2.7 Eco Enough Towing?
10-21-2014, 05:18 PM
#31
~~
Displacement is a measure of volume. Forced induction pumps air into the engine, thus increasing the volume of the air for more power/torque. If you pump the same volume of air into a cylinder and add the appropriate amount of fuel, you are using the same amount of energy as a bigger displacement naturally aspirated engine. When running highway speeds at low RPM's you do not need this. That's why forced induction systems appear to have better gas mileage when unloaded on the highway. They are performing as they were designed.
~~
Displacement is a measure of volume. Forced induction pumps air into the engine, thus increasing the volume of the air for more power/torque. If you pump the same volume of air into a cylinder and add the appropriate amount of fuel, you are using the same amount of energy as a bigger displacement naturally aspirated engine. When running highway speeds at low RPM's you do not need this. That's why forced induction systems appear to have better gas mileage when unloaded on the highway. They are performing as they were designed.
~~
The following 2 users liked this post by GearheadGeek:
isthatahemi (10-22-2014),
jonbar87 (10-21-2014)
10-21-2014, 07:05 PM
#32
Senior Member
A small but important distinction is that the right fuel-air ratio is based on MASS, not volume, which is why forced-induction works so well. You're forcing a greater mass of air into the same volume of space (the cylinder) when you want more power. Conceptually you seem to understand the principle, and it fits well into your narrative. You force the same mass of air into the smaller piston of an Ecoboost engine that would be pulled into the cylinder of a significantly-larger engine that's naturally aspirated, then inject the amount of fuel appropriate to the mass of the air and the then-current operating mode of the engine (e.g. whether the engine needs the mixture to be rich, lean or stoichiometric).
10-21-2014, 09:26 PM
#34
The following users liked this post:
isthatahemi (10-22-2014)
10-21-2014, 10:20 PM
#36
Senior Member
A small but important distinction is that the right fuel-air ratio is based on MASS, not volume, which is why forced-induction works so well. You're forcing a greater mass of air into the same volume of space (the cylinder) when you want more power. Conceptually you seem to understand the principle, and it fits well into your narrative. You force the same mass of air into the smaller piston of an Ecoboost engine that would be pulled into the cylinder of a significantly-larger engine that's naturally aspirated, then inject the amount of fuel appropriate to the mass of the air and the then-current operating mode of the engine (e.g. whether the engine needs the mixture to be rich, lean or stoichiometric).
10-22-2014, 03:27 AM
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am really leaning towards the 2.7. its either that or the 5.0, I really don't do much towing and I just need the flexibility and capabilities of having a truck with a bed to throw all my crap in for the variety of hobbies and stuff that I do.
I'm going to wait at least a couple months if not a year before I pull the trigger on a 2.7 and that is right about the line of time that I've determined I'm going to save up a stash of cash so I don't break the bank buying something nice for myself. I don't mind being an early adopter but I'm in no hurry to be one either.
Time will tell and I'll be listening
I'm going to wait at least a couple months if not a year before I pull the trigger on a 2.7 and that is right about the line of time that I've determined I'm going to save up a stash of cash so I don't break the bank buying something nice for myself. I don't mind being an early adopter but I'm in no hurry to be one either.
Time will tell and I'll be listening
10-22-2014, 06:48 PM
#39
I don't understand why so many people can't understand even simple physics and instead they lap up marking bullsh!t so blindly. Lol. Looks like you need to get a clue.
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.
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.
Still learning how to read I see. I noted that towing a TRAVEL TRAILER, 10-11mpg is the norm for a gas truck at 65-70mph.
You are spewing BS about the 2.7, as there is no towing mileage recorded that could be considered relevant. There is no reason to say the 2.7, with it's huge advance in efficiency, won't tow AT VERY LEAST the same as the 5.4, which was being reference as the comparison point, because THE POWER RATING IS SIMILAR.
Bah, stupid people / luddites who can't think, irritating.
10-23-2014, 10:25 AM
#40
Senior Member
I wouldn't get too worked up about dayto, many of his posts on here are negative. He's either trolling or doesn't grasp the Ford family concept. Most of us on here respect different engine choices and understand we don't have all the numbers on the 2.7 yet. It won't be long though!