2.7 vs 3.5 Ecoboost I Own Both!
08-31-2019, 01:18 AM
#221
That said I like standard because I can use it as a baseline for sea level standard conditions at the dragstrip.
08-31-2019, 01:55 AM
#222
I agree!
And disagree!
I think the "feel" has more to do with the driving mode than actual power. I was surprised that the 2.7 felt just as peppy as the 3.5. But that was with both in normal mode. I think normal mode for the 2.7 is more aggressive with throttle response and how the tranny shifts. In sport mode the 3.5 is a completely different truck. I didn't notice as big of a change with the 2.7. Ultimately to get the payload / towing the 2.7 wasn't an option, but it was still fun to test em all!!!
And disagree!
I think the "feel" has more to do with the driving mode than actual power. I was surprised that the 2.7 felt just as peppy as the 3.5. But that was with both in normal mode. I think normal mode for the 2.7 is more aggressive with throttle response and how the tranny shifts. In sport mode the 3.5 is a completely different truck. I didn't notice as big of a change with the 2.7. Ultimately to get the payload / towing the 2.7 wasn't an option, but it was still fun to test em all!!!
08-31-2019, 12:39 PM
#223
I agree!
And disagree!
I think the "feel" has more to do with the driving mode than actual power. I was surprised that the 2.7 felt just as peppy as the 3.5. But that was with both in normal mode. I think normal mode for the 2.7 is more aggressive with throttle response and how the tranny shifts. In sport mode the 3.5 is a completely different truck. I didn't notice as big of a change with the 2.7. Ultimately to get the payload / towing the 2.7 wasn't an option, but it was still fun to test em all!!!
And disagree!
I think the "feel" has more to do with the driving mode than actual power. I was surprised that the 2.7 felt just as peppy as the 3.5. But that was with both in normal mode. I think normal mode for the 2.7 is more aggressive with throttle response and how the tranny shifts. In sport mode the 3.5 is a completely different truck. I didn't notice as big of a change with the 2.7. Ultimately to get the payload / towing the 2.7 wasn't an option, but it was still fun to test em all!!!
Also, if you guys hadn't came across the following video, check it out. I found it interesting, entertaining, and was a bit surprised with the results.
Last edited by Rooski; 08-31-2019 at 12:42 PM.
09-06-2019, 09:38 AM
#224
Thanks a lot guys, as usual this place rocks.
I did notice when the sales person started the truck that that nice sound was no longer. Ah well, I could always upgrade the exhaust if need be.
After all the reading, I'm leaning on the 2.7 short box. If after a while I miss the long box to much I can always trade it in. But you are right that it will be a "little" easier in tight parking and for hauling stuff I can always drop the tailgate.
I have to make a decision in the coming weeks. I'll keep you guys posted. Its kinda of a shame as my 2010 XLT 5.4 with 280,000 km is still going strong "minus the rust that started this spring".
Dealer only offered me $3K
which is a shame for a still solid but old truck.
I did notice when the sales person started the truck that that nice sound was no longer. Ah well, I could always upgrade the exhaust if need be.
After all the reading, I'm leaning on the 2.7 short box. If after a while I miss the long box to much I can always trade it in. But you are right that it will be a "little" easier in tight parking and for hauling stuff I can always drop the tailgate.
I have to make a decision in the coming weeks. I'll keep you guys posted. Its kinda of a shame as my 2010 XLT 5.4 with 280,000 km is still going strong "minus the rust that started this spring".
Dealer only offered me $3K
which is a shame for a still solid but old truck.
09-06-2019, 12:09 PM
#225
09-07-2019, 01:08 PM
#226
I noticed some negatives on mpg. Some seem to have mpg issues but not all.
2015 Scab 4x4 2.7EB 6R80 3.55 22.1 mpg (24.5 mpg best tank)
2015 Screw 4x4 3.5EB 6R80 3 31 (23.9 mpg best tank)
Not my truck.
2016 Screw 4x2 2.7EB 6R80 3.15 (27.3 mpg best tank)
Not my truck.
2018 Screw 4x4 3.5EB 10R80 3.55 20.5 mpg (24.1 mpg best tank)
All Hand Calculated Non-Towing.
The 2.7EB was quicker from a standstill and more responsive than a Gen I 3.5EB.
The Gen I 3.5EB was stronger in a steady pull but not a lot.
At 12500 GCW the Gen I 2.7EB would pass a Gen I 3.5EB at 14500 GCW on a 6-7% Grade.
The tow ratings for the 2.7EB are more conservative than the 3.5EB.
A 18 2.7EB at 14300 GCW willl have better braking, stability and greater speed than a 3.5EB at 18400.
Remember J2807 only prohibits over-rating. They can test with as little weight as they choose. Compare the 3.3L 3.73 with the 2.7EB 3.55 if you really think the 2.7EB isn't rated pretty conservatively.
2015 Scab 4x4 2.7EB 6R80 3.55 22.1 mpg (24.5 mpg best tank)
2015 Screw 4x4 3.5EB 6R80 3 31 (23.9 mpg best tank)
Not my truck.
2016 Screw 4x2 2.7EB 6R80 3.15 (27.3 mpg best tank)
Not my truck.
2018 Screw 4x4 3.5EB 10R80 3.55 20.5 mpg (24.1 mpg best tank)
All Hand Calculated Non-Towing.
The 2.7EB was quicker from a standstill and more responsive than a Gen I 3.5EB.
The Gen I 3.5EB was stronger in a steady pull but not a lot.
At 12500 GCW the Gen I 2.7EB would pass a Gen I 3.5EB at 14500 GCW on a 6-7% Grade.
The tow ratings for the 2.7EB are more conservative than the 3.5EB.
A 18 2.7EB at 14300 GCW willl have better braking, stability and greater speed than a 3.5EB at 18400.
Remember J2807 only prohibits over-rating. They can test with as little weight as they choose. Compare the 3.3L 3.73 with the 2.7EB 3.55 if you really think the 2.7EB isn't rated pretty conservatively.
Last edited by Gene K; 09-07-2019 at 01:13 PM.
