Is This How The 2.7 EB Really Looks?

[Dr. Zaius]

It won't be an issue till 15 years and probably 150k miles. When you try to one repair and break a plastic coolant T fitting cause you looked at it wrong...Even the 2.3 isn't "simple" like an old school N/A port fuel injected vehicle.

This.

That's a LOT of hoses and vacuum line that will probably get brittle in several years with the underhood heat of turbos.

Having owned a turbo Rx7, I am very well versed (cursed?) in the joys of vacuum lines and heat.

Converting the turbos to non-sequential cleans this up a bit.

I used to impress my friends by popping the hood after a "spirited" drive and showing them the glowing turbos.

Man, I loved that car. Man, I hated that car.

Electronic management and control has come a long way since the early 90's, but I still have flashbacks when I see this diagram.

Hopefully Ford is using silicone instead of rubber and better heat management.

Sponsored

 

[TORQUERULES]

I drive a 2.7 f150 as my everyday work truck and yes it has plenty of hoses and wires but man that engine is great. I think our 2.3 in our rangers are great the move the trucks just fine but if I were to order a bronco although I would want a manual i also want a 2.7.

Obviously Ford won’t be putting a 2.7 in the ranger because I’m sure that would cut more into the f150 sales. But if they do that would be the truck! 2.7 fx4 lifted on 33” lol

Yes, it is insane how much power can be made out of these little 2.7s. The 3.0 version in Ford/Lincoln's more premium offerings is over 400hp/tq stock which places it above many 3.0 twin turbo V6s from much more expensive and exotic brands. A Ranger with the 2.7 would be insane and the Bronco will be insane with one, especially with the Sasquatch package and its 4.70 rear end gearing (I know it has MASSIVE 35" tires, but that is still much more aggressive than I was expecting from Ford)...

 

[Cape Cruiser]

Last name Gilbert? Probably. My ancestors were one of four families that emigrated to the colonies in the early 1600's, but the records were lost during King Phillips war. The Conant side of my great-grandfather was better researched because Roger Conant was pretty famous.

I have only traced back to late 1800's but yeah Gilbert. LOL

 

[DT444T]

I would LOVE a 2.7 for my Ranger for Towing. The 2.3 does it, but even tuned it's a hair dryer at higher revs.

MOST Bronco owners should get a 2.3L. The 2.7 will be overkill and they'll never need all of it except to flex on V6 Jeeps.

 

[Lost19Ranger]

It will almost certainly be an option on the next gen ranger for the same reason it's in the bronco: the US market loves unnecessarily large engines. Personally I think the 2.3 is perfect for this application.

Oh well that’s cool I didn’t think they were going to offer the 2.7 in the ranger. I’m not a fan of the renders of the next gem ranger so I hope they are wrong if so I may have to trade mine in lol

 

[Obijack]

I'm on my third 2.7 vehicle, 2 MKX and 1 Edge ST. I usually trade somewhere between 70 & 100k. All that has ever been done is oil changes so all the plumbing doesn't bother me at all.

What are your thoughts on the Edge ST vs Ranger? I was between the two (could have bought either for same price) when I purchased my Ranger.

 

[wanted33]

I see the same thing when I look at the 2.3L in my Ranger. I wonder if there's even an engine under all of that spaghetti of wires, and hoses.

 

[Strokerduster]

What are your thoughts on the Edge ST vs Ranger? I was between the two (could have bought either for same price) when I purchased my Ranger.

Serve totally different purpose. I wouldn't tow with the ST even though mine has trailer tow. We actually roadtrip in the Ranger vs ST. It's fun to drive as is the Ranger and we mainly use it as my wifes daily to haul her buddies around. I like having both.

 

[egilbe]

I just drove to the grocery store to get lunch. Thinking about the 2.3 vs 2.7, I dropped into sports mode. yeah, I don't need a 2.7 engine. I won't have any tires left.

 

[wanted33]

This.

That's a LOT of hoses and vacuum line that will probably get brittle in several years with the underhood heat of turbos.

Having owned a turbo Rx7, I am very well versed (cursed?) in the joys of vacuum lines and heat.

Converting the turbos to non-sequential cleans this up a bit.

I used to impress my friends by popping the hood after a "spirited" drive and showing them the glowing turbos.

Man, I loved that car. Man, I hated that car.

Electronic management and control has come a long way since the early 90's, but I still have flashbacks when I see this diagram.

Hopefully Ford is using silicone instead of rubber and better heat management.

Good Lord, all that for one little turbo.........

 

[VoodooRanger]

And yet the alternator is still mounted too low. I understand there isn't much space anywhere else for it, but for me it's the biggest drawback in the 2.3 4 cylinder. I'm worried about even the mildest creek crossing thinking I may be dead in the water with the alternator mounted that low.

 

[Trigganometry]

They should design a sealed alternator for many of the new motors. Not much abuse on these now with mud and water where they’re mostly located now or you’re going to be flipping them like burgers.

 

[Dr. Zaius]

Good Lord, all that for one little turbo.........

Actually 2 sequential turbos mounted inline.

 

[FoD]

...

Obviously Ford won’t be putting a 2.7 in the ranger because I’m sure that would cut more into the f150 sales. But if they do that would be the truck! 2.7 fx4 lifted on 33” lol

They should name it the Ranger Hoonigan...kills all tires!

 

[mlarma]

I've owned (2) 3.5EB F150s, a 2015 5.0 Mustang, and now the 2.3 Ranger. I've never given engine packaging a second thought with any of them. In reality, most people will never touch anything under the hood of their new cars and those that do, have the entirety of the internet to guide them along generally without doing too much damage. The basic design of the internal combustion engine hasn't changed much in the last 100 years or more. It still requires air, fuel, and spark to operate and water to cool it. The 2.3 Turbo in my 84 SVO is not all that dissimilar to the 2.3 turbo in my 2020 Ranger. Engine management however, is where the similarities end and where the complexities increase exponentially.

I’m guessing to that the 84 SVO was running a bit more boost too if memory serves lol. Heard it’s was really a fun car since it was so much lighter than it’s V8 cousin.

Sponsored