Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans - In defense of the 2.7 ecoboost

- 2015 - 2020 Ford F150 (https://www.f150forum.com/f118/)

- - In defense of the 2.7 ecoboost (https://www.f150forum.com/f118/defense-2-7-ecoboost-437611/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug97gxe (Post 6091592)

you consider 70 hp difference close in power?

To be fair, the torque numbers are the same, and the 2.7 makes it lower. As far as "feel" goes, they probably do feel similar.

Who buys a V8 for fuel economy?

While the manufacturer's mpg look similar, every one I know didn't get the V8 for fuel economy reasons. They are Old School, they like the sound of a V8, they want the extra peak HP. Inevitably all those reasons are why their real world MPG figures end up lower than the manufacturer's mpg. There is no denying the future is smaller displacement with comparable power. Add electric to the mix and we have a whole other topic.

Keep in mind I did highlight FOR ME. I personally no longer consider a V8 for fuel economy. AND in the 21st century I do not recall reading an "I bought a V8 to save money on fuel" article.

nobody buys a v8 for fuel economy .. nobody buys a truck for fuel economy either

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug97gxe (Post 6091761)

nobody buys a v8 for fuel economy .. nobody buys a truck for fuel economy either

Pretty much this. I bought mine because I wanted it, and it getting 17-18 real world MPG is a bonus, that wasn't possible with the capability level of V-8 trucks of even a decade ago.

Got mines cause wife wanted the dual moon roof. Damn wife

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug97gxe (Post 6091761)

nobody buys a v8 for fuel economy .. nobody buys a truck for fuel economy either

It's called ancillary benefits to something you already like. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tn6478 (Post 6091860)

Got mines cause wife wanted the dual moon roof. Damn wife

my wife asked why do i need a truck.. that's stupid and doesn't make sense .. but so far i've hauled 3 christmas trees (2 different occasions) and recently this weekend all her plastic bins to her mom's house for storage

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...93c66c7179.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68injunhed (Post 6069657)

To be fair, his last sentence does say "to make the same power"...the 6.2L makes substantially more than the 2.7, so it would stand to reason it would use more fuel, especially in a much heavier vehicle like the Raptor.

You know... you'd think that but the 6.2's actual output to the wheels is lower than the 2.7 in torque. The 6.2 is quite overrated. Rated at 411 hp 434 tq in the raptor... It makes this much power in reality:
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...5e99aeebea.jpg

The 2.7 is rated at 325 hp and 375 tq and it makes:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...084f0e4587.jpg

These are only to show the comparison to rated horsepower when stock.

The 6.2 makes 290 hp and 315 tq stock, that's 29.5% difference from rated horsepower or 411 and 27.5% difference from rated torque or 434 (in the raptor which is what the dyno above is from)

By contrast, the 2.7 ecoboost makes 260 hp and 325 tq stock, that's 20% difference on rated horsepower or 325 and 13.4% difference on rated torque or 375

The 6.2 is not even close to it's rated power.

I am not commenting on any other aspect of this post, just this specific comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t692 (Post 6091935)

The 6.2 makes 290 hp and 315 tq stock, that's 29.5% difference from rated horsepower or 411 and 27.5% difference from rated torque or 434 (in the raptor which is what the dyno above is from)

By contrast, the 2.7 ecoboost makes 260 hp and 325 tq stock, that's 20% difference on rated horsepower or 325 and 13.4% difference on rated torque or 375

That's interesting. I'm sure the Raptor's heavy wheels and tires have something to do with that but I wouldn't think they'd make that big of a difference. Maybe I guess.