Ranger 2.7 lariat question here....

[Stix]

Hi the shark
For sure , I am lucky, not towing anything and don't need 4x4 thus the economy!
But I would love to have a hybrid version , especially if that was 4x4

Sponsored

 

[Texasota]

Hi the shark
For sure , I am lucky, not towing anything and don't need 4x4 thus the economy!
But I would love to have a hybrid version , especially if that was 4x4

It will have 4x4 capability just like the F-150 Powerboost.

 

[Alaska_Wolf]

I had the 2.7L ECOBoost in my 2018 F 150 Lariat FX4. I despised that engine. It had no power and got horrible fuel economy and was literally the worst engine I've ever had in 50 yrs of driving Fords. I was honestly shocked that my old 2004 5.4L F 150 used to get 20 MPG combined, but my '18 2.7L could only ever get 15 MPG combined at best. My '18 2.7L with 3.55s had a max tow 7,600 lbs, as compared to my lil 4 cylinder 2023 Ranger and its 7,500 lb tow. My wife took the '18 F 150 to work one day and commented that it was the most gutless Ford she had ever driven when she got home (she drives a 3.5L Explorer and even with her lead foot gets 17 mpg). Needless to say, out of all of our F 100s, F 150s, Mustangs, REAL Broncos, and my wife's SHOs, I was completely unimpressed with the 2.7; hopefully it will work out better in Rangers than it did for me in an F 150.

 

[DozerFiXr]

My wifes Bronco gets 20MPG with the 2.7L. Wildtrak with Sasquatch package on 35's. I think that's pretty good considering the type of vehicle and I feel it is smooth and plenty peppy. I'm currently driving a 2019 Transit Connect that gets 31mpg. I've been waiting on the new Ranger for awhile and was originally decided on the Raptor (because I want the aggressive look) figuring it would probably get about the same MPG as the Bronco. However, now that I know Premium fuel is required in the RR engine, I have changed my mind and will be looking at the Lariat 4x4 package with 2.7 once they make it available. Downgrading from 31 MPG to 20 MPG will be a big enough increase in the fuel budget. I can't voluntarily also increase my fuel cost by 25% per gallon because premium fuel is required.

 

[JKinPA]

My son has a 22 F-150 with 2.7 and it has decent kick plus I couldn’t believe it when I saw he was getting 22.6 MPG. His commute is 1/3 highway but I was still impressed. I’m leaning towards the 2.7 unless they want stupid money for the upgrade.

 

[G L Rockwell]

My son has a 22 F-150 with 2.7 and it has decent kick plus I couldn’t believe it when I saw he was getting 22.6 MPG. His commute is 1/3 highway but I was still impressed. I’m leaning towards the 2.7 unless they want stupid money for the upgrade.

Well, just backed out of the Raptor order. I'll wait before I pay price adjustments. There's an awful lot of new releases coming out over the next 6 months a year anyways. Wasn't an easy decision.

 

[Stix]

It will have 4x4 capability just like the F-150 Powerboost.

Hi Texasota
Actually I would love to have a small block V8 under the hood !

 

[Texasota]

Hi Texasota
Actually I would love to have a small block V8 under the hood !

That would be a tight squeeze. But, the F-150 Powerboost is a hybrid that combines a 3.5 Ecoboost with the 10-speed modular hybrid transmission. It has more HP and torque than the V8.

 

[Stix]

That would be a tight squeeze. But, the F-150 Powerboost is a hybrid that combines a 3.5 Ecoboost with the 10-speed modular hybrid transmission. It has more HP and torque than the V8.

That sounds like a nice power plant.
Years ago I used to have a 1976 Range Rover UK
With the 3.5 V8 ( based on Buick engine I believe ?) Miss the sound , 4 pot diesel bloody awful noise !
Stix

 

[yoopercharged]

My wifes Bronco gets 20MPG with the 2.7L. Wildtrak with Sasquatch package on 35's. I think that's pretty good considering the type of vehicle and I feel it is smooth and plenty peppy. I'm currently driving a 2019 Transit Connect that gets 31mpg. I've been waiting on the new Ranger for awhile and was originally decided on the Raptor (because I want the aggressive look) figuring it would probably get about the same MPG as the Bronco. However, now that I know Premium fuel is required in the RR engine, I have changed my mind and will be looking at the Lariat 4x4 package with 2.7 once they make it available. Downgrading from 31 MPG to 20 MPG will be a big enough increase in the fuel budget. I can't voluntarily also increase my fuel cost by 25% per gallon because premium fuel is required.

I see in Ford's technical specs bulletin for the RR they say 91 is the recommended fuel, but that doesn't mean it's required. Manufacturers will sometimes recommend higher than necessary octane rating to meet CAFE standards, meaning that it might return slightly better MPG but isn't essential to vehicle health. The Explorer ST, Bronco Raptor, and Lincoln Aviator all have the 3.0L and Ford recommends regular unleaded for those applications, so I really don't see it making much difference here.

I'll likely run regular unleaded in my truck and take that very minor hit on fuel mileage, unless of course I'm missing something where Ford stated that 91 is required.

 

[DozerFiXr]

The last new car I bough just for me (prior to family life) was a 1994 Ranger 3.0L v6 5 speed 4x4 and also the first new vehicle I ever purchased. That engine was rated at 140hp and if I remember right, it got about 16mpg. The new Raptor 3.0L V6 is a totally different engine, but it's amazing they have been able to get 405hp from the same 183 cu inches of engine displacement with more or less the same fuel economy in a production engine. Not some exotic one-off specimen of engineering. Fantastic.

 

[Ranger#5?]

I suppose if you really are after MPG then perhaps a Maverick Hybrid would be a good choice...if you can find one.

Maverick is a whole different animal and not directly comparable to any mid size truck 🛻

 

[NC Spuds]

F-150 has Aluminum body that could account for some of its efficiency vs. Ranger?

This is correct. The curb weight of some F-150s is actually less than some rangers!

 

[goalieThreeOne]

I see in Ford's technical specs bulletin for the RR they say 91 is the recommended fuel, but that doesn't mean it's required. Manufacturers will sometimes recommend higher than necessary octane rating to meet CAFE standards, meaning that it might return slightly better MPG but isn't essential to vehicle health. The Explorer ST, Bronco Raptor, and Lincoln Aviator all have the 3.0L and Ford recommends regular unleaded for those applications, so I really don't see it making much difference here.

I'll likely run regular unleaded in my truck and take that very minor hit on fuel mileage, unless of course I'm missing something where Ford stated that 91 is required.

Regarding the Explorer, they actually state that you get the best results on 91. It’ll probably be the same thing here. It’ll work fine on 87, but for best results use 91. 91 is about .50 a gallon higher than 87 where I’m in so 87 is a no brainer. I’ll save the 91 for when I’m towing or doing something fun. Wouldn’t also hurt to have a bottle of octane booster hanging around. As long as it doesn’t knock, there shouldn’t be any issues.

 

[G L Rockwell]

Regarding the Explorer, they actually state that you get the best results on 91. It’ll probably be the same thing here. It’ll work fine on 87, but for best results use 91. 91 is about .50 a gallon higher than 87 where I’m in so 87 is a no brainer. I’ll save the 91 for when I’m towing or doing something fun. Wouldn’t also hurt to have a bottle of octane booster hanging around. As long as it doesn’t knock, there shouldn’t be any issues.

AS far as I understand the lessor the octane the less mpg you can expect. You'll save on the cost of fuel although you won't acheive the best mpg. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Sponsored