2020 Ranger: Will it get the 2.7 V-6 Eco Boost?

[Bubbabiker]

I rather see the new 3.0L EB in the upcoming Raptor. It's lighter than the 2.7L (being all aluminum vs. CGI) and can put out up to 400hp.

Sponsored

 

[Hounddog409]

Do these Ford Eco Boost's need 91+ octane gas?

No

 

[chuck stein]

I rather see the new 3.0L EB in the upcoming Raptor. It's lighter than the 2.7L (being all aluminum vs. CGI) and can put out up to 400hp.

What makes you think the Ranger Raptor is coming? Does not seem to make sense if Ford is redoing Ranger on new Bronco platform. Maybe Ford will have a Bronco Raptor?

 

[chuck stein]

By your argument about the Raptor needing to be better than a non-Raptor, why doesn't the TRD Pro Tacoma come with a better powertrain than its cheaper V6 models? It has the same torque-less 3.5L car engine as the cheaper models. Since you don't like the Ranger at all, which is obvious by your bashing here on this forum, you should come buy my TRD Pro Tacoma from me. You'll be more than happy with it's "big badass V6" engine instead of a "wimpy" 4 cylinder Ranger. I'd be more than thrilled to sell it to you while I wait for my Ranger to show up.

Wrong argument. Toyota has 4 and 6cyl motor options. If a Raptor comes it will certainly have a 6cyl w/ no motor options, of which no current Ranger can ever have a 6cyl.

 

[doug910]

Wrong argument. Toyota has 4 and 6cyl motor options. If a Raptor comes it will certainly have a 6cyl w/ no motor options, of which no current Ranger can ever have a 6cyl.

If Ford comes out with a Ranger Raptor, I agree that it will only come with a EB V6. Added power, but softer suspension/taller ride height so it will be less capable. Therefore won't hurt F150 sales with a more powerful midsize truck. I doubt that the normal ranger will get a 2.7 because that will seriously make the F150 look less capable.

 

[chuck stein]

87 - I use 87 all the time - no problems.

If you are seriously considering a Ranger and not trolling, I am serious - go test drive one - you will be surprised.

I did test drive. Dealer had one XLT on lot, that was it. It's ok for a 4cyl turbo. No surprise there, most decent 4cyl turbos are about the same, except Ranger is a tad heavier than most vehicles these 4bangers are in.

Bronco will have a 6cyl manual trans option. Although Ford rumored it will not be a rebadged Everest, it will basically be a rebadged Everest. It makes absolutely no sense to re-make the Everest into something completely new for the US and call it a Bronco, and to boot a 1st ever model year! That is all too risky.

But back to the OP's question. If the 6cyl were an option, I would buy the truck with the 6cyl engine.

 

[chuck stein]

If Ford comes out with a Ranger Raptor, I agree that it will only come with a EB V6. Added power, but softer suspension/taller ride height so it will be less capable. Therefore won't hurt F150 sales with a more powerful midsize truck. I doubt that the normal ranger will get a 2.7 because that will seriously make the F150 look less capable.

Interesting view. But Ford could easily combat this buy stuffing F150 with 3.0 engine as the entry option, and leave the older/proven 2.7L to Ranger as optional. Ranger could simply be the donee of F150 hand-me-downs.

 

[doug910]

Interesting view. But Ford could easily combat this buy stuffing F150 with 3.0 engine as the entry option, and leave the older/proven 2.7L to Ranger as optional. Ranger could simply be the donee of F150 hand-me-downs.

That's true too, the hybrid F150 is coming out so it might serve the purpose that you've mentioned.

 

[TacoHawkRanger]

By your argument about the Raptor needing to be better than a non-Raptor, why doesn't the TRD Pro Tacoma come with a better powertrain than its cheaper V6 models? It has the same torque-less 3.5L car engine as the cheaper models. Since you don't like the Ranger at all, which is obvious by your bashing here on this forum, you should come buy my TRD Pro Tacoma from me. You'll be more than happy with it's "big badass V6" engine instead of a "wimpy" 4 cylinder Ranger. I'd be more than thrilled to sell it to you while I wait for my Ranger to show up.

Honestly, I am still baffled by Toyota's engine choice. They lost me with that drive train. And I LOVED the Gen2.

I don't think there will be any 2.7s in this generation Ranger. They MAY have one in the next iteration. I honestly am not worried about it. There is not better gas engine in a midsize right now, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Also, I'm a cheapskate and a tinkerer, so I will be adding parts and tuning my 2.3l in the future. I'm thinking 400/400 should be doable eventually...

Wrong argument. Toyota has 4 and 6cyl motor options. If a Raptor comes it will certainly have a 6cyl w/ no motor options, of which no current Ranger can ever have a 6cyl.

Toyota has the I4 for cheap fleet sales. It is only available in the very bottom model. SR5 or higher is only optioned out with 3.5l V6. A V6 that makes 278hp at 6000 rpm and 265 lb⋅ft 4600 rpm. The Ranger makes 270hp at 5500 rpm and 310 lb⋅ft at 3000 rpm. The point being that the 2.7 is the equivalent to the competitions V6, so Ford may not see a need to drop a larger engine into the Raptor.

Bear in mind, the Ranger Raptor will be competing with the ZR2 and the TRD Pro. Both of which use the V6 option for their power plants (or in the ZR2s case, either the V6 or diesel). I think Ford may stick with the 2.3l and add performance parts and a better tune. Perhaps that's why there is no stateside version yet, they are still testing getting more out of the tune.

 

[RedlandRanger]

I did test drive. Dealer had one XLT on lot, that was it. It's ok for a 4cyl turbo. No surprise there, most decent 4cyl turbos are about the same, except Ranger is a tad heavier than most vehicles these 4bangers are in.

Bronco will have a 6cyl manual trans option. Although Ford rumored it will not be a rebadged Everest, it will basically be a rebadged Everest. It makes absolutely no sense to re-make the Everest into something completely new for the US and call it a Bronco, and to boot a 1st ever model year! That is all too risky.

But back to the OP's question. If the 6cyl were an option, I would buy the truck with the 6cyl engine.

If you really did test drive the Ranger and feel that the Tacoma v6 is superior I really don't know what else to say other than I completely disagree with you. The Ranger powertrain is superior in every way to the Tacoma's. I don't know how you could make that argument with a straight face honestly.

 

[chuck stein]

If you really did test drive the Ranger and feel that the Tacoma v6 is superior I really don't know what else to say other than I completely disagree with you. The Ranger powertrain is superior in every way to the Tacoma's. I don't know how you could make that argument with a straight face honestly.

Ah geez. I was not comparing to Tacoma v6. You totally missed what I was saying. I have a 4banger turbo already, not very impressed.

I mentioned that if the Toyota motors were turbo'd we'd all be wondering why the 4banger Ranger motor is not as good as those. Put a turbo on a 2.7L 2TRFE and then come back and let me know how slow the Ranger is. Toyota does not "need" to turbo their v6 or 4cyl motor options, yet it's still the best selling small pkup.

Let's move on already.

 

[chuck stein]

Honestly, I am still baffled by Toyota's engine choice. They lost me with that drive train. And I LOVED the Gen2.

I don't think there will be any 2.7s in this generation Ranger. They MAY have one in the next iteration. I honestly am not worried about it. There is not better gas engine in a midsize right now, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Also, I'm a cheapskate and a tinkerer, so I will be adding parts and tuning my 2.3l in the future. I'm thinking 400/400 should be doable eventually...


Toyota has the I4 for cheap fleet sales. It is only available in the very bottom model. SR5 or higher is only optioned out with 3.5l V6. A V6 that makes 278hp at 6000 rpm and 265 lb⋅ft 4600 rpm. The Ranger makes 270hp at 5500 rpm and 310 lb⋅ft at 3000 rpm. The point being that the 2.7 is the equivalent to the competitions V6, so Ford may not see a need to drop a larger engine into the Raptor.

Bear in mind, the Ranger Raptor will be competing with the ZR2 and the TRD Pro. Both of which use the V6 option for their power plants (or in the ZR2s case, either the V6 or diesel). I think Ford may stick with the 2.3l and add performance parts and a better tune. Perhaps that's why there is no stateside version yet, they are still testing getting more out of the tune.

But folks can still have 4x4 2.7L or 3.5L even in the base model !!

 

[doug910]

Ah geez. I was not comparing to Tacoma v6. You totally missed what I was saying. I have a 4banger turbo already, not very impressed.

I mentioned that if the Toyota motors were turbo'd we'd all be wondering why the 4banger Ranger motor is not as good as those. Put a turbo on a 2.7L 2TRFE and then come back and let me know how slow the Ranger is. Toyota does not "need" to turbo their v6 or 4cyl motor options, yet it's still the best selling small pkup.

Let's move on already.

Uhhhh but the 2TRFE doesn't come with a turbo...so what's your point? No one "needs" to turbo their engines, but it helps with fuel economy. It's not like Ford can't make a perfectly capable NA V6 - just look at the base F150. So...what's your point again?

 

[VAMike]

I don't think there will be any 2.7s in this generation Ranger.

I don't either, because I don't see where it would fit into the engine compartment. I guess with enough engineering effort anything is possible, but why would they spend that much effort on a low volume option that would only be around for a couple of years? It's possible that they'd design the next generation around a larger engine, but I'd hate to see them compromise something else (overall dimensions, for example) just to compete on marketing glossies. (Since there's no actual benefit to putting a bigger engine in this truck...) A NA V6 would be a downgrade, and a turbo V6 takes up a lot of space that's just hard to find in a midsize. That may well be why the segment generally has had such uninspiring powertrain options, and why Ford's 2.3 was just what was needed to shake things up.

 

[TacoHawkRanger]

Ah geez. I was not comparing to Tacoma v6. You totally missed what I was saying. I have a 4banger turbo already, not very impressed.

I mentioned that if the Toyota motors were turbo'd we'd all be wondering why the 4banger Ranger motor is not as good as those. Put a turbo on a 2.7L 2TRFE and then come back and let me know how slow the Ranger is. Toyota does not "need" to turbo their v6 or 4cyl motor options, yet it's still the best selling small pkup.

Let's move on already.

Numbers?

I don't have RWHP numbers for a turbo 2TR-FE in the Gen3, but the URD Supercharger puts down 198hp at 5000 rpm and 207 lb⋅ft at 5000 rpm. Ranger does 243hp at 5400 rpm and 257 lb⋅ft 3900 rpm. Both are RWHP numbers. I'm sure you could probably squeeze more power out of a the 2TR-FE, but parts alone for that kit are $4900. All the URD info: https://www.urdusa.com/urd-mk3-supercharger-kit-2016-tacoma-2-7l-2tr-fe-4-cylinder/

But folks can still have 4x4 2.7L or 3.5L even in the base model !!

If the price and mpgs were the same for both the I4 and the V6 Tacoma, would you buy the I4? Would you take less power for the same price? Would anybody? That's the point with the Ranger, it gets the best of both worlds on one drive train. My first Tacoma was an '08 Access Cab I4 4x4. I got about 17mpg city and was lucky to get that highway. It's just too much truck for the 2.7 to handle, especially in the mountains. I traded it for an '06 Double Cab TRD Sport. Got the same mpgs and loved the torque.

Sponsored