3.0L EB to be new base engine in '27 F-150

[HighDesertRanger]

In the new F-100 (which will replace the Ranger in North America) you may see a detuned 3.0 replace the 2.7 and the higher output 3.0 in the Ranger/Bronco Raptors. Fits with plans to consolidate engine lines resulting in better economies of scale. Or we might see a higher output 2.3 replace the 2.7.

Either one of those scenarios would make sense. Logically anyway. We shall see what big blue decides to do with the Ranger/Bronco engines

Sponsored

 

[AlloyPony]

What I think is absolutely hilarious is that back in the 2010s Ford told us they were going to move into "EcoBoost" technology and phase out V8s because the EcoBoost engines produced less emissions and still made the same power as the V8s. I mean there is ZERO other reason for them to have started the EcoBoost program. Zero. Nobody was asking for itty bitty turbo engines at the time.

Well here we are 15 years later and the EcoBoosts are the ones that can't meet emissions targets and the V8s are still singing along without GPFs and selling like hotcakes.

Ford needs to get their heads out of the sand and just drop the 5.0 in the Ranger and get it over with. I guarantee you when Ram's new Dakota debuts next year it'll have V8 power.

 

[ryanO]

What I think is absolutely hilarious is that back in the 2010s Ford told us they were going to move into "EcoBoost" technology and phase out V8s because the EcoBoost engines produced less emissions and still made the same power as the V8s. I mean there is ZERO other reason for them to have started the EcoBoost program. Zero. Nobody was asking for itty bitty turbo engines at the time.

Well here we are 15 years later and the EcoBoosts are the ones that can't meet emissions targets and the V8s are still singing along without GPFs and selling like hotcakes.

Ford needs to get their heads out of the sand and just drop the 5.0 in the Ranger and get it over with. I guarantee you when Ram's new Dakota debuts next year it'll have V8 power.

This is an absurd and unintelligent take.
1. Outside of the exhaust note, the 3.5LTT is so far superior to the 5.0L it's absurd to choose the 5.0. I've had both.....
2. The 2.7L in the F150 isn't being killed because of emissions.
3. As someone who also has a 2.7L Ranger, the 5.0L in it would be an ignorant choice for Ford to make. It would bring absolutely zero value and cost an absurd amount of money to engineer.

 

[Switzguy]

@AlloyPony this isn't the place for drunk Saturday night rants.

 

[Savage160]

I’m wondering if this means anything for the Ranger though. I’m curious if the plan is to phase out the 2.7 entirely for the 3.0. I’m also curious if the 3.0 is too similar in performance to the 3.5.

 

[AlloyPony]

This is an absurd and unintelligent take.
1. Outside of the exhaust note, the 3.5LTT is so far superior to the 5.0L it's absurd to choose the 5.0. I've had both.....
2. The 2.7L in the F150 isn't being killed because of emissions.
3. As someone who also has a 2.7L Ranger, the 5.0L in it would be an ignorant choice for Ford to make. It would bring absolutely zero value and cost an absurd amount of money to engineer.

Here we go again.

I don't have the patience to keep responding to your nonsense. You're wrong. End of story.

 

[AlloyPony]

@AlloyPony this isn't the place for drunk Saturday night rants.

Then why did you just post one?

 

[Switzguy]

Then why did you just post one?

Holy projection batman

 

[Savage160]

Could we reel it back to the subject? I’m genuinely interested in this thread.

 

[ryanO]

Here we go again.

I don't have the patience to keep responding to your nonsense. You're wrong. End of story.

Ok

 

[AlloyPony]

Could we reel it back to the subject? I’m genuinely interested in this thread.

We could if the children would leave the room.

So back on topic... the current 3.0 is a "premium" engine option that also uses premium fuel. Premium fuel is currently VERY expensive. So why would Ford do this? Emissions. I mean, do you think they WANTED to saddle the 3.5 with a GPF and drop 18 horsepower? Of course not. But again, emissions.

If we're saying that emissions has nothing to do with it and they just want to simplify the engine lineup, then you would have to assume that as the new base engine it's going to be heavily detuned so they can run it on 87 octane and then will it really be an upgrade over the 2.7?

To me it makes no sense really.

And as far as Ryan's comment on the 3.5, I've also not only had both but I've done engine work on both and there is no way I'd take a 3.5 over a 5.0. Not a chance. I'm going 5.0 for longevity and ease of repair in the distant future. But Ford isn't smart like that and they keep trying to force feed customers these EcoBoost engines that do not last as long, do not achieve better MPG in the real world, and now apparently do not produce less emissions, so I guess if we've got to have an EcoBoost I'd rather have the 2.7.

 

[Jasonkflo]

I am curious what percentage of Rangers have been made with the 2.7?
I love mine. It has plenty of power for the size it is.

 

[Switzguy]

Based on what I see only about 15% are the 2.7L since 2024.

 

[superj]

My son really like his 2.7 powered ranger. My other son likes his 2.7 powered f150 too.


I liked how smooth the one I test drove was but I feel like I will probably always stay with a 2.3 because I liked them since the ones in the rangers in the mid 90s. (All our company trucks were rangers with 2.3 and 5 speeds)

 

[Crapblaster]

My 3.0 Raptor had a sticker that said 87+ octane on the gas door. So they will run on 87. A little compression loss and they would easily run on 87.

Sponsored