Throughout modern history, there’s always been one anomalously powerful yet stealthy midsize truck. Think Dodge Dakota with the 5.2-liter V8, or the first-generation Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon with 5.3-liter V8 power. Today, if you really want to haul the mail in an unassuming midsize truck, that’s where the Ford Ranger should come in clutch.
If you poke around the options lists for XLT and Lariat models, you’ll find that it’s possible to get the 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged V6 from the F-150 in Ford’s midsize truck. Considering how even naturally aspirated V6s are a rapidly disappearing fixture in this middleweight class, a boosted six sounds like just the ticket on paper. So what about in the real world? I spent a week in Ford’s 2.7-liter Ecoboost Ranger to find out.
[Full disclosure: Ford Canada let me borrow this Ranger for a week so long as I kept the shiny side up, returned it reasonably clean with a full tank of fuel, and reviewed it.]
The Basics
Engine: Twin-turbocharged and intercooled quad-cam 24-valve 2.7-liter V6.
Transmission: Ten-speed torque converter automatic.
Drive: Part-time four-wheel-drive with low-range, available locking rear differential.
Output: 315 horsepower at 5,750 RPM, 400 lb.-ft. of torque at 3,000 RPM.
Required Fuel: 87-octane gasoline.
Fuel Economy: 18 MPG city, 23 MPG highway, 20 MPG combined (13 L/100km city, 10 L/100km highway, 11.6 L/100km combined).
Base Price: $45,410 including freight ($55,120 in Canada).
Price As-Tested: $55,110 including freight ($64,750 in Canada).
Why Does It Exist?
The Ford Ranger V6 is a classic case of raiding the parts bin in search of glory. Ford needed to fill an enormous 135-horsepower gulf between the base 2.3-liter turbocharged four-cylinder model and the fire-breathing Ranger Raptor, and not only was the 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged V6 from the F-150 already in the parts bin, but it’s also offered in the Bronco, which rides on the same T6 platform as the Ranger. The result is one of the more potent midsize trucks you can buy without stepping up to a full-on performance model, and the additional cost is exceptionally reasonable.
How Does It Look?
At a glance, you’d have absolutely no idea if a current Ranger is equipped with the optional V6, and there’s something pleasing about that. No engine-specific badging, no Double Gulp-sized exhaust tips, just a clean cut of truck. There’s a quiet handsomeness to Ford’s midsizer, what with its relatively restrained grille, round wheel arches, and modest surfacing. It doesn’t have to shout, this one simply lets its output do the talking.
What About The Interior?
That clean purposefulness continues on the inside, where the Ranger has reasonably nice materials, comfy front seats, and a litany of simple, easy-to-grip knobs. Two rotary controls for temperature, one for volume, another in the console for drive mode selection with pushbutton shift-on-the-fly four-wheel-drive modes inset. The real intrigue here is in the details, like the relatively ornate climate control vent slats and the ribbed brightwork breaking up the dark dashboard. Or the details Ford missed. Maybe I’m just used to living in snow for nearly half the year, but putting the heated seat and heated steering wheel controls in the infotainment on a truck seems shortsighted. They aren’t especially fast or easy to adjust, and many gloves don’t play nice with touch-sensitive screens.
The curious omissions continue in back with 2.3 fewer inches of rear legroom than its unibody Maverick little brother. Oh, and no rear seat air vents. You do still get the same ultra-plush floor mats as up front, but overall, it feels reasonable to expect a little more rear seat comfort in a well-equipped midsize truck. On the plus side, rear door storage is solid, and there’s a little extra stowage under the rear seat.
How Does It Drive?
Underneath the tangle of hoses and pipes you see in the picture above lies the treasure you seek: Ford’s familiar 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6. This second-generation engine may now be eight years old, but it still kicks out a solid 315 horsepower and a serious 400 lb.-ft. of torque in the Ranger. Hitched to the corporate ten-speed automatic transmission, it’s here to make one request and one request only: Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough. Bring your i-Force Max Tacomas and your Turbomax Colorados, a party time launch in the V6 Ranger will show them all a set of Ford taillights. We’re talking zero-to-60 MPH in the mid-fives. That’s quick, full-stop.
Of course, 400 lb.-ft. of twist and ratios to spare also makes for astoundingly effortless passing power, and it comes with only the slightest tradeoff: Fuel economy drops by just one mile per gallon over the four-cylinder model. A 4.76-percent increase in consumption for this much extra oomph? Yeah, I’ll take that.
Mind you, this powertrain isn’t perfect, and that all comes down to that ten-speed automatic. It’s definitely calibrated better than when it launched in 2017, as it no longer hunts for gears during fairly steady cruising in slightly hilly areas, but you still get the occasional harsh downshift. Not dropping-a-cast-iron-bathtub-out-of-a-fourth-floor-window harsh, but definitely firm.
So then, what about ride and handling? Surprisingly, the Ranger leans more in the latter direction. Heavy but accurate steering makes it easy to hustle up to the rather low limits of the tires, while firm spring and damping rates keep things relatively level for something built for hauling mulch and towing up to 7,500 pounds. How does this translate in the real world? It means the Ranger is easy to place on the road with confidence, and the secondary ride quality is excellent. Granted, things get a bit choppy over successive expansion joints, but that feels like a suitable compromise when viewed against the rest of the driving experience.
Does It Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
Every single V6 Ranger gets a huge portrait-style infotainment screen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, heated seats, a big suite of advanced driver assistance systems, remote start, LED lighting, dual-zone climate control, and an auto-dimming rearview mirror. From there, the toys increase contingent on how deep your pockets go. Stepping up to the Lariat trim gets you a heated steering wheel, a 12-inch digital gauge cluster, ambient lighting, and a 360-degree camera system. Perhaps the best luxury on the Ranger, however, is a set of rear camera views specifically designed for lining up the trailer hitch without a spotter. That’s much appreciated.
Less appreciated is this Lariat trim’s B&O sound system, which is as loud as it is awful. Not only does this 10-speaker Bang & Olufsen-branded affair sound muddy like it’s pushing sound through a mattress, the staging feels unfinished. You can’t help but get the sense that Harman International will put the B&O name on anything if the contract’s right. However, this system is still competent at absolutely cranking hair metal, and you know what? Depending on what you listen to, that might be good enough.
Three Things To Know About The Ford Ranger V6
- It’s as quick to 60 MPH as a stick-shift New Edge Mustang GT.
- The real-world fuel economy penalty of the V6 is virtually unnoticeable.
- That V6 engine doesn’t come with a huge added cost over a similar four-cylinder model.
Does The Ford Ranger V6 Fulfil Its Purpose?
Absolutely. There’s actually almost zero reason not to tick the option box for the V6 if you’re already looking at a 4×4 Ranger XLT or Lariat. It offers effortless acceleration with a fuel economy penalty of one measly MPG over the four-cylinder, and it’s a relatively cheap option. We’re talking $2,295 ($2,895 in Canada) for the engine itself, although if you’re looking at an XLT, the V6 does require the $1,250 ($2,550 in Canada) High Series package that adds heated power seats, the big screen, dual-zone climate control, and a power-sliding rear window.
However, the Ranger does sit on the pricey side of the midsize truck spectrum. A largely similarly-equipped Chevrolet Colorado Z71 is nearly six grand cheaper than my $55,110 Ranger test unit, while a similarly-optioned Toyota Tacoma TRD Sport i-Force Max costs about $2,100 more than this Ranger. Then again, neither of those trucks has this much punch, and if you’re buying for the engine, there really is no substitute.
What’s The Punctum Of The Ford Ranger V6?
This twin-turbo V6 midsize truck hauls in every sense of the word.
Top graphic image: Thomas Hundal
Funny how for so long I’ve gotten by with 102 horsepower and never once been dissatisfied.
Instead of building bigger trucks with more power, can we have more rationally sized trucks with better fuel economy? I want my grandkids to have clean air to breathe, and maybe a glacier or two left somewhere.
I do not understand the never ending need for more horsepower. It is an endless spiral.
I wish people could be happy with enough and not push for more.
Soapbox sponsored by Pepperidge Farms.
11.6l/100km is dismal. 😮
(For Europe)
I’m a bit skeptical on that fuel economy number – I’ve not driven a turbo vehicle yet that can deliver any of that power without MAJOR penalties. …plus they like fancy gas.
My family recently got a ’23 Expedition with the 3.5L twin-turbo. The EPA claims this thingy (also 0-60 in a mildly scary 5 seconds) pulls 17/23 MPG.
I drive with an INCREDIBLY light foot and have never seen anything close to that 23MPG. I _might_ be able to find the high side of 20 on some very clear back roads, but that’s trying REALLY hard.
Before that I drove a ’17 Escape with the 2.5 turbo and got a pretty appalling <22MPG out of that over a month – I babied that thing trying to get better mileage because I was SURE it couldn’t be THAT bad.
So… I figure it’s got power OR it’s got economy, but there’s no way you get both at once. I also wonder whether to be impressed that Ford can make the behemoth Expedition about as efficient as the little Escape (and Ranger, reading this article) or if I should be disappointed that Ford can’t make the Escape and Ranger do any better than the Expedition.
I have a SD with the 10 speed. I find it is only OK. Constantly keeping me in the highest gear possible, which in a hilly area really is an issue burning brakes up. It also jumps directly into 3rd gear when going 5mph, which is absurd. I find even manually shifting, it does it roughly, and the gearing doesn’t do much to slow you down. Did you notice any of that while you were in the hills? It sounds like this might be geared a little more solidly than its big brother.
The 10spd in my Expedition is the same way – that’s a LOT of button pushing to get any engine braking at all going on. Those little buttons on the center console are not nearly as easy/intuitive to use as the flappy paddles on my Outback and I notice a LOT more difference going 6->4 in the Outback over 10->5 in the Expedition. Never thought I’d ask for a truck with flappy paddles, but here we are. I’m certainly shopping big-brake upgrade kits for Christmas since we’re in the mountains with it quite a bit and get a little nervous about cooking the rotors coming down a pass.
I’ve heard on the forums that enabling Tow/Haul mode will encourage some more agressive engine braking, but I haven’t had a chance to test it yet.
I drive 100% of my time in tow/haul now, it still sucks at its job. It basically goes 1 gear lower than the regular mode, but it needs to be 2-3 gears lower. It’s an HD truck, not a prius and Ford needs to get it together. I don’t want the best MPG, I want to not re-do brakes every week and feel confident I can stop with a load in my bed.
My 21′ Tundra, a truck I regret having to get rid of, did a phenomenal job engine braking. I do like my 250, but I loved that Tundra.
$55,110 for a four-door Ranger with black wheels?
I’m voting CP today.
If only F*rd would offer a RWD, regular-cab, 3 or 4-cylinder version for less than half the price.
Power and speed, but no more space or towing or payload, but you do get ford wet belt oil pump drive…. so there is that.
And…. still not an EREV with 70 miles of range. Why is everyone standing around waiting to be left behind. Who ever come out with an EREV pickup first will print money.
Hold my beer… https://www.ford.com.au/showroom/electric/phev/ranger/
There’s actually almost zero reason not to tick the option box for the
V6F150 if you’re already looking at a 4×4 Ranger XLT or Lariat. I have never understood how they sell these midsize trucks when they are just as expensive and get the same mpg.Full sized trucks are cartoonishly huge
Isn’t everything in America? Including my waist?
On roads in the US, I would say they are average sized. My wife drives a crew cab Silverado and I never feel like we are towering over anyone or struggling to park it.
When your Silverado is behind my convertible at a stoplight, inches from my rear bumper, I feel like you’re not only towering over me, but you’re being unnecessarily aggressive.
And when I’m behind you or next to you, it’s easier to look under you to see what’s happening than around you.
Then there’s your trailer hitch either hanging out into the parking lot drive area or extending into the parking space behind you…
…and me braking to an almost complete stop while you gingerly navigate a corner which I could have turned at 25mph or so. I can never be sure if you’re afraid of tipping over or just unsure of where the road stops and your behemoth begins?
If you look at the sales figures, most Americans agree with you. However, in Europe, the Ranger sized trucks sell well.
“However, in Europe, the Ranger sized trucks sell well.”
Compared to other pick up trucks, not overall, I am guessing.
Yes, vans are more popular in Europe. Ford brags that the Ranger is the best selling truck in Europe for 10 years running and over 40% of European pick ups are Rangers. However, they only sell about 60k a year. In the US, they sell about 70k Rangers. Which sounds impressive, until you read that Ford sold more F150 Hybrids than Rangers in the US last year and I don’t remember those being super popular.
Don’t people tune the snot out of Mavericks now? And they have bigger rear seats? If you don’t need a truck but want a truck the Maverick seems to make more sense.
Do you HAVE to take the babyshit brown paint and black wheels to get the V6?
Thought the color was called dog diarrhea but that’s maybe one shade darker
I feel like these trucks mostly exist so dealerships can upsell people to full sized behemoths. I love the idea of a smaller truck as a family car…a bed would be handy since the wife and I garden a lot/kids are messy and you could just throw their shit back there, I could get around in the city without being a massive inconvenience to everyone around me, the off road ability could come in handy in a pinch, etc. It would be a great compliment to a family hauler in a two car garage.
….BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE USABLE BACK SEATS! Not a single damn one. The Ranger in particular is basically the equivalent to the back seats of a Mustang. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the fact that Ford somehow managed engineer this in a way that it has less rear sear room than a fucking Maverick lol….which itself can’t really handle car seats or anyone over the age of 14 with legs very well.
I’d love a Ranger Raptor or Canyon Denali or whatever…but they’d never work. Hell I’d love a Maverick but really couldn’t make one work either. And yet if I went to a dealership they’d have an F150 ready to upsell me to with a $999 a month payment if I signed RIGHT FUCKING NOW! Ugh. I swear they intentionally nerf these products.
I had a Tacoma for 6 years. My biggest complaint isn’t the very small rear seats (they aren’t sold on space after all) it’s that for a little bit more money, you get a lot lot lot more without much negatives. More power, way more space, more features, way more comfort, more available configurations, similar fuel economy, similar cost to insure, similar cost replacement parts. If you can live with the larger size a pay a bit more, you get so much more in a full size truck without much downside.
The downside is having to pilot a small aircraft carrier through Washington DC lol….
Oh that’s you! I have the hardest time getting around you when I’m filtering through the redlight backup on my mc.
Seems expensive, but with money off and deals MSRPs are often meaningless.
I would rather have the Nissan or Toyota with a 6ft box, everyday.
It’s a shame Ford doesn’t have a nice midsize RWD sedan to put that powertrain into.
I guess there’s no market for that kind of thing anymore.
had a Taurus back when it looked like a spaceship, that puppy cooked! Until your tranny blew up…
Great truck, but I can’t imagine spending that much and not getting the Ranger Raptor, despite the fact that I’d never go off roading.
I do parking and have seen a handful up close, they are great looking and sounding trucks. Just a little grunt, but wouldn’t bother you in the morning as it passes to get to work. If I was in the market for a mid-size I’d be hard pressed not to pick one.
the 2.3 ecoboost makes 270 horsepower
the 2.3 duratec made 135 ponies 23 years ago