No. It's difficult to prove a negative, but I can find no solid evidence that Franklin said that. The only places I see it, or any version of it, it appears without any citation. I can find no version of it in a reputable academic source. Additionally, if there was evidence that Franklin had really said something as provocative as that, it would be well known.

Moreover, this "quote" doesn't pass the smell test. The language doesn't sound like it's from the 18th century to me. That's hard to explain, but it's just an instinct. In particular, I don't think Franklin would have used the words "We need a revolution."

Franklin died in April 1790. The basic idea of a "right of revolution," which this quote sort of draws on, was common by then. It's the idea that a free people have a right to abolish an unjust government. The U.S. Declaration of Independence uses this language: "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." Likewise, in 1787, Jefferson wrote, "what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."

But what's missing from those quotes? The word "revolution." As historian Keith Baker has argued, that word didn't come to have this meaning of a systemic and collective disruption of a particular form of government until the 1790s, with the French Revolution (which the timing of Franklin's death meant that he mostly missed). Before then, "revolution" sometimes referred more to a rotation or change in government (like a reshuffle of the British cabinet, or the death of a monarch). In the era of the Glorious Revolution, the word "revolution" referred to something that happened (often with divine intervention) rather than something that human will brought about. In other words, there weren't groups that would self-consciously call themselves "revolutionaries." Even in the 1780s, the "American Revolution" as a phrase was still developing. So the phrase "We need a revolution" would have been out of sync with the predominant understanding of what revolutions were until that started to change during the last few months of Franklin's life.

In other words, even if this sentiment was not an uncommon one, this use of the word "revolution" would have been pretty unusual during Franklin's lifetime. This, in addition to the fact that I'm unable to find evidence for this quote, suggests pretty strongly that this quote is fake. (there are lots of them: check out http://fakefoundersquotes.tumblr.com)

See Keith Michael Baker, “Revolution 1.0,” Journal of Modern European History 11 (2013).

Quick edit to add: when I did a quick google search for this "quote," I found it on several sites that were attempting to use it for explicitly political purposes. One good rule is that when popular figures from the past such as Franklin are quoted in ways that seem to speak directly to our present or which directly support one's own politics, it's worth being suspicious. (and asking experts to verify a quote is one great way of doing that, of course)

I apologize if this doesn't pass /r/askhistorians standards of rigor, but I suspect this might be a misquote/misattribution of something Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to William Stephens Smith, dated November 13th, 1787:

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.

Based on the time period and the context of the letter, it's clear that Thomas Jefferson is referring to Shay's Rebellion, which concluded the previous June. It's also pretty clear that this isn't just a wry quip, but something about which Jefferson is deadly serious. He goes on to say:

The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

Remember also that Shay's rebellion was a watershed moment that influenced George Washington's return to politics (and thus, the Presidency) as well as the Constitution itself. So, while the quote you mentioned may be apocryphal, Thomas Jefferson expressed a similar sentiment and explained it in detail. If you're interested, you can read the full text of Jefferson's letter (as well as most of his collected correspondence) here.