Thoughts on 2024 2.7 Ranger

[NotBudule2]

There is no SCAB in 2024 and beyond......AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION !!!!!

I'm still not sure how that happened ?, how do you convince people of something when you both can see it's not true ?

Sponsored

 

[bbeverag]

I'm still not sure how that happened ?, how do you convince people of something when you both can see it's not true ?

They are creating tremendous value for shareholders.

 

[MechanicalBob]

Thanks for all the feedback. The particular 2.7 I’m looking at is LOADED. FX4 Lariat with it appears every single available option, and since it is technically used I think I can get it for well under $50k, so to me it seems like a good deal. I still haven’t driven it but will yet today or tomorrow and will share my thoughts.

 

[GreyAreaRanger]

Considering the oil pump used to run off a chain on the older generations of the 2.7s, and now it has a belt, I would pass. The Broncos, when they first came out, also had some issues with the 2.7 initially. Then there is the transmission side of things. The 19-23 got the 10r80, but the new gens get the 10r60, which are rated for less power than the prior transmissions. As someone who just replaced a 10R80 before hitting 90k miles, this matters to me as the 2.3 isn't taxing the transmissions or shouldn't be. This is just my train of thought, though, and not my area of expertise.

 

[mrmike7189]

If I were towing all the time and /or driving up mountains etc. I would get the 2.7 twin turbo motor.
For everyday driving needs and best fuel economy the 2.3 single turbo fits my needs perfectly fine.

 

[JasonTremor]

The body design and interior of the new rangers are really nice. If Ford threw in a 10yr / 120k powertrain warranty, I'd go with the 2.7. Not a fan of the wet belt driven oil pump personally and that warranty would help me overlook that design aspect. That coverage would also provide backup coverage for the 10sp transmission.

 

[Friday yet?]

If I were to have to order (“have to” key phrase) I would go with the 2.7 engine. I plan on a pretty good bit of towing after retirement and for that I’d like the extra guts. But, I do find the 2.3 to be a great engine. Have zero hesitation about my upcoming retirement towing.

That said, I specifically ordered a late ‘23 to avoid the ‘24 model upgrade. I still can’t get past the looks of them.

 

[NerkyMohawk]

My 2.3 with e-30 has similar HP/Torque to a FP tuned 2.7 not including any of my bolt ons. No hurry to upgrade there. Not a fan of the new front, the Ranger now looks like the Maverick before it got its update in 2025 and I've honestly almost confused them on the street.

If I was looking to upgrade from my 23 tremor I'd I'd just skip the 2.7 all together and go for a Ranger Raptor. If I'm going to set money on fire I'd rather spend an extra 3k and get more smiles per gallon and a raptor badge.

 

[mrmike7189]

Not a fan of the new front, the Ranger now looks like the Maverick before it got its update in 2025 and I've honestly almost confused them on the street.

Never heard that one. ...though I do get people confusing my truck with the F150 all the time

 

[DonovanJM]

From what I have heard (random Internet stuff) the 2.7 is a really good engine. I just don't like the look of the new Rangers and if I don't think "damn I love that truck" when I see it I'm going to end up trading it in. Trading in vehicles doesn't make my wife happy. ?

 

[bmidd]

Considering the oil pump used to run off a chain on the older generations of the 2.7s, and now it has a belt, I would pass. The Broncos, when they first came out, also had some issues with the 2.7 initially. Then there is the transmission side of things. The 19-23 got the 10r80, but the new gens get the 10r60, which are rated for less power than the prior transmissions. As someone who just replaced a 10R80 before hitting 90k miles, this matters to me as the 2.3 isn't taxing the transmissions or shouldn't be. This is just my train of thought, though, and not my area of expertise.

I don't believe any of the "weaker trans" arguments. 2020 Explorer St owner here with 77k miles, tuned it puts down 460/485 to the wheels on the 93 tune, runs 7.9 in the 1/8 and 4.1 0-60mph with zero trans issues. I have broken a transfer case and rear diff on the track on Michelin tires, it blew the tires off in the top of 2nd, hooked and caused some wheel hop and damage.

 

[4x4 Ranger Man]

 

[mrmike7189]

 

[mrmike7189]

Truck of the year 2025
(and they compared Ranger to 7 other pickup competitors)

 

[GreyAreaRanger]

I don't believe any of the "weaker trans" arguments. 2020 Explorer St owner here with 77k miles, tuned it puts down 460/485 to the wheels on the 93 tune, runs 7.9 in the 1/8 and 4.1 0-60mph with zero trans issues. I have broken a transfer case and rear diff on the track on Michelin tires, it blew the tires off in the top of 2nd, hooked and caused some wheel hop and damage.

Ford rates the 10R60 for about 450 ft/lbs tq and the 10R80 for about 600 ft/lb tq. While your tune does exceed this, all it would mean is faster wear and tear, as it is just on the other side of the rating. Additionally, I would not be surprised if your tune is programmed to help protect the powertrain by pulling power at times, so you are not having to replace the transmission every year. Ford/GM have power ratings on these ten speeds for a reason, and while they might be on the conservative side, it is still worth pointing out for someone who may or may not want to install a tune on their vehicle or other performance mods.

At the end of the day, the 10R60 can handle the 2.7 in factory form according to the specs laid out by Ford, but the 10R80 is a better match, especially for individuals who want to do performance mods and/or tow more. This is just my thoughts on this, though, which is what OP asked for.

Sponsored