2.7EB vs 3.5EB?

   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #81  
Can't speak to "all" turbos in regards to gasoline engines, but I have been running turbocharged diesels for several decades and none of them had a weep hole in them. Holset, Garrett, Borg Warner, Honeywell, etc. Assymetrical, waste gated, and VG varieties. And turbos coking has not really been an issue since the elimination of babbitt bearings for turbo shafts 30+ years ago. I suppose "old" is a relative term.
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #82  
The weep hole has been a proven solution to the problem. The epa created a problem, that if you look at all the extra resources expended to address a problem, it would have been less of an impact to just let the old weep hole remain. It's good that some of these decision makers don't handle guns, they would end up shooting themselves.

Anyways, I have a 13 ecoboost that has around 27,000 miles on it. Don't daily drive it, but usually take it skiing and to my cabin. So it sees a lot of mountain roads. In fact that is why I waited for this engine to come out, I don't loose power up here in the thin air. I have read all the doom and gloom on this motor, but I have not experienced any of this. I switched over to M1 5w30 extended performance to deal with the issues of direct injection and turbos, but other than that it's been all stock. I have heard that this motor is hard on spark plugs and they should be changed every 30K miles. So this past weekend I changed them out. They actually looked pretty good for 27K miles. The gap was only about .005 wider and there is some heat distortion on the ceramic, but there was no carbon tracking. I am glad I did them, and will extend the maintenance interval to 30k next time.

After driving a EB now at these high altitudes, I can never go away from a turbo gas motor anymore. It's that good and noticeably a big difference.
WP_20171203_001.jpg
WP_20171203_002.jpg
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #83  
I know of several people with the AFM GM engines that eat oil. This alone would dissuade me from ever owning one unless I installed a defeat device (they're supposedly plug and play).

I do know that I had to change the plugs out in my old '12 EcoBoost far under 100K miles but it was an easy job. Seems like I did it around 70K and it fixed my stutter/miss.

I just wish the rest of the truck had held up to make it past 100K. It was the biggest piece of junk I ever owned and this was at 65K miles.

Co-worker bought an eco-boost about 6 mo's ago developed an oil pan leak. Seems like the newer oil pans are not re-usable. They had to change the entire oil pan. No gasket either, they use sealant.
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #84  
I did end up buying a 2018 F150 3.5 EB with HDPP (i.e. 3.73 gears and a bit heavier than most at 5,500 pounds). On my second tank of gas and averaging 20 mpg with an even mix of highway, city and country roads. Engine seems very strong and super quiet. I don't think you can go wrong with either the 2.7EB or the 3.5EB. It just comes down to if you need the extra payload and towing capacity that is available with the 3.5EB with the right options. If you don't need it that extra capacity, I don't see why you wouldn't go for the 2.7EB because by all accounts it will get a little bit better MPG and is stout.
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #85  
ive only read through the first page... Since you don't want the 5.0, I am gonna say 2.7 as it sounds like it would be enough pickup for you.
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #86  
Can't speak to "all" turbos in regards to gasoline engines, but I have been running turbocharged diesels for several decades and none of them had a weep hole in them. Holset, Garrett, Borg Warner, Honeywell, etc. Assymetrical, waste gated, and VG varieties. And turbos coking has not really been an issue since the elimination of babbitt bearings for turbo shafts 30+ years ago. I suppose "old" is a relative term.

Some diesels have exhibited the issue, as noted; but still, why should you be comparing an unthrottled compression ignition system to a gasoline engine, and an engine often run at high load with one with an easy life 99% of the time? What happens with the large diesels is that they are typically run under load; they are working engines, they don't build up residual water. Many don't dump crankcase condensate into the intercooler at all (but soon the EPA will have all diesels regulated, including older ones, I'm sure). With our EB powered vehicles (I have a Ford Flex with 3.5 EB), they are run at very low throttle openings for long periods of time, as we don't need 365 to 450 hp all the time. In humid weather, water will condense in the intercoolers. Add this to the goo from the crankcase breather, and then stomp on the throttle, and you may ingest this in quantities that can cause stumbling— or occasional grenading, if the amount ingested doesn't leave room for compression. That tiny weep hole that folks are drilling represents a fraction of a percent of turbo output. I'm considering putting an "over/under" valve on mine, that dumps between, say, 2 and 5 psi, and is otherwise closed. A catch can will only keep out the crankcase goo, but not the water.
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #87  
Some diesels have exhibited the issue, as noted; but still, why should you be comparing an unthrottled compression ignition system to a gasoline engine, and an engine often run at high load with one with an easy life 99% of the time? What happens with the large diesels is that they are typically run under load; they are working engines, they don't build up residual water. Many don't dump crankcase condensate into the intercooler at all (but soon the EPA will have all diesels regulated, including older ones, I'm sure). With our EB powered vehicles (I have a Ford Flex with 3.5 EB), they are run at very low throttle openings for long periods of time, as we don't need 365 to 450 hp all the time. In humid weather, water will condense in the intercoolers. Add this to the goo from the crankcase breather, and then stomp on the throttle, and you may ingest this in quantities that can cause stumbling— or occasional grenading, if the amount ingested doesn't leave room for compression. That tiny weep hole that folks are drilling represents a fraction of a percent of turbo output. I'm considering putting an "over/under" valve on mine, that dumps between, say, 2 and 5 psi, and is otherwise closed. A catch can will only keep out the crankcase goo, but not the water.

Yes, you hardly even push the pedal the make an EB go unloaded. I've never needed more than part throttle towing 6000lb. I have done WOT unloaded and it's scary how much power these engines make silently.
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB?
  • Thread Starter
#88  
If possible, could a MOD close this thread? Ram is the truck of choice.
 
   / 2.7EB vs 3.5EB? #89  
No reason to close it. What RAMdid you get, and we need pictures. Congrats on new purchase.
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2014 Jeep Cherokee Sport SUV (A50324)
2014 Jeep Cherokee...
2014 DIAMOND C TRAILER MFG. (A50322)
2014 DIAMOND C...
1999 Ford F-550 12FT. Flatbed Truck (A51692)
1999 Ford F-550...
2024 AGT JT8 2 Post Car Lift (A50121)
2024 AGT JT8 2...
1978 AM General Military Truck (A50120)
1978 AM General...
2019 Ford F-350 XL (A50120)
2019 Ford F-350 XL...
 
Top