RevX

I guess I was looking for real world experience.

MGD

IF you are set on increasing the size, diameter, static mass, rolling resistance and rotational mass of yer rolling stock, the 2.7EB is the wrong engine choice, IMHO.

5.0 or better yet the 3.5 EB with 3.73's is a better choice.

Need to get the speddo/odo/shiftpoint errors corrected in the PCM regardless, so factor that in.

MGD

Magnum72576

I see the advantage of $800 less that a 5.0. It also will outrun a 5.0 up a mountain all day. I now this because i test drove them both and it was no comparison. I see a lot of people think the 2.7 wont turn bigger tires, I used to have a 1998 ram 1500 with a little 318 that only had about 220hp and I used to run 35" tires on it with no problem. So I think the 325hp 2.7 will do just fine.

lumberjack_jack

Revx, I'm In the same boats as you, considering a 2.7 xlt 4x4 with 3.73 gears, but I like to run 285 duratracs. The surface feet is only 3.5 % between a 265 stock tire and 285, and I geuss the tread pattern eats some gas too, but as far as the extra width and weight etc, let's just call it all load on the engine, I think the 3.73 gears might make up for it. Btw, my interest in the 2.7 is more the construction vs the 3.5. It looks super innovative. And I've been reading decent mileage too in various media and forums. I have a 2012 5.0 now with 3.55 gears and I did take a bit of an mpg hit. I'm just guessing how much worse it would be with a boosted engine, or maybe not with the lower axel ratio...

lumberjack_jack

Also I will note the power comparison of 2.7 to 5.0 isn't close. 5.0 of course has more on paper but research pickuptrucks.com and motortrend articles, the 2.7 has faster quarter miles and when driving both trucks, the 2.7 is far more snappy and more exciting. The 5.0 in the 2015 doesn't add any wow factor from my current 5.0 (which I like) but I wouldn't exactly rush out to buy a 2015 wih a 5.0.

crew man

My dealer let me take out an XLT sport (crew), FX4 (3.73 locker) 2.7L ecoboost for a couple of hours. Everyone has described my thoughts, very snappy if you need it to be, very mellow if you don't. The auto start/stop was what I wanted to evaluate. I can say like many others on this forum it is very seemless and works well (you can always shut it off too). During my two hours of city driving, with a good mix of accelerating and "normal" driving, the fuel economy display was 13.7L/100km or ~17mpg (truck had 80km on it. Liked it so much, I ordered one up, 8-10 weeks and counting...

RevX

Thank you for being friendly and engaging the conversation.

I have almost new 285/70/17 Duratracs on my current 11 f150 and I'm going to transfer them over to the new truck and put the tires that come with the 15 on the old one which I'm trading in. I assume they still fit stock. I just can't take the donuts that it comes with. My current ecoboost didn't slow down one bit when they went on and I doubt the 2.7 will either. I don't need a rocket anyway. When I put them on I lost about 1L/100km. If I get the same on the 2.7 I'd be happy.

RevX

I've driven all three over the last two days. The larger ecoboost was sooo much fun to drive. The 2.7 was very snappy but a little loud. The 5.0 just didn't really impress in the driving manners but sounded good. I am really torn on which engine.

lumberjack_jack

1 -1.5 l/100 is about what I lost too. The nature of my drive is very little in town and a 150 km down a two lane highway to work and back. I only do about 105 but when I pas someone I do it quickly. I think the 2.7 sounds like a great option. Power when you want it and fuel economy for the highway. I still use my truck pretty hard with hauling a lot of weight and sometimes towing but those distances are always very short so thinking the 2.7 would meet those needs perfectly.

08SDGal

When hand calculating fuel economy, you have to be consistent. Due to differences in pumps, to be accurate, you have to use the same pump at the same station for comparisons.


When I did this, I found the readout on my Explorer Sport, and on my F250 V10 were so close to what I calculated, that it wasn't worth the time taken to do it. This was observed over extended periods of time/mileage.


Use different stations, different pumps, and YMMV. This does not mean the vehicle readout is incorrect. More likely, the calibration of the pump is different.