So for fun, I analyzed the dyno charts for the 2.7 (here) and 3.5 (here). The torque as recorded by the dyno has the 2.7 with more torque beneath 2600 rpm and a slightly lesser torque after 2600 rpm. I'm surprised that at ~2100 rpm, the 2.7 is measured to have more than twice the torque of the 3.5.

Data estimated the graphs for the 2.7 (3.5):
Torque @ 2100 rpm, 225 (100) ft lbs, 2.7 has 125% more torque
Torque @ 2250 rpm, 250 (200) ft lbs, 2.7 has 25% more torque
Torque @ 2500 rpm, 300 (290) ft lbs, 2.7 has 3% more torque
Torque @ 2750 rpm, 350 (360) ft lbs, 2.7 has 3% less torque
Torque @ 3000 rpm, 370 (385) ft lbs, 2.7 has 4% less torque
Torque @ 3500 rpm, 370 (400) ft lbs, 2.7 has 8% less torque
Torque @ 4000 rpm, 365 (375) ft lbs, 2.7 has 3% less torque
Torque @ 4500 rpm, 350 (365) ft lbs, 2.7 has 4% less torque
Torque @ 5000 rpm, 325 (330) ft lbs, 2.7 has 2% less torque
Torque @ 5500 rpm, 275 (275) ft lbs, 2.7 has the same torque

 

I'm far from an expert, but I don't believe the dynos are typically accurate down that low. If you believed those charts, neither engine was making any power until you hit 1500RPM. I don't know about yours, but my 3.5 makes some power at 1500RPM...

 

You have a point about the data at 1500 rpm, but I would be hoping that 5star wouldn't publish inaccurate graphs, especially since low-end torque is so commonly prized for this market.

(I don't have either a 2.7 or 3.5 ecoboost.)

 

Seat of the pants feel my 17 2.7 felt much faster and more pull then my new 18 3.5..... To be honest im extremely disappointed in the 3.5 eco, maybe its the 10 speed crap tranny.

 

Yeah, I'm wondering if the dyno charts explain the anecdotal statements that I've heard about the 2.7 feeling snappier. My feeling is that 90% of my normal driving is beneath 2500 rpm, so it appears that the 2.7 might be better for my uses.

 

IF it is accurate, it's probably because there's less lag from the turbos being mounted directly to the block. From what I've read and seen, the 3.5 turbos aren't, which results in a bit of lag. That's the only explanation I can come up.

 

Strikes me as a reasonable explanation.

 

The two graphs were likely done on different days, I don't thinks that is a good comparison.
Daily temps, pressure, humidity changes can result as much as 20-30 hp/ft-lbs or more from day to day. I would only use those charts for delta comparison on the same day for the same vehicle before and after a tune load.

 

Most of the reports I've read state the 2.7 does deliver more torque at lower RPMs than the 3.5.

 

Check out BMS' dyno on their 2018 2.7 with the JB4 installed. Map 1 is +4 PSI, Map 2 is +5 PSI. Freakin torque monster. Haven't seen a chart yet for the 3.5 motor with the JB4, but one is coming soon.



2018 F150 2.7l Dyno