Hello viewers. First time posting, just joined forum. I have had a 1990 F150 almost since it was new.

I'm considering buying a new F150. I am thinking 2.7 regular cab with 8 foot bed. Really want supercab but the turning radius is horrible. (if anyone is up for a challenge, i couldn't find online what the turning radius is on a 1987-1991 F150 regular cab/8-foot).

I've read 2.7 is more fun in daily driving. I drove one a year ago and thought it was great. Yesterday i drove a 5.0 and 3.5 eco. I hated the 3.5 fake engine grunt.

I think i read somewhere that the 2.7 would be rated at less payload than a 3.5. Why would that be? I'd think that payload capacity would only vary based on non-engine mechanicals (like wheels, tires, suspension). I use the truck mostly to transfer cut logs a short distance, just using once every couple months, so a decent carrying capacity it important for me. I am on some steep hills too. My 1990 seems to do fine on it.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

Because they want you to pony up for the 3.5 ecoboost. No other reason the payload is less. Some here will try to justify it one way or another, but its marketing.

The 2.7 is perfectly capable of hauling 1500 lbs, but Ford figured they would make it into a family hauler instead of a power plant that can haul a good load or a 6k lb travel trailer.

You can get the 2.7 payload package to bump it up to the same for the 3.5 ecoboost, but you have to get the 3.73 rear end ratio. Because people still believe you need the "towing" gears with a 6 or 10 speed transmission. My 2007 3.31 rear end 5.4 with the 4speed couldn't hold a candle to my 2015 3.5 ecoboost nor could my 2010 5.4 3.73 rear end FX4. JMO

 

I asked the same question a while ago, and while I don't remember all the answers, one that stuck to my mind was the rear end difference. The 2.7's I believe all use the 8.8" rear end, while the 3.5eb's use the 9.75" rear end. The 8.8" rear end is the one that has the e brake instead of the manual brake, like the larger rear end.
At least that's the only answer that made sense to me. There is not a whole lot of difference in the brake itself (the 8.8 brakes are a little bit thinner and smaller in diameter), but the bigger question was the stability of the axle tubes themselves. The smaller rear end may exhibit bowing with larger loads (I have seen that on older trucks) plus maybe the bearings themselves are not as strong. I can't remember if the 2.7 payload package includes the larger rear end or not. If it did then that would be the way to go.
I can attest that the supercab turning radius sucks. Even compared to my old 99 supercab. I don't know if it's something safety related, a design decision, but I definitely can't turn into my parking spot as easily as I used to with the 99.
I also had an 89 f150 (long bed regular cab), and that one had a better turning radius also.

 

Question were you intending on getting the super cab with the 8ft bed - or with the 6.5ft bed. That's were the turning radius matters most. As you would add 2 ft to your wheelbase. Otherwise get the supercab with the 6.5ft bed and I think you'd like it fine. Unless you have a real need for the full 8ft length - since the payloads are the same I would think you could easily work around that - but I don't know what you do or use the truck for.

This is a major part of the equation yes. The rear end is different between the 2 - and part of where they get some of the efficiency in the 2.7L model.

For most of us Suburbanite home dwellers this works very well. I don't tow anything over 6000 lbs - and don't intend to anytime in the near future. But I haul stuff a bit - and I drive it mostly empty - most of the time.

however.

When designing the driveline of a vehicle (any vehicle) part of those equations that allow for bearing size, shaft sizes etc you factor not only the loads on the system. But you have to make sure you check the loads put on the engines bearings. IE if you could stall out the engine (and you can) while the prop shaft, u joints, differential, . . . can tolerate _______. The engine seeing that load though the torque converter (if it's locked up) would be _______. Can the engine bearings tolerate __________ without damage to the engine?


If that answer is yes - bickety bam somewhere in the driveline is your weak sister. - great proceed to certification.

If that answer is NO - crap on a cracker - work backwards and lessen the capacities of the back in or in the transmission etc such that you get to the weaker sister is in the driveline.

This is where the 2.7L setup falls - It is meant for guys like me - suburbanite home dwellers - and it shines. But the F150 is the heaviest device it goes into for a reason. So yes it's less capable when it comes to towing because of the loads across the driveline vs what the bearings of the engine can tolerate. And that's fine - for most of us.

The 5.0 and the 3.5 were designed with much higher torque curves in mind and have the bearings to support that - so they support higher driveline requirements too - which leads to supporting better towing etc etc.

 

My 2 cents....

The 2.7 makes at least 100 more HP and probably 150 more tq than your old truck. It shouldn't be a problem for the same types of jobs.

Get the truck you want now and keep the old truck for hauling logs and misc things.

 

This is the best advice!

 

Made my day