The all-new, next-generation 2024 Ford Ranger debuted for North America back in May 2023 touting a host of updates – one of the most notable being the newly optional twin turbocharged 2.7L V6 EcoBoost engine. However, that particular powerplant was slated as a late availability option from the start, and customers wound up having to wait quite some time before it finally arrived. In fact, the V6-powered Ford Ranger just reached the hands of reviewers, but as was the case with the all-new Ranger Raptor, it didn’t fail to impress everyone that got the chance to drive one.
Bob Gritzinger of Wards Auto notes that the EcoBoost V6 and its 315 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque “provides a smooth, powerful response without any theatrics,” making it a solid choice given its relatively low $2,195 cost over the standard turbocharged 2.3L I-4 EcoBoost powerplant. The larger engine is “a powerful but refined tool, whether getting up to speed from launch without unexpected tip-in or providing extra punch at speed without running out of breath,” according to Gritzinger, and he even averaged 21 mpg in mixed city and highway driving – slightly better than the EPA combined estimated of 20 mpg.
Meanwhile, Austin Irwin at Car & Driver points out that the V6-powered Ford Ranger is nearly as quick as the Ranger Raptor and its twin turbocharged 3.0L V6 EcoBoost engine, which churns out 405 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque – it took just 5.6 seconds to reach 60 mph, compared to 5.3 seconds for the fancy off-roader. Highway fuel economy didn’t fare as well in this test – averaging 20 mpg compared to EPA estimates of 23. Regardless, Irwin called the V6 “a meaningful upgrade, and for folks actually using the Ranger’s 7,500-pound towing capacity or its 1,711 pounds of max payload, the added juice during passing maneuvers is a sweet treat.”
Finally, Lucas Bell at Road & Track says that the Ranger “has never been better” than it is with this particular V6 under the hood, “delivering more performance and a markedly more premium feel.” “The 2.3 is sufficiently potent for everyday use, but the new V6 brings genuine grunt. I would be spending the cash for the extra urge, if one was destined for my garage,” he concludes, calling it the “sweet spot” in the current Ranger lineup.
Comments
For those of us not fortunate to be able to get one, there is the Ford Procal tuner that bumps the 4 to the same HP and a little less torque.
A Ranger Tremor with the 2.7 would the real sweet spot. What is the weight difference between this and a Ranger Raptor? I’m going to guess that a Raptor is several hundred pounds heavier which would explain why the performance is so similar.
One day..ithey learn its not about power…its about relialbity….should know by now…with all the problems Ecoboost engines have proved to be…i pay $3,000 extra to get a non turbo engine..simple engine…no cam phasers or direct injection…been there with Ecoboost….to many problems…
Wards has a history of not picking great engines…Ford Ecoboost is one of least reliable engines i ever owned….not all us need power and horsepower race…its about being reliable…i pay extra for a simple less powerful engine….Ford needs to give us options….a simple non turbo , no cam phasers and direct injection…would be a nice option…
It’s to bad Ford is using a wet belt to drive the oil pump on the 2.7
Your recent review of the 2.7 V6 Ranger said the additional cost was $2195.00 it failed to mentioned you can only get the 2.7 if you order the 4×4 package. So no 2x Ranger with 2.7. The 4×4 package plus 2.7 drives cost up nearly $6k
Hope one day …hey learn…its not the extra…we want extra relaiblity …and offer a simpler engine….not all of us need the power….and less recalls…how about a non turbo v6,,option i pay extra for that…
Sorry didnt mean to post more….thought the other comments didnt go through..
Well I totally agree about reliability. That’s probably why the smaller Toyota pickup out sells the Ranger by alot. Seems like Ford doesn’t seem to care. But I do like the power and proformance of the EB. But you due need to do more maintenance if your going to run 150,000.