In defense of the 2.7 ecoboost
01-26-2019, 09:23 PM
#11
I have a 5.0 wouldn't have it any other way.
One of my buddies has the 3.5 tuned he would not have it any other way.
Another good friend just picked up a 2.7 for the gas mileage, he wouldn't have it any other way.
Lots of good choices, not a bad situation to be in!
One of my buddies has the 3.5 tuned he would not have it any other way.
Another good friend just picked up a 2.7 for the gas mileage, he wouldn't have it any other way.
Lots of good choices, not a bad situation to be in!
The following 19 users liked this post by Fly50:
#1SaintsFan (05-20-2019),
2015rubyFX4 (02-25-2020),
fatty 239 (03-21-2020),
HangDiver (01-28-2019),
huntsonora (07-03-2020),
and 14 others liked this post.
01-26-2019, 09:24 PM
#12
I think you have to get a Limited or Raptor to get the 450hp edition of the 3.5 eco. I could be wrong—wouldn’t be the first time.
01-26-2019, 10:36 PM
#13
Senior Member
The weight to size to power ratios mean very little. Consider the wide cubic inch variety of a small block Chevy 283 to 400 cubic inches. The range of factory horsepower from the same basic block configuration.Same applies to many manufactures engine lines. Opposite end of the spectrum consider the 5.9 Cummings medium diesel in the same ratios.
I do favor the 2.7, think it an very strong and potent power-plant, but consider the original post caparison fairly meaningless. KM
I do favor the 2.7, think it an very strong and potent power-plant, but consider the original post caparison fairly meaningless. KM
01-26-2019, 11:02 PM
#14
There’s only so much energy that can be created from burning fuel and oxygen. It doesn’t matter wether it’s from large displacement or small displacement with turbo or supercharger. The power delivery profile is usually the biggest difference. Today’s engines are pretty close to their peek efficiency with the technologies available. Using a small boosted engine saves little to no fuel compared to a larger displacement engine because it still takes the same amount of fuel to get the same amount of power.
The following 2 users liked this post by user 83720:
2018tj (05-13-2019),
John Neese (03-21-2020)
01-26-2019, 11:25 PM
#16
IMO the comparison is woefully incomplete. It only gives the result of the differing designs without delving into the implications. For a true comparison I'd be looking at things like bearing pressure per square inch of bearing area, cylinder pressures, piston speeds, rod ratios, and so on. While I'm a fan of the motor in general, a true engine comparison needs to take into account the amount of stress and structural headroom in the design. This is especially true when dealing with a truck motor where a lower stressed engine is more desirable.
The following users liked this post:
OCMike (01-28-2019)
01-26-2019, 11:47 PM
#18
The following 7 users liked this post by JaredC01:
finsfan21 (01-26-2019),
FloppyRunner (04-24-2021),
isthatahemi (03-20-2020),
jetrep (04-18-2019),
mizzouxc (02-13-2019),
and 2 others liked this post.
01-27-2019, 12:24 AM
#19
My biggest concern is durability, which seems pretty positive so far.
It's an age old problem, across the spectrum of nearly all industry: How do you get more power out of smaller and smaller motors? The question applies to cars and trucks, tractors, and drones. Cameras, printers, and lawn mowers. Everyone seeks the most satisfying power to size ratio, and the limits are constantly stretched, surpassed, and somewhat limited, just by the simple power limitations that physics define.
In other words, just like other trucks I've had:
I'll just drive the wheels off of it.
It's an age old problem, across the spectrum of nearly all industry: How do you get more power out of smaller and smaller motors? The question applies to cars and trucks, tractors, and drones. Cameras, printers, and lawn mowers. Everyone seeks the most satisfying power to size ratio, and the limits are constantly stretched, surpassed, and somewhat limited, just by the simple power limitations that physics define.
In other words, just like other trucks I've had:
I'll just drive the wheels off of it.
The following 3 users liked this post by jame9259:
01-27-2019, 12:52 AM
#20
Senior Member
After owning a 5.4, I had absolutely no confidence that Ford can build a reliable modern V8. I've had turbos before, they don't worry me near as much as Ford's variable valve timing systems. A worry well placed, if other threads are any indication.
2.7 is cheaper, more available on the lots, and returns better economy than the 3.5 or 5.0 while being nearly if not just as fast. No need to defend it, it's best in class by a mile compared to the competition. It does come with limited payload and towing, but that's where the other two come in. Choices are a good thing, each engine has its strong points.
2.7 is cheaper, more available on the lots, and returns better economy than the 3.5 or 5.0 while being nearly if not just as fast. No need to defend it, it's best in class by a mile compared to the competition. It does come with limited payload and towing, but that's where the other two come in. Choices are a good thing, each engine has its strong points.
The following 4 users liked this post by bisonp: