Omar F150

I understand the common term "there is no replacement for displacement". With the 8,500 lbs of towing capacity for the 2.7 Eco, I am debating ordering the 2.7 vs 3.5. I would use the truck primarily for daily commuting (go with 2.7). However if I where to haul a 2 horse trailer (around 5,500 lbs assuming it has 2 horses) with the max towing package on 2 wheel drive XL or XLT should I be concerned?

brulaz

With a loaded 5500# trailer I would go for the 2.7L EcoB.

If you're thinking of a loaded Screw, go for the 2.7L HD payload option so you can handle the trailer's tongue weight as well as all your options, passengers and gear .

I might even get one (with 2.7L HD payload) for a loaded 7000# trailer. But over that, I personally would opt for the 3.5L EcoB. But that really depends upon how much you tow, and how sensitive you are to higher rpm driving with more shifting back and forth.

My 7500-8000#trailer shouldn't be a problem for the 2.7L EcoB truck (I don't think except maybe for the tongue weight), it's just me. I hate to hear a engine/tranny working hard, even though they are designed for it.

Daytoman

It'll tow it but your mpgs will be crazy low. Same with the commute. I'd look at a different engine option.

Rambo 2

The 2.7L EcoBoost will be perfect for you.

"The big news was getting the chance to tow with the all-new, high-tech 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine, something we weren't able to do at the 2015 F-150's recent introduction. The bottom line is that the engine seems powerful enough to pull a 5,000-pound load wherever needed, but maybe more importantly is how calm and settled the chassis feels when pulling and hauling the weight. From hill stops and takeoffs on a fairly good grade, the truck handled smoothly and settled any road irregularities pretty quickly. In comparison, the Colorado, since it's a smaller and lighter vehicle with a naturally aspirated gas engine, struggled a little bit more. Still, the engine and midsize platform did have the grunt and pulling power to move the load on our drive route. We did find ourselves more aware of the weight and how the trailer could push us around if we weren't careful when going off-throttle into and out of curves and corners."

PUTC Towing Report:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/10...-colorado.html

brulaz

"crazy low" mpg ???
"Same with the commute" ???

Ron AKA

With a lighter trailer you should be fine providing you stay within the Ford recommended towing total weight and the hitch weight. Check, but I'm not sure you need the max tow package, just the trailer package. Need to see the more detailed trailer towing numbers which they have not released yet.

The 2.7 EB should provide you with better mileage for the commute compared to the 3.5 EB. When towing you are going to pay for the weight in mileage no matter what engine you use.

Daytoman

Yep you'll get 10-11 mpg at best while towing with that tiny engine and 15-17 mpg on your commute.
You'd be better off in the long run to get one of the other engines.
Remember... There's no replacement for displacement.

Daytoman

Nope. Initial results are coming back with mpgs under 17 mpgs.
Even with the weight loss it's too much truck for that little engine.

brulaz

More internet nonsense. Dreamed up numbers based on initial reviews by lead footed drivers. I'll wait for the long-term, real-world results.

When talking mileage, anybody who says "There's no replacement for displacement" doesn't know what he's talking about. That's what people used to say when the 3.5L EcoB first came out, but then they were talking about power, not mileage. And they were wrong then too.

kobayashi maru

I know this is starting to digress a bit but I think the adage "No replacement for displacement" is still technically true if you imagine that automakers could extract maximum efficiency out of internal combustion engines (which in theory is about 37% efficiency according to wiki). As it stands, current engine designs are nowhere close to that number so there is still plenty of room for improvement on any size engine.

And to stay on topic, IMO I think the 2.7L should be adequate for use case OP. This based on the numbers and reviews I've read so far. I don't tow much personally.