in comparison, or at least it does in the F150. I would imagine it being the same or better in the Ranger.
What's more, the GM 2.7L can really be harsh sounding. It's fine under light driving, and it even makes a nice turbo whistle, but it gets really grindy, making those typical unpleasant 4 cylinder sounds at higher RPM. The Ford 2.7L V6 is, well, a V6. It just sounds better and smoother overall.
Andre, I would prefer a work truck version without a big screen and a longer bed and higher payload and more function in the rear seat.
You mean an f150.😊
@shane83402 yes sir! Wish they offered a down sized f150. You are spot on
Like the addition of the 2.7 as an option on the Ranger. I just wish they had a 6ft bed option with the 4 door. I had a Nissan Frontier P4X and while I loved that truck, the smaller bed is pretty limiting.
This 2.7 is the new 302 Windsor. Works great in everything it’s in. Quiet, smooth, torquey, it feels a lot like a well tuned fuel injected V8. My Bronco Sasquatch 2.7 returns 20 mpg on average which is exceptional given the weight and aerodynamic of the Bronco. Great engine and a real differentiator for Ford in the midsize class.
I've driven both. The 4 is absolutely adequate. The 6 feels a little more relaxed. The Lariat has nice features, but XLT is definitely the sweet spot. The canyon has a much nicer interior at that price point. For 50k+, it's missing features competitors have
It's a long way from when I bought my new 1991 Ranger 4x4 with a 2.9 v6. It was $15,600 sticker.
My 1983 Ranger with the 2.8L V-6 was $6900 brand new, if I remember correctly. My 2019 Ranger with a 2.3 was $36,000
And a much better truck that will out last this one 10 times over.
If we do some basic economics that is $35,000 in todays dollars for comparison. And this is a $50,000 truck, but maybe a higher end model than yours. It's 30% more expensive than an equivalent 1990's truck perhaps?
I have a 2.7 in my 2018 f150 and it’s been a great motor. Stock it ran a 14.88@96 mph and I had to take off easy because it’s only one wheel drive
Personally i love the black on black interior. And the interior layout is the best looking one.
INSANE price! (Thanks Brighton Ford for showing us this truck!)
You can use any aftermarket TBC from the current Bonco, there's a plug up and to the left of the brake pedal, it's plug and play.
I’m really happy that Ford decided to use the 2.7 on the Ranger… I love this engine and the problem the engine had was because a problem with the intake valve manufacturing process and they were breaking but Ford already took care of that… people have no idea how strong is the engine block (compacted graphite iron) + the engine produces more torque per liter than the 3.0 power stroke did which is amazing and the engine is capable of producing way more power. The Raptor’s 3.0 is the same 2.7 engine but with more stroke to get the additional 0.3 displacement.
Great truck
@The Fast Lane Truck: The compacted graphite iron block of the 2.7 EB makes it diesel like.
I think the 2.7 should have been an option from the beginning and I would definitely prefer that over the 2.3, "but" given the problems Ford has had with the 2.7 lately, things that there's simply no excuse for, I'm glad I don't have one. Also, as TheDisBeat says below, "Over 50k for a Ranger that's insane." I totally agree, and that applies to what they're charging for just about every truck out there regardless of the manufacturer.
I agree it should have came with a trailer brake controller. I'm waiting on ventilated seats and heads up display as options before they get me in the showroom. I've got a full size truck but looking to downsize and when these two options are offered I'll consider this truck.
The 2.3 can make massive power with a tune
Hope you do a comparison of a tuned 2.3 vs 2.7
Nice to have options. I would still choose the 2.3 over the 2.7 as it would meet my needs.
Same.
Just got a 2.3 XL (literally this week) and it's great! I will say it kind of sounds like a tractor though coming from a V6 😂. But I'm sure I'll get used to it. More than enough power for a smaller truck.
My 2015 F150 2.7 never had engine problems. I loved it!
1. I don’t need a sunroof - bald head gets sunburnt…lol. 2. Side steps are great for those of us who are vertically challenged and shrinking due to age…hahahahahaha
I think we all wanted a comparison with all other midsized trucks , something TFL used to do .
Love the concept! Good to see a v6 back in a mid-size truck!
Really tired of seeing black on black on black vehicles though. Boring.
It still strikes me weird, that the Americans aren't getting the full range of ranger options. Here in Europe we can get the Ranger in a single cap + longer bed configuration, plus we can get the 3l v6 Diesel engine.
We aren't getting the hybrid either unfortunately
Because we have the F150. Ford won't allow the Ranger to dominate because of it. In the US, the Ranger is considered more of a "lifestyle" vehicle, while the F150 is the more configurable tool.
Although everyone hates them the 2.7 is more reliable and in the shops less than the 3.5's and 5.0's.
Geeez. You can get a ZR2 Colorado for that kind of money, and for not much more you can get a ranger raptor. This price point doesnt make sense.
With discounts I paid 52k for my 23 v8 Silverado rst 4wd.
This is the trim right below the raptor, you can get the xlt with the 2.7 and 4x4 for just over 43k, I would much rather have this than the zr2.
Every now and then Ford has a good idea. And IMHO the 2.7L in the Ranger was one of those good ideas. However, you do have to get the 4x4 to get that engine. Thanks for the review Andre, I've been waiting to see a video featuring the 2.7L Ranger. I own a full size truck now, and it seems to grow bigger every year. It won't be long until I'll be ready to downsize, and the 2.7L Ranger is at the top of my list.
2.7 in my 2019 F150. It’s got some pep and no issues at 60k miles so far. I bet it be a hoot to drive in a ranger. Problem is cost. 50k ballpark for it in a ranger is a no go. Especially when 50k can get you it in a lower trim 150. Ranger size is perfect for me but if prices are about equal I’ll go lower trim f150 all day. Happy with the 2.7 but may go 5.0 on my next f150 because who know how much longer the V8’s will be around. Prices stupid high everywhere for sure.
$43,630 starting price for std 4wd Ranger XLT !! $50,520 with most of the options. The F150 4wd starts at $51,030 and is $57,460 with similar options !!
I got the same truck only in a V4 in May. The V4 is very impressive and I have not once wished it had more power. Such a pleasure to drive around town.
Inline 4 !!
A V4? That is special. Has to be extremely valuable, since Ford doesn't currently offer a v4 in any vehicle anywhere that I'm aware of 🤣
I4 not V4
I like the concept of more power but the MPGs seem a touch low for a smaller truck and of course the pricing is a bit high.
i have a 2019 with 78K miles. I got 19ish after things settled in, and it went down slightly when I added the BFG K02 Load Range E tires because they are heavy. The tow rating on this truck is the same as the 2019 with the 2.3L and it has plenty of power to tow that weight or more. For comparison, my wife gets 20-23 in her Yukon XL with the DI 5.3L...
I have a Lariat 2.3 and it's plenty of power. I originally going to wait for the 2.7 but I decided to pull the trigger and honestly I don't need it. I tow my boat which is 4000lbs and it's easy. I use it as a daily driver so I'm happy with my MPG and good power.
Take that all day any day over these 4cyl trucks
The only truck with a 2.7 worth buying is the Toyota 2TR-FE. It may be slow, but it will outlast humanity.
@@user-tb7rn1il3qat that stage the engine comparison is apples to oranges and the size of the vehicles are as well.
I liked my OG 2001 ranger. S10s. Sr5 etc. back then everyone knew what the truck was for and could and couldn't do .. people now want their "midsize" trucks to act like full size and well now they also have full size prices
I really don't care for a sunroof. I don't tow, just use the bed to toss stuff in the back
It's the best engine for the f150 aswell. Just amazingly strong motor. Always willing to blow a v8 away an tow anything it's meant to and get amazing mileage
Awesome to see a turbo 6 in midsize trucks. Hopefully we get the other brands to catch on
24 f150 crew cab 4x4 fx4 with 5.0 V8 19 combined 24 highway and I have personally verified it gets that easy. the Ranger should be able to top that.
With a long bed this would sell like crazy.
It won’t actually. Data shows most people are fine with a 5ft bed. If not so, ford would’ve offered.
@@DarthNero What data?
@@AkioWasRight Lt. Commander Data of course! Don't be silly.
@@AkioWasRight sales data of models that do offer the 6ft bed like the Tacoma, and sales data of full sized trucks like the F-150.
The four door 5ft config outsells all other configurations by a longshot.
Finally, 7500lbs towing! Thanks Andre.
2.3 four has the same rating.
These trucks are cool and all but two things that keep on drawing me to the Colorado is the 4WD auto, and rear seat vents.
A lot of the competitors don't put these features in unless it's at the highest trim level.
I think it's stupid you can't order a lot of vehicles anymore with the options you want. What if I wanted a Supercab Ranger with the 2.7? The 2.3L Ecoboost is no slouch compared to my 99 Ranger's 3.0L, but at least I've got a manual transmission.
My Frontier has a v6. Its great.
What many people don't understand, is that the government isn't requiring smaller engines. They're requiring cleaner and more efficient engines. It has little to do with mpg which is why all these small engine vehicles don't get basically the same MPG as the NA engines they are replacing.
If it were an MPG requirement, every vehicle would have a diesel.
A turbo increases air to help ensure complete combustion which in turn will produce more power with the same amount of fuel. The reason why they're small engines is because it's easier to accomplish this in smaller, high pressure turbo engines than large NA engines.
If only someone could make high compression, clean burning engines without a turbo...
MPG and emissions can be related to each other. The problem is that these smaller engines often fail to deliver real-world benefits, so they just game the EPA.
Also, a larger N/A engine increases air, but it does so naturally. That's because it's a larger displacing engine. All a turbo does is force more displacement, taking the place of the physical cylinder displacement.
And mind you, that doesn't necessarily reduce emissions. That can increase emissions, in fact. When you force more air into an engine, you must also increase fuel, which results in more emissions.
@jayhiggins5239 they can, you just won't want to pay for the fuel that level of compression will demand.
I have this truck and I love it. Great speed, capability, tech, parking is easy, fuel economy, and people can sit comfortably in the back seat. Also, if your 5ft 9inches or bellow you will need the side steps. I got a xcal and student rebate. The 2.3 works too hard and the 2.7 will move.
I'm happy Ford offers this for those who want it. But you pay 2.2k for no additional towing, less payload, and less mpg. On top of all that, the 2.3 base engine is no slouch.
Amen!
Plus, with the Ford tune, it gives good power and economy !!
Drag race this against the competition!
We love these in Australia, they're a good all-rounder with a V6
That's my truck's identical twin. I love the 2.7
Been looking at getting a new mid sized pickup to replace my 2013 Frontier. Currently have a king cab and wanted the same thing as I use my truck to haul stuff and not people. Only Nissan and Toyota offered the smaller cab so the Ranger was out of consideration
Justifying the cost by saying that the raptor cost is so much more, is kind of crazy. They're all too much money
Didn’t we go through the “Shrink the engine, and slap a turbo on it” back in the eighties and nineties already?
I agree on how big full size trucks have become. I have a 97 Chevy WT, std cab, short bed. It is more than enough for items that I, or most people haul.
I really don't know why the 2.7 is better then the 2.3. you don’t get a higher toe rating, less mpg, and 2.3 is already pretty fast
Much smoother, refined, and less effort to go fast. And it tows and hauls WAY better.
Far more competent in the towing department.
Longer life sue to less strain on engine
@@cwqrpportableYou own one?
It is to compensate for the wall front of the current restyling