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! |
Originally Posted by Fx2.7
(Post 6069308)
I’ve had two 2.7s. I liked (lloved) the first one so much when l bought a 2018 after my 2015 the only engine l would consider was another 2.7 Lariat 501. I would like a Platinum with its 450 HP but the moonroof and 72 grand, no thanks. |
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 |
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. |
My experience was nothing but great with the 2015 2-7. 48k miles and zero issues and peppy as all get out. But I am torn between a 2-7 CC 5/5 and a 3.5 CC 6/5.
|
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.
|
To the OP, why did you feel the little, small 2.7 needed any "defending"? I sure don't feel like my 5.0 needs defending.
|
Originally Posted by Summers22
(Post 6069539)
To the OP, why did you feel the little, small 2.7 needed any "defending"? I sure don't feel like my 5.0 needs defending.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by jame9259
(Post 6069561)
My biggest concern is durability, which seems pretty positive so far.
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. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands