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

[Putz173]

https://fordauthority.com/2026/07/2...2-7l-v6-ecoboost-for-3-0l-as-standard-engine/

Not really a "Ranger vs competition" topic, but didn't know where else to put it.

I think this is interesting for a number of reasons. Clearly Ford thinks the 3.0L is proven enough to put in their best-seller, which isn't really surprising given it's basically a bored & stroked 2.7L underneath. The 2.7L (and now by extension, the 3.0L?) is widely known to be highly reliable.

Makes me wonder where this leaves the 3.5L EB, as there's not a ton of delta (power, fuel economy) between the two. And Ford is now putting the 5.0L back in the higher trims.

I have a sneaking suspicion there will probably more powertrain shuffling to come..

wonder if theyll add the port injection back to the 3.0 since its going into the f150

Sponsored

 

[Mystic]

wonder if theyll add the port injection back to the 3.0 since its going into the f150

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did...not sure of the tooling costs, but it's nothing but upside from a customer perspective. Less service needed...no need to do media/walnut blasting.

 

[Switzguy]

Looks like they will be missing port injection on the 3.0. DI only.

 

[25PlatTrem350]

I'm a little surprised by this because doesn't the 2.7 do a far bit better on gas mileage then the 3.0's?? Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the 3.0 but their MPG is kind of lack luster and mediocre at best.

I know these RR's aren't lightweight Google search says they weigh 5363 which sounds like a lot for a midsize considering they say the F150 Raptor only weighs about 500lbs more then that. My 14 Taco 4dr TRD OR was only around 4300 and even with the TRD SC installed I could still get 23-24 on the hwy. Don't think I'll ever see that in our RR.

 

[Phoenix5454]

I'm a little surprised by this because doesn't the 2.7 do a far bit better on gas mileage then the 3.0's?? Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the 3.0 but their MPG is kind of lack luster and mediocre at best.

I know these RR's aren't lightweight Google search says they weigh 5363 which sounds like a lot for a midsize considering they say the F150 Raptor only weighs about 500lbs more then that. My 14 Taco 4dr TRD OR was only around 4300 and even with the TRD SC installed I could still get 23-24 on the hwy. Don't think I'll ever see that in our RR.

I'm guessing its going to be a 3.0 V6 at heart but tuned differently and/or have one less turbo - whatever it ends up being its not going to be the same exact thing as what goes into a Ranger Raptor... so... hopefully the MPGs will be better or at least on par with the current 2.7TT V6.

 

[Jasonkflo]

Maybe ford performance will
Lower the price on the 2.7 catback if they cut out the 2.7

 

[ryanO]

I wonder if they had to implement a similar feature like on the 3.5L where you get a self-cleaning cycle of the emissions system particulate filter that incurs parasitic power loss. The 3.5L went from ~400 HP to ~382 HP. Maybe moving to the 3.0L off sets that loss so you get the same power as the 2.7L but can also incorporate the emissions requirement.

To be fair, Toyota's 3.5L TT V6 makes about the same power at around 389 HP, with similar torque, guessing they already planned for the particulate filter or didn't need it to meet requirements.

New Toyota Tundra Engine: 2nd Gen Vs. 3rd Gen | Ira Toyota of Hyannis

2026 Ford F-150 Loses Horsepower Due To New Particulate Filter

I'll bet my bottom dollar that's the reason for the move to the 3.0L. Asinine emissions requirements made by some bureaucrat who doesn't know the difference between his elbow from his a**hole, completely oblivious of what they are asking and without any proof it has any meaningful impact on anything...except costing us money and reliability.

The emissions standards are enforced on a manufacturers fleet as a whole, not per vehicke or engine. So, as a manufacturer sees how many of a certain engine/vehicle are selling they have to make sure what they are offering and people are buying will allow them to meet the standards in a given year.
That plays into what engines are offered in which vehicle & trim and what engines are base vs upsell to try and sway the customer into buying the right mix of vehicle and engines combinations that will help Ford meet the standards.
It's not just about "this engine doesn't meet the standards so we are cutting it". Its "based on sales volume of our product lineup, we need to cut this engine option here, add this one there, and make these more expensive so our weighted average works out".

 

[some_guy]

So does that mean the 2.7 Ranger in general will be rare?

If that is the case, you will see them for sale 10 years from now on Facebook Marketplace with 100k miles listed at above MSRP with "RARE RARE RARE" in the title.

Sponsored