2.7 Eco Enough Towing?
10-20-2014, 11:02 AM
#11
On more meds than ymeski
I heard the 2.7l is way to small to move anything, even though it has more all around power than small blocks from trucks built in the 1970s that towed horse trailers. Hell, it has a lot more HP and about the same TQ as a late 70s 460; but it will get no gas mileage and can't tow. You would think that Ford would have put some research into the 2.7l
And for those that do not get sarcasm; let's see what it can do in the real world before we believe the internet condemnation.
And for those that do not get sarcasm; let's see what it can do in the real world before we believe the internet condemnation.
10-20-2014, 11:16 AM
#12
Real world owners will report real results, then we will see how much of these numbers translate into everyday usage. In my opinion, for an every day commuter, the 2.7L is the way to go, the gas saved for 90-95% of your driving will more than make up for the supposed 'worse' fuel economy with the smaller engine (2.7 vs 3.5) when towing. I don't have a dog in this fight, I was always set on the 5.0L anyway. =)
For what it's worth, the guys running the Ford Drive Event had a big trailer to tow around, and the 3.5L EB only got 10-12 mpg pulling that from MI to MA. (see my Drive Event thread). How much worse could the 2.7L EB get than that?
For what it's worth, the guys running the Ford Drive Event had a big trailer to tow around, and the 3.5L EB only got 10-12 mpg pulling that from MI to MA. (see my Drive Event thread). How much worse could the 2.7L EB get than that?
10-20-2014, 05:58 PM
#13
Senior Member
Anyone know why the 2.7 is not offered at the Platinum trim level?
10-20-2014, 06:13 PM
#14
Imma let you guys in on a secret. Towing mpg sucks.
We routinely tow about 7,000 lbs behind a 2012 f350 with the 6.7.
I've never seen more than 14mpg with that combo and it is almost all highway miles at 65 mph.
This is a flat trailer with a small tractor and planter. Aerodynamics suck.
We routinely tow about 7,000 lbs behind a 2012 f350 with the 6.7.
I've never seen more than 14mpg with that combo and it is almost all highway miles at 65 mph.
This is a flat trailer with a small tractor and planter. Aerodynamics suck.
10-20-2014, 06:52 PM
#15
Senior Member
Imma let you guys in on a secret. Towing mpg sucks.
We routinely tow about 7,000 lbs behind a 2012 f350 with the 6.7.
I've never seen more than 14mpg with that combo and it is almost all highway miles at 65 mph.
This is a flat trailer with a small tractor and planter. Aerodynamics suck.
We routinely tow about 7,000 lbs behind a 2012 f350 with the 6.7.
I've never seen more than 14mpg with that combo and it is almost all highway miles at 65 mph.
This is a flat trailer with a small tractor and planter. Aerodynamics suck.
There is a replacement for displacement; it's called turbos. If you've ever dyno tuned EFI engines before, you know that to make x horsepower, you need x size fuel pulse (measured in ms) to compensate for x amount air (whether it's coming from 7.0 liters of N/A displacement, or a 2.7 Liter engine with a turbo). Assuming the VE of the engines and other variables (e.g., weight, gearing, compression ratios, etc.) are the same, whether you have a 2.7L or 7.0L, to make x amount of hp requires x size of explosion, which requires the exact same amount of air, which in turn requires the exact same size fuel pulse in order to maintain the proper AFR. The reason for the turbo is to be energy saving when the engine is NOT required to make all that extra power; it does NOT save energy when towing, it's actually what's forcing more air into the engine, causing the injectors open for a longer period of time and makeup the extra horsepower for the lack of displacement, thus ultimately using more fuel (or the same as a large displacement engine). For example, while cruising on the highway under little load (high vacuum) it only takes approximately 50 - 100 hp to keep these pickups rolling on a level surface. The difference is, while the 7.0 liter is cruising it is consuming way more fuel than necessary because of its displacement. To maintain the proper AFR, because it has such a large displacement for air (remember, bigger explosion equals more power) it is sucking in more air, thus using more fuel. On the other hand, the 2.7 isn't wasting so much fuel while cruising because it doesn't have all that displacement. However, just say both the 7.0 and 2.7 were both 325 HP and needed to operate at WOT to tow 10,000lbs up a hill, if both engines were at peak HP @ whatever RPM they make peak HP at, they would both use the EXACT same amount of fuel. Period. The ONLY difference is one is sucking in all the air on its own because of the large displacement, while the other is having the exact same amount of air forced into it by the turbos. The end result is the exact same mass of air is being ingested into an engine, thus requiring the exact same amount of fuel yielding the exact same amount of hp to do the exact same amount of work. It's all the same in the end.
TLDR: Assuming all variables are the same except engine size, it takes the same mass of air that will use the same amount of fuel resulting in the same net HP, regardless of the engine size.
Last edited by jonbar87; 10-22-2014 at 08:33 AM.
The following 3 users liked this post by jonbar87:
10-20-2014, 07:04 PM
#16
10 to 11 mpg is normal when towing thing a travel trailer for example.
Imma let you guys in on a secret. Towing mpg sucks.
We routinely tow about 7,000 lbs behind a 2012 f350 with the 6.7.
I've never seen more than 14mpg with that combo and it is almost all highway miles at 65 mph.
This is a flat trailer with a small tractor and planter. Aerodynamics suck.
We routinely tow about 7,000 lbs behind a 2012 f350 with the 6.7.
I've never seen more than 14mpg with that combo and it is almost all highway miles at 65 mph.
This is a flat trailer with a small tractor and planter. Aerodynamics suck.
The following users liked this post:
Di Lullo (10-20-2014)
10-21-2014, 08:41 AM
#17
10-21-2014, 08:52 AM
#18
What a bunch of nonsense. Get a clue. This engine will be more efficient in every way than the less powerful 5.4 that had an inferior transmission. All the while, able to get probably 20% better unloaded mileage.
10 to 11 mpg is normal when towing thing a travel trailer for example.
10 to 11 mpg is normal when towing thing a travel trailer for example.
The OP is talking about towing only 5000lbs. So no, 10-11 mpgs should not be normal. I easily get 12-13 in the hills towing that much with the 5.0.
As a matter of fact I'll bet the 2.7 can't break 10 mpgs towing 5000 lbs. this thing hasn't broke 17 mpgs in any test drives so far.
EcoFraud fanbois.......lol
Wait around for data to come back in. You'll see lol.
Why do you bring up the 5.4? It's ancient history and was not a stellar effort by Ford.
Last edited by Daytoman; 10-21-2014 at 08:58 AM.
10-21-2014, 09:53 AM
#19
On more meds than ymeski
Look Daytoman, we all get the fact that you don't like the EcoBoost. You call them fanboys while doing exactly what a fanboy would do. You claim that posters don't understand physics yet invalidate the research done by folks waaaaaaay smarter than you or I on this very motor. Looking at articles online showing a few posted results of limited tests shows nothing of real world mpg. You can say that you don't think it will do well but that extra nevitive push you keep making is not going to play out well for you.
The 2.7l may be a flop, but until it is proven so you need to stop trying to fan a fire that I am soon to put out.
Last warning.
The 2.7l may be a flop, but until it is proven so you need to stop trying to fan a fire that I am soon to put out.
Last warning.
The following 3 users liked this post by my67falcon:
10-21-2014, 10:35 AM
#20
Senior Member
Exactly. Some people just don't get that
There is a replacement for displacement; it's called turbos. If you've ever dyno tuned EFI engines before, you know that to make x horsepower, you need x size fuel pulse (measured in ms) to compensate for x amount air (whether it's coming from 7.0 liters of N/A displacement, or a 2.7 Liter engine with a turbo). Assuming the VE of the engines and other variables (e.g., weight, gearing, compression ratios, etc.) are the same, whether you have a 2.7L or 7.0L, to make x amount of hp requires x size of explosion, which requires the exact same amount of air, which in turn requires the exact same size fuel pulse in order to maintain the proper AFR. The reason for the turbo is to be energy saving when the engine is NOT required to make all that extra power; it does NOT save energy when towing, it's actually what's forcing more air into the engine, causing the injectors open for a longer period of time and makeup the extra horsepower for the lack of displacement, thus ultimately using more fuel (or the same as a large displacement engine). For example, while cruising on the highway under little load (high vacuum) it only takes approximately 50 - 100 hp to keep these pickups rolling on a level surface. The difference is, while the 7.0 liter is cruising it is consuming way more fuel than necessary because of its displacement. To maintain the proper AFR, because it has such a large displacement for air (remember, bigger explosion equals more power) it is sucking in more air, thus using more fuel. On the other hand, the 2.7 isn't wasting so much fuel while cruising because it doesn't have all that displacement. However, just say both the 7.0 and 2.7 were both 325 HP and needed to operate at WOT to tow 10,000lbs up a hill, if both engines were at peak HP @ whatever RPM they make peak HP at, they would both use the EXACT same amount of fuel. Period. The ONLY difference is one is sucking in all the air on its own because of the large displacement, while the other is having the exact same amount of air forced into it by the turbos. The end result is the exact same volume of air is being ingested into an engine, thus requiring the exact same amount of fuel yielding the exact same amount of hp to do the exact same amount of work. It's all the same in the end.
TLDR: it takes the same amount of energy (i.e., air/fuel) to make the same amount of horsepower, regardless of the engine size.
There is a replacement for displacement; it's called turbos. If you've ever dyno tuned EFI engines before, you know that to make x horsepower, you need x size fuel pulse (measured in ms) to compensate for x amount air (whether it's coming from 7.0 liters of N/A displacement, or a 2.7 Liter engine with a turbo). Assuming the VE of the engines and other variables (e.g., weight, gearing, compression ratios, etc.) are the same, whether you have a 2.7L or 7.0L, to make x amount of hp requires x size of explosion, which requires the exact same amount of air, which in turn requires the exact same size fuel pulse in order to maintain the proper AFR. The reason for the turbo is to be energy saving when the engine is NOT required to make all that extra power; it does NOT save energy when towing, it's actually what's forcing more air into the engine, causing the injectors open for a longer period of time and makeup the extra horsepower for the lack of displacement, thus ultimately using more fuel (or the same as a large displacement engine). For example, while cruising on the highway under little load (high vacuum) it only takes approximately 50 - 100 hp to keep these pickups rolling on a level surface. The difference is, while the 7.0 liter is cruising it is consuming way more fuel than necessary because of its displacement. To maintain the proper AFR, because it has such a large displacement for air (remember, bigger explosion equals more power) it is sucking in more air, thus using more fuel. On the other hand, the 2.7 isn't wasting so much fuel while cruising because it doesn't have all that displacement. However, just say both the 7.0 and 2.7 were both 325 HP and needed to operate at WOT to tow 10,000lbs up a hill, if both engines were at peak HP @ whatever RPM they make peak HP at, they would both use the EXACT same amount of fuel. Period. The ONLY difference is one is sucking in all the air on its own because of the large displacement, while the other is having the exact same amount of air forced into it by the turbos. The end result is the exact same volume of air is being ingested into an engine, thus requiring the exact same amount of fuel yielding the exact same amount of hp to do the exact same amount of work. It's all the same in the end.
TLDR: it takes the same amount of energy (i.e., air/fuel) to make the same amount of horsepower, regardless of the engine size.
The following users liked this post:
MP15TDriver (10-21-2014)