Sponsored
Is the 2.3L engine enough for towing a small travel trailer?
superj
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Jason
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2025
- Threads
- 40
- Messages
- 3,481
- Reaction score
- 3,201
- Location
- Corpus christi texas
- Vehicle(s)
- 2004 ford ranger, 2024 ford ranger
- Occupation
- Aircraft examiner
i always look for small campers with full bathrooms. i hate the shower/toilet combo bathrooms. our last one had a tub, toilet, sink, and cabinets in the bathroom and had a full size bed. it was a 17 or 19 footer that weighed 3k
this is hte layout it had
this is hte layout it had
daytoncarter
Well-Known Member
i always look for small campers with full bathrooms. i hate the shower/toilet combo bathrooms. our last one had a tub, toilet, sink, and cabinets in the bathroom and had a full size bed. it was a 17 or 19 footer that weighed 3k
this is hte layout it had
The smaller the better. As infrequently as I use the bath, a "wet bath" is perfectly fine for me.
Thankfully there are endless options.
rikairving
Member
- First Name
- Rik
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2025
- Threads
- 0
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 36
- Location
- Old Town, Fi
- Vehicle(s)
- ‘25 Desert Sand Ranger XLT, FX4. ‘13 F150 XLT SC, 3.5 EB.
- Occupation
- Retired sys/mech/elec eng.
Have towed a 6x12 x 4k lb box several thousand miles last summer with the 2.3MPC motor; absolutely not starved for power. The early torque onset, as well as the gearing and transmission do their job well. Did runs from Florida to Maine, and back through Kentucky and Tennessee, and my only observance was the oil temp gets elevated when the motor is in boost for extended lengths of time, such as a mountain climb. And of note, power is not free, mileage was around 15 or less mpg at highway speeds with that boxy sail behind me. I am normally hovering around 25 mpg with regular driving. I also tow a small teardrop camper, and the truck doesn’t even know it’s there, with maybe a 1 mpg loss in fuel economy.
Yes, the 2.7 is a little more peppy and smoother, but all the extra cost, complexity, and lost space under hood are hard (for me) to justify against the very capable 2.3l. Plus the MPC motor is noticeably stronger overall than the pre 2025 2.3l.
Also of note, I change the oil at no more than 3k miles when towing. It’s that heating effect that concerns me, as the oil is what cools the turbo. Cheap insurance for my peace of mind! I would do the same with the 2.7, as now you’re cooking with 2 turbos!
i also 100% agree with other posters that if you are planning on towing a lot of trailer and weight close to the max rating of the Ranger, a properly set up full size truck would be a better choice. I should also mention you’ll get a real sized gas tank with a full sized truck, as when towing, the Ranger’s little one is an aggravation!
Yes, the 2.7 is a little more peppy and smoother, but all the extra cost, complexity, and lost space under hood are hard (for me) to justify against the very capable 2.3l. Plus the MPC motor is noticeably stronger overall than the pre 2025 2.3l.
Also of note, I change the oil at no more than 3k miles when towing. It’s that heating effect that concerns me, as the oil is what cools the turbo. Cheap insurance for my peace of mind! I would do the same with the 2.7, as now you’re cooking with 2 turbos!
i also 100% agree with other posters that if you are planning on towing a lot of trailer and weight close to the max rating of the Ranger, a properly set up full size truck would be a better choice. I should also mention you’ll get a real sized gas tank with a full sized truck, as when towing, the Ranger’s little one is an aggravation!
SlightNine
Member
Towed this to 12,000 feet in the Rockies and 30 miles down the beach in Padre Island National Seashore. 4300# Basecamp 20x and the 2.3 never flinched.
Sponsored
ExpoGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2025
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 27
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Vehicle(s)
- Toyota Rav4 XSE hybrid
- Occupation
- Retired
- Thread starter
- #36
I need to apologize because I see that my question has been discussed many times here.
I need to read first before posting questions. But in any case I appreciate all the answers
and advice given. Many thanks.
After a lot of reading I'm leaning towards the 2.7L engine. Just in case I decide to get a
larger travel trailer. I live in southern California and plan on using the US 101 freeway that has
a 7% grade for about 5 miles. It's called the Conejo grade. Some extra power sure won't hurt.
2.3L 270 hp, 310 lb-ft torque. 19/26 city and highway.
2.7L 315 hp, 400 lb-ft torque 19/23 city and highway.
I got these mpg figures from the window stickers. Not really a big difference in fuel economy.
And when towing a travel trailer both engines give poor fuel economy!
For city driving I have a Toyota Rav4 hybrid.
I won't buy a Ranger until this summer, so I have time to think about it and educate myself
about trailer towing.
I need to read first before posting questions. But in any case I appreciate all the answers
and advice given. Many thanks.
After a lot of reading I'm leaning towards the 2.7L engine. Just in case I decide to get a
larger travel trailer. I live in southern California and plan on using the US 101 freeway that has
a 7% grade for about 5 miles. It's called the Conejo grade. Some extra power sure won't hurt.
2.3L 270 hp, 310 lb-ft torque. 19/26 city and highway.
2.7L 315 hp, 400 lb-ft torque 19/23 city and highway.
I got these mpg figures from the window stickers. Not really a big difference in fuel economy.
And when towing a travel trailer both engines give poor fuel economy!
For city driving I have a Toyota Rav4 hybrid.
I won't buy a Ranger until this summer, so I have time to think about it and educate myself
about trailer towing.
ShadowDragon24
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Tyler
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2025
- Threads
- 6
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 526
- Location
- Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Vehicle(s)
- 2025 Ranger XLT Fx4
- Occupation
- Heavy Equipment Operator
"wet" loaded vs "dry" nothing but what came off the factory line weight
daytoncarter
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, Scamp quotes the dry weight for their lightest config of that trailer and I had the heaviest config. It was "dry" when weighed.
ShadowDragon24
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Tyler
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2025
- Threads
- 6
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 526
- Location
- Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Vehicle(s)
- 2025 Ranger XLT Fx4
- Occupation
- Heavy Equipment Operator
most manufacturers do. they dont qoute the wet or curb weight
Tom W8JI
Member
The only way to tell is to pull the load you are going to pull where and how you are going to pull it.
Trailer and load weight is most important stopping and starting and on hills.
Wind surface area is more important at steady speeds on flat ground.
I had a 4 cylinder 2023 and it always towed my steel flat car hauler trailer with some pretty heavy loads (like bags of rock or concrete or metal) just fine, even on the Interstate at 75 MPH. It struggled a little on steep hills but they are infrequent around here.
I picked up an empty brand new extra-tall small enclosed trailer that had a ladder rack system built from aluminum rectangular tubing that didn't weigh any more than the flat open trailer. The 4-cylinder sucked on the Interstate. It had to stay in boost even on flat ground. It got terrible MPG. It acted like it only wanted to do 50 or so pulling that wind load. I tried to do 70 and the truck was not comfortable. I got home with that trailer and it was like 13 MPG on the 200 mile trip. This is because of the wind area, not the weight.
My new V6 Ranger pulls that same enclosed trailer perfectly fine at speed. It actually gets 17 MPG and stays out of boost, and now I added shelves, batteries, carpeting, and solar panels so the trailer is heavier. That square tubing rack has to change to round tube someday.
My date night MPG is not noticeably different with the new V6 and the 2023 old four cylinder. I would have to make a study out of it to tell the real difference. Rural town driving without my foot in it, I got 26 MPG or 27 MPG on a tank with the 2023 4 cyl. With the V6 Ranger I get 24 or 25 typically on a tank. It isn't like that is a day or night difference. My driving habits or any hills skew the results far more than the difference in engines, but I think the 4 cyl "sucked" with my particular enclosed trailer, regardless of weight.
By the way, these engines are not N/A. They have boost. Boosted engines do not track power with altitude until they run out of boost from starving the compressor on inlet air. As long as the compressor has headroom to keep the same manifold pressure, the power is virtually the same. The exhaust pressure has to come up a little more to spin the turbine, but that is small taters. The temperature can be a big factor with a smallish air-to-air IC.
Trailer and load weight is most important stopping and starting and on hills.
Wind surface area is more important at steady speeds on flat ground.
I had a 4 cylinder 2023 and it always towed my steel flat car hauler trailer with some pretty heavy loads (like bags of rock or concrete or metal) just fine, even on the Interstate at 75 MPH. It struggled a little on steep hills but they are infrequent around here.
I picked up an empty brand new extra-tall small enclosed trailer that had a ladder rack system built from aluminum rectangular tubing that didn't weigh any more than the flat open trailer. The 4-cylinder sucked on the Interstate. It had to stay in boost even on flat ground. It got terrible MPG. It acted like it only wanted to do 50 or so pulling that wind load. I tried to do 70 and the truck was not comfortable. I got home with that trailer and it was like 13 MPG on the 200 mile trip. This is because of the wind area, not the weight.
My new V6 Ranger pulls that same enclosed trailer perfectly fine at speed. It actually gets 17 MPG and stays out of boost, and now I added shelves, batteries, carpeting, and solar panels so the trailer is heavier. That square tubing rack has to change to round tube someday.
My date night MPG is not noticeably different with the new V6 and the 2023 old four cylinder. I would have to make a study out of it to tell the real difference. Rural town driving without my foot in it, I got 26 MPG or 27 MPG on a tank with the 2023 4 cyl. With the V6 Ranger I get 24 or 25 typically on a tank. It isn't like that is a day or night difference. My driving habits or any hills skew the results far more than the difference in engines, but I think the 4 cyl "sucked" with my particular enclosed trailer, regardless of weight.
By the way, these engines are not N/A. They have boost. Boosted engines do not track power with altitude until they run out of boost from starving the compressor on inlet air. As long as the compressor has headroom to keep the same manifold pressure, the power is virtually the same. The exhaust pressure has to come up a little more to spin the turbine, but that is small taters. The temperature can be a big factor with a smallish air-to-air IC.
Last edited:
Sponsored
Mean Dean
Active Member
I pull an 18ft bass boat that weighs between 3,000 and 3,500 depending on how full the gas tank happens to be. My 2024 XLT with the advanced towing package and the 2.3L. Not a single issue and gets better MPG than my old Expedition with the 3.5 and rated for 9,200lb towing.
RichR
Member
The Ranger Manual says:
Frontal Area is the total area in square feet that a moving
vehicle and trailer exposes to air resistance.
The maximum trailer frontal area that must be considered for
a Ranger/trailer combination is 30 sq. ft. without Trailer Tow
Package and 55 sq. ft. with Trailer Tow Package. Exceeding
this limitation may significantly reduce the performance of
your towing vehicle.
Frontal Area is the total area in square feet that a moving
vehicle and trailer exposes to air resistance.
The maximum trailer frontal area that must be considered for
a Ranger/trailer combination is 30 sq. ft. without Trailer Tow
Package and 55 sq. ft. with Trailer Tow Package. Exceeding
this limitation may significantly reduce the performance of
your towing vehicle.
ExBronco
Member
Canadian here where we count our pennies a little more than in the USA and don't straight up go purchase a F-350 for a 900# trailer for "stopping concerns". I had the 2.3L in the bronco with which I towed 4700# when moving my condo (I was super axious about ripping off the hitch) and we were 3 in the car. Long story short, used the bronco for over 80k miles no issues and no lack of power.
I bought a few months ago a ranger since I needed to tow more, I already used it for towing 5 people in the truck, tools in the box, 5000# in the trailer towing in snow storm 2" of snow. I did about 1000 miles. I could still floor it (in 4WD) and pass those corolla and civic ahead. You ain't gonna be a ferrarri but you will be able to tow way more and honnestly I don't even floor it for the sake of not wearing out my tires. I wouldn't get a 2.7L especially with the wet belt instead of the chain the 2.3L gets.
If you really want those few extra millisecond on the quarter mile with your trailer you will get the 2.7L I'm sure but if you're like me, who thinks at the end I'll be empty more often than at max load and even then I'll be on cruise control, the 2.7L is just throwing money out of the window.
I would get the 2.7L don't get me wrong, but for the same towing capabilities just get a bigger truck with this specific engine. You'll get other bells and whistles and additionnal towing AND the engine you wanted. Other than that 2.3L it is.
I bought a few months ago a ranger since I needed to tow more, I already used it for towing 5 people in the truck, tools in the box, 5000# in the trailer towing in snow storm 2" of snow. I did about 1000 miles. I could still floor it (in 4WD) and pass those corolla and civic ahead. You ain't gonna be a ferrarri but you will be able to tow way more and honnestly I don't even floor it for the sake of not wearing out my tires. I wouldn't get a 2.7L especially with the wet belt instead of the chain the 2.3L gets.
If you really want those few extra millisecond on the quarter mile with your trailer you will get the 2.7L I'm sure but if you're like me, who thinks at the end I'll be empty more often than at max load and even then I'll be on cruise control, the 2.7L is just throwing money out of the window.
I would get the 2.7L don't get me wrong, but for the same towing capabilities just get a bigger truck with this specific engine. You'll get other bells and whistles and additionnal towing AND the engine you wanted. Other than that 2.3L it is.
Sponsored
