2024 Ranger

Dusdaddy said:
With that data, I'd take the 2.3L all day long. That's a proven motor that does everything well. I don't see much advantage in the 2.7L other than bragging rights. And if you want those, the Raptor is the obvious choice. Plus, for the 2.7L, those power numbers are with premium fuel only. Also, it's DI only where the 2.3L is DI/PI, correct?
Click to expand...
The 2.3 I-4 is direct injection only, or was until 2024 Mustang models I believe. I don't know if Ranger gets dual injection or not. Maybe Tim can shed some light on this.

The second generation of the 2.7 V6 (2018+) has both direct and port injection. Ford's site says Ranger with 2.7 V6 runs on regular unleaded but only has power numbers for running on premium for the 2.7 and 3.0 (in Raptor). The 3.0 is direct injection only as far as I am aware of.

From the Owner's manual (I bolded the last paragraph):

Your vehicle operates on regular unleaded gasoline with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87.

Some fuel stations, particularly those in high altitude areas, offer fuels posted as regular unleaded gasoline with an octane rating below 87. The use of these fuels could result in engine damage that will not be covered by the vehicle Warranty.

For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel is most noticeable in hot weather as well as other conditions, for example when towing a trailer. See Towing a Trailer.

So the 2.3L runs on 87 but for best engine performance, they recommend 91. Take that FWIW. Contradicting information at best.
 
Last edited:
Blue Oval 5.0 said:
The 2.3 I-4 is direct injection only, or was until 2024 Mustang models I believe. I don't know if Ranger gets dual injection or not. Maybe Tim can shed some light on this.
Click to expand...

You are right. I saw a chart showing the exact opposite but questioned the source. Know I know it was wrong.

Blue Oval 5.0 said:
The second generation of the 2.7 V6 (2018+) has both direct and port injection. Ford's site says Ranger with 2.7 V6 runs on regular unleaded but only has power numbers for running on premium for the 2.7 and 3.0 (in Raptor). The 3.0 is direct injection only as far as I am aware of.
Click to expand...

I found this under the Bronco version:

2.3L Stats: With this direct-injection engine, you’re looking at 275 hp/315 lb-ft of torque (regular fuel) or 300 hp/325 lb-ft of torque (premium fuel). For more power, a Ford Performance 2.3L calibration is available for 21-22MY Broncos.

2.7L Stats: With this port-fuel/direct-injection (PFDI) engine, you’re looking at 315 hp/410 lb-ft of torque (regular fuel) or 330 hp/415 lb-ft of torque (premium fuel). For more power, a Ford Performance 2.7L calibration is available for 21-22MY Broncos.

Regardless, I think Tim and other reviewers were plenty pleased with the stock 2.3L "felt" power.
 
Dusdaddy said:
You are right. I saw a chart showing the exact opposite but questioned the source. Know I know it was wrong.



I found this under the Bronco version:

2.3L Stats: With this direct-injection engine, you’re looking at 275 hp/315 lb-ft of torque (regular fuel) or 300 hp/325 lb-ft of torque (premium fuel). For more power, a Ford Performance 2.3L calibration is available for 21-22MY Broncos.

2.7L Stats: With this port-fuel/direct-injection (PFDI) engine, you’re looking at 315 hp/410 lb-ft of torque (regular fuel) or 330 hp/415 lb-ft of torque (premium fuel). For more power, a Ford Performance 2.7L calibration is available for 21-22MY Broncos.

Regardless, I think Tim and other reviewers were plenty pleased with the stock 2.3L "felt" power.
Click to expand...

I edited my post as you replied. So some info may have changed. I leased a 2019 Ranger with the 2.3 and ran regular and sold it in 2021 to the local dealership since I wasn't using it much. It had plenty of power.

I know this differs from Tim's opinion, but I have concerns about turbocharged engines depending on use cases and when you combine that with direct injection, it is a double whammy. Fuel dilution, intake valve issues, extended oil change intervals, etc. I guess I am old school and prefer less HP per liter in order to get the longevity out of the engine. Its great that the 2.7 V6 has similar numbers to a V8 but it has to be pushed much harder to achieve it.
 
Blue Oval 5.0 said:
I know this differs from Tim's opinion, but I have concerns about turbocharged engines depending on use cases and when you combine that with direct injection, it is a double whammy. Fuel dilution, intake valve issues, extended oil change intervals, etc. I guess I am old school and prefer less HP per liter in order to get the longevity out of the engine. Its great that the 2.7 V6 has similar numbers to a V8 but it has to be pushed much harder to achieve it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you, That's why talking about how long turbos have been around is a different argument that keeps getting made. The turbos of the 80's and 90's were very different from the high HP/Torque turbos in today's trucks. The ecoboost had it issues the first few years it was out. I worry about the new RAM SST, that's alot of HP and Torque out of a 3.0 liter. It's not surprising it can't handle the duty cycles like the 5.7 could, educated guesses point to colling concerns over a long period of heavy work. (Towing up a long grade)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top