TruckTrend Drives a 2.7 SCrew
09-30-2014, 11:06 AM
#11
Senior Member
We’re not sure what all the operational parameters are for the stop-start system, but we’re sure the true test of it would be in suffocatingly humid Houston or sun-baked Phoenix. In 90-plus temps, we might just be tempted to disable it to keep the compressor cooling.
09-30-2014, 02:44 PM
#13
Senior Member
Exactly, 2014 Scab with 5.0 sport, speed limit is 75 mph out here motor just broke 3000 miles I am just over 18.7 at a steady 75, drop down to 65 and I am easily over 20mpg.
Plus I love the way it sounds.
09-30-2014, 03:01 PM
#14
Its odd to see an XLT with the painted bumpers. I'll bet that is a popular option going forward. So many current XLT owners looking to get rid of the chrome bumper look.
__________________
Joel
623.434.5277
Contact me for Forum pricing
Joel
623.434.5277
Contact me for Forum pricing
The following users liked this post:
Old Red SCrew (10-07-2014)
09-30-2014, 03:08 PM
#15
Senior Member
^ Yep. That's the one I built on their site. 2 wd XLT w/ 5.0L with the Sport package.
09-30-2014, 03:10 PM
#16
Administrator
If more testing shows f/e numbers to be higher than these returned results, I would definitely consider this engine as an option. I don't want a V8 nor do I need one so for me, either the base V6 or this 2.7EB is the best option for me.
09-30-2014, 03:48 PM
#17
Honestly, 16.7 is awful for the "smallest" engine.Don't forget this is in the 700 lb lighter configuration. Even taking the old 5.4 or 5.0 engines and put them in a crew cab that is 700lbs lighter and they would get 16.7 in hilly terrain with 100 miles on the odometer. Hell I bet under a similar test the dodge eco diesel brand new would be getting mid 20's and it weighs like over a 1000lbs more.
Ford has made this ecoboost bed and they will stick with it, but honestly that small displacement engine should have been relegated to the base models and smaller cab configurations or else the boards will be flooded with complaints of mileage concerns for years to come. In fact they should have removed the words eco from the motors entirely. They have not ever displayed anything close to the mileage they were first touted with. Torque and HP is great just nothing eco about it.
The Ram ecodiesel weighs 5800. That is over 1000lbs more then a crew cab lariat 4x4 according to Fords own specs. Put the eco-diesel in the new Ford and you would be cracking 30 MPG's. That would be Eco.
Plus the idea of stopping the A/C at traffic lights with the engine is a disaster. Who would want to be a part delivery guy in traffic in July anywhere south of Minnesotta with the A/C compressor cycling off in traffic. That is completely asinine.
Ford has made this ecoboost bed and they will stick with it, but honestly that small displacement engine should have been relegated to the base models and smaller cab configurations or else the boards will be flooded with complaints of mileage concerns for years to come. In fact they should have removed the words eco from the motors entirely. They have not ever displayed anything close to the mileage they were first touted with. Torque and HP is great just nothing eco about it.
The Ram ecodiesel weighs 5800. That is over 1000lbs more then a crew cab lariat 4x4 according to Fords own specs. Put the eco-diesel in the new Ford and you would be cracking 30 MPG's. That would be Eco.
Plus the idea of stopping the A/C at traffic lights with the engine is a disaster. Who would want to be a part delivery guy in traffic in July anywhere south of Minnesotta with the A/C compressor cycling off in traffic. That is completely asinine.
09-30-2014, 06:02 PM
#18
Senior Member
The following users liked this post:
Clicker1944 (10-21-2014)
09-30-2014, 06:12 PM
#19
The following users liked this post:
Clicker1944 (10-21-2014)
09-30-2014, 07:01 PM
#20
I've had ALOT of new trucks and what you've just said has never been apparent to me.