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#
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...
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..✌🏼
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 to move that much weight. John at LHT Performance in Florida put a naturally aspirated V8 from a Silverado into a 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.
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 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.
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
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?
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.
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'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 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 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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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
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 $$
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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
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 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...
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’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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I have a 2019 and the only reason it says EPA mpg ratings is because the tires are too small which is reading incorrectly. Checking my speed with gps it reads 3-4 mph higher indicated with stock tires size. This was not on accident.
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.
Seems like Ford F150 XLT 2.7 MSRP around $60 but can be had for $45 with discounts. So Ranger XLT 2.7 $45 if you can get it for around $40 I think it’s a good proposition over the F150 as far as value.
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.
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.
