Drove the new Ford F150 2.7 Ecoboost

[Ford850]

I too wonder about working a small engine too hard, too often. I know the new transmissions with lots of gears will help, but still, I feel from past experience that folks will be reving these things to keep them in the power band like small displacement 2-stroke motorcycles. I guess the only way to find out is see how long they last in real world conditions. Let someone else by the guinea pig for a few years.

I think the 3.5 has been the guinea pig, for over 4 years. They've made improvements to it over the years to work out the bugs, and now the 2.7 is a clean sheet design to take it to the next level. Not an engine for me, but it does fit the category for the majority of truck owners these days.

 

[Ford850]

I think Ford's new engine choices are the best they've had. 3.5, 2.7EB, 5.0, 3.5EB. You can get the 3.5 or 5.0 for strong solid engines that are more traditional, and the 2.7EB or 3.5EB for those who want an engine that can do more.

 

[wawajake]

Why do you have such a low opinion of other members of TBN that you believe they can't see such 'bias' without you pointing it out, in this case, with an unproven accusation that Chris is being paid.

Mike I appreciate your candor.............I just get tired of the hypocrisy....like

----Ford management was smart to take government money, but GM wasn't------Okay for Ford to exaggerate about ecoboost trucks , but its downright evil that Ram might exaggerate slightly about ecodiesel truck.-----Ford workers are excellent middle class union , GM or Chrysler not so much.-------- 3.73 has to be what truck owners use......3.42 is useless -----oh and lets not forget the faux pas if anyone of us keeps his trailer hitch in the reciever...........

on second thought.........lets leave it at that , I shall become one of the silent majority and just ignore the hypocrisy.

 

[Egon]

Maybe this was covered, but I did not see it. What is the reasoning behind the compacted graphite iron block on the 2.7L Eco over the 3.5L aluminum block?

Perhaps there are future plans to use this block with more HP in either gas or diesel.

 

[jejeosborne]

That engine is so small , i just have to ask,

how will this truck perform if ( god forbid) it goes in to limp home mode- while pulling a trailer in the mountains...

It would seem the Dodge and Chevy still have enough displacement, operating normally aspirated to get home, I have to wonder on the 2.7 liter Ford ??

If driving in the mountains, I would much rather have a boosted motor vs normally aspirated. Normally aspirated engines in the mountains are already basically in a partial limp mode even when technically they aren't.

 

[jejeosborne]

I too wonder about working a small engine too hard, too often. I know the new transmissions with lots of gears will help, but still, I feel from past experience that folks will be reving these things to keep them in the power band like small displacement 2-stroke motorcycles. I guess the only way to find out is see how long they last in real world conditions. Let someone else by the guinea pig for a few years.

If it is anything like the 3.5 liter version, it would be exactly the opposite as you describe. The 3.5 liter makes its peak torque at 2500 rpm's and is famous for being a very low revving engine compared to a similar output normally aspirated V8. I know my 3.5 version is very reluctant to downshift or rev high even when towing a heavy trailer.

 

[fordmantpw]

Not any more. At one time FX4 was similar to Chevy Z71 packages, just suspension. Now days it's a trim level.

The lineup is something like:
XL
XLT
FX4
PLATINUM
RANCH KING

Chris

That was true from '04 - '14, but not on the '15. The FX4 is now an off road package available on all trim levels.

 

[fordmantpw]

Maybe this was covered, but I did not see it. What is the reasoning behind the compacted graphite iron block on the 2.7L Eco over the 3.5L aluminum block?

CGI is stronger AND lighter than cast iron and stronger than aluminum. It is better for high pressure than aluminum without the weight penalties of cast iron.

I too wonder about working a small engine too hard, too often. I know the new transmissions with lots of gears will help, but still, I feel from past experience that folks will be reving these things to keep them in the power band like small displacement 2-stroke motorcycles. I guess the only way to find out is see how long they last in real world conditions. Let someone else by the guinea pig for a few years.

The EcoBoost engines are boosted and are tuned to have their torque and low RPM, very similar to a diesel. There's no need to rev them up like a 2-stroke motorcycle because the torque curve is more like a plateau...flat as Kansas.

 

[The Fred]

Within the next few years we will see all OEMs using a flat torque curve. The Germans started this in 2006 and is trickling down to everyone.
Turbos, high pressure fuel injection are the wave.

Driving any brand new vehicle with such a flat torque curve is a breath of fresh air makes our old hot rodded rigs look like pure garbage.

I am considering a 15 Ford pickup to replace an 08 6 liter GM that has 14K on it and only gets 12 MPG. Been a long time since I had a Ford and hope the paint stays on it unlike the 91 we bought new that was junk.

Regards, Fred

 

[zing]

All manufacturers follow the same standards for computing and publishing mpg numbers. So, it's not 'they', or Ford, or Chevy, or Dodge, 'cooking the books'.

Published numbers have had a tenuous connection, if any, to real world numbers for decades.

You are right about this, but it isn't just the manufacturers fault, the gov't dictates the testing protocol. This is a three year old article, but it seems that the American MPG numbers are now more realistic than they used to be since the Gov't is forcing them to use more "real world" testing numbers. The Canadian gov't has not followed suit though, so the numbers we get here are still based on "lab test environments" so they are off the mark by 30% or more.

New cars guzzle more gas than predicted - British Columbia - CBC News

Although there are certainly many factors to consider like driving style, tire design and pressure, road conditions, etc, the articles that I have read on the subject seem to all agree that no matter what you do in the real work and how conservatively you drive, you will never be able to replicate the mileage numbers posted by the manufacturer's tests.