11,000 miles
 

I love this 2.7! Zero problems and pulls my Jayco Jayfeather 23RB (5K pounds) effortlessly. Averaging 22MPGs. I wouldn’t hesitate to get another one.

[QUOTE=koach;6202933]Not sure I buy into the weight vs power comparison. Inherently you're going to have X mass for any engine. Plus, not sure about the other engines, but I've read that the exhaust manifold is integrated into the block of the 2.7 so that could explain some additional weight./QUOTE]

Exhaust manifolds are built into the heads not the block. Because of this they are also water cooled keeping the the turbo temp down as well. As for weight having the manifolds integrated into the heads should save weight vs having a bolt on part.
The best part of the 2.7 even though it makes it much heavier is the CGI block instead of aluminum. CGI -Compacted Graphite Iron block, offset connecting rods, bowled pistons, reinforced ring seats and more are all diesel inspired features that make the 2.7 one tough little engine.
Note of interest: The Cummins and Powerstroke both have the offset connecting rods. The Duramax uses standard passenger car configuration and is not as beefy as the other two. This info with pics from bobtheoilguy.

https://www.wardsauto.com/engines/20...twin-turbo-v-6

Does the second gen 3.5 eco have all these updates.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...185cf3c41d.png

The 3.5 does not have a CGI block. It has had the 10 speed since 2017. The second gen has dual port injection and I would guess other things on that list just not sure.

[QUOTE=KWS 2.7;6203546]Yeah, that's what I meant lol. Sorry, didn't check for technical accuracy before posting, but the point remains the same- integrated vs bolt on 'should' provide some sort of weight savings. Although, I must admit, I'm a bit sketchy regarding non-metallic oil/trans fluid pans and plastic drain plug. Let's make everything as light as possible for the engine as a until and then add metallic plates for protection...?

Agree. Most people can't tell you how many cylinders the engine in their daily driver has, let alone anything else about it.

They seem to have mashed together facts from both engines. As far as I know the 3.5 does not have CGI and the 2.7 does not have electric actuators while the 3.5 does.

Added more comparisons to the 3.0L diesels in the half-tonne class. The 3.0L diesels now output more torque/L than the 2.7 ecoboost.

The 2.7 definitely has electronic actuators while the 3.5 does not.

Update to include some additional links in the opening post.