Topic Sponsor
Towing/ Hauling/ Plowing Discuss all of your towing and/or cargo moving experiences here.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2.7 Eco and Towing Capability

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-14-2015, 01:06 AM
  #11  
Flatlander
 
smurfs_of_war's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,207
Received 283 Likes on 197 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by smokeywren
So if the 3.5L Ecoboost is not an option, then go for the antiquated 5.0L V8.
Um, what? Did I miss a meeting? When did the 5.0 become "antiquated" at only 5 or 6 years old- the same age as the EcoBoost?
Old 12-14-2015, 01:28 AM
  #12  
Flatlander
 
smurfs_of_war's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,207
Received 283 Likes on 197 Posts

Default

I am not intentionally trying to be confrontational, but... just to put this in perspective for future users that may search this topic out, the current 2.7L ecoboost puts out more horsepower and torque than the outgoing 5.4L Triton 3v (with both figures coming in very close to where the 5.4L would be) and that old tank of a V8 was rated to tow north of 11000lbs when properly optioned in 2010. I wouldn't consider the 2.7L incapable of toting a 6.7K trailer at all, in fact I bet it would do just fine as long as it had the proper cooling and gear ratio. Had this question been asked 6 or 7 years ago about the 5.4L, I suspect the majority of the answers would have been "I tow 9000lbs with mine and it handles it fine." Some people are being caught up in the marketing game just like Ford wants. 2.7L? Too small. Have to put out more money for the bigger engine!

How quickly we forget

Last edited by smurfs_of_war; 12-14-2015 at 01:32 AM.
The following 4 users liked this post by smurfs_of_war:
130428 (12-17-2015), acadianbob (12-15-2015), Kenferg1 (12-16-2015), RES4CUE (12-21-2015)
Old 12-15-2015, 05:29 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Carmmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: S.E. WI
Posts: 293
Received 51 Likes on 38 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by smurfs_of_war
I am not intentionally trying to be confrontational, but... just to put this in perspective for future users that may search this topic out, the current 2.7L ecoboost puts out more horsepower and torque than the outgoing 5.4L Triton 3v (with both figures coming in very close to where the 5.4L would be) and that old tank of a V8 was rated to tow north of 11000lbs when properly optioned in 2010. I wouldn't consider the 2.7L incapable of toting a 6.7K trailer at all, in fact I bet it would do just fine as long as it had the proper cooling and gear ratio. Had this question been asked 6 or 7 years ago about the 5.4L, I suspect the majority of the answers would have been "I tow 9000lbs with mine and it handles it fine." Some people are being caught up in the marketing game just like Ford wants. 2.7L? Too small. Have to put out more money for the bigger engine!

How quickly we forget
So true.... coming from a 2002 5.4 to my new setup I would hook up to his trailer with this new truck before the 2002 I had. Don't get me wrong both are great trucks but the new one would handle the load better.
Old 12-16-2015, 09:35 AM
  #14  
Opinionated Blowhard
 
Kenferg1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 1,007
Received 165 Likes on 104 Posts

Default

I got the 3.5 because I wanted the baddest stock engine Ford puts in its trucks. Want more power? A $500 tuner adds 30+ horsepower and almost 100 lb/ft of torque. It's the best deal out there. The 2.7 is no different. It is a beast of an engine with the same tuning option. There is so much potential in each of these engines. 30 years ago the very notion of this type of power without building an esoteric engine that cost $10k or more was a fantasy. Now, just like back in the 60s, you can walk in and buy that power stock in almost any Ford vehicle. Amazing. Chevy ain't doing it. Dodge ain't doing it. But Ford is. And I love it!
The following users liked this post:
pscott426 (02-17-2016)
Old 12-17-2015, 12:54 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Jason_Larsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Klamath Falls
Posts: 511
Received 132 Likes on 84 Posts
Default

I tow a 7000# trailer with my 2.7. My GCVW is 12300 and HP is not a problem.
Old 12-17-2015, 05:27 AM
  #16  
FX4RoadWarrior
 
tanked_darren's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 3,816
Received 493 Likes on 352 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by parcours


Really.....
Laugh, but alot of people defend the 5.0 as tried and true like its from the 90's when in reality its slightly newer than the 3.5 Ecoboost.
Old 12-17-2015, 06:18 AM
  #17  
Grumpy Old Man
 
smokeywren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midland County Texas, just west of the star in my avatar
Posts: 3,129
Received 879 Likes on 686 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by tanked_darren
Laugh, but alot of people defend the 5.0 as tried and true like its from the 90's when in reality its slightly newer than the 3.5 Ecoboost.

The last time the small-block Ford V8 was tweaked may have been after the 2011 twin-turbo EcoBoost was introduced, but the basic design goes way back to the 1954 Ford V8 with overhead valves that replaced the 1953 flathead V8.
Old 12-17-2015, 06:39 AM
  #18  
Member
 
flyingcow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stowe, VT
Posts: 41
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by smokeywren
The last time the small-block Ford V8 was tweaked may have been after the 2011 twin-turbo EcoBoost was introduced, but the basic design goes way back to the 1954 Ford V8 with overhead valves that replaced the 1953 flathead V8.
umm... ya do know that they have been overhead cam since the 90's right? The commonality the 5.0 has with the 90's engines is basically tooling... not much more.

Last edited by flyingcow; 12-17-2015 at 06:41 AM.
Old 12-17-2015, 12:00 PM
  #19  
Member
 
parcours's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 40
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tanked_darren
Laugh, but alot of people defend the 5.0 as tried and true like its from the 90's when in reality its slightly newer than the 3.5 Ecoboost.
True.... But just having gone away from turbo charged engines (Ford 6.0 and 6.4 diesel ) you can't tell me the life or durability of naturally aspirated engine is less than a turbo engine.
Old 12-17-2015, 12:02 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
tsigwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Garland, Tx
Posts: 1,484
Received 264 Likes on 186 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by parcours
True.... But just having gone away from turbo charged engines (Ford 6.0 and 6.4 diesel ) you can't tell me the life or durability of naturally aspirated engine is less than a turbo engine.


Quite a few OTR truckers would disagree.


Quick Reply: 2.7 Eco and Towing Capability



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 AM.