Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans

Topic Sponsor
2015 - 2020 Ford F150 General discussion on the 13th generation Ford F150 truck.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

In defense of the 2.7 ecoboost

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-13-2019, 05:20 PM
  #111  
Senior Member
 
w00t692's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 2,229
Received 612 Likes on 439 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by bisonp
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.
The 3.5 HO in the newer raptor has a relatively similar gap in torque vs it's rated output, but a very similar gap to the 2.7 in horsepower (360 hp vs 450 rated hp and 390 tq vs 510 rated torque)

Honestly the torque from the raptor on the dyno is most likely from the big *** tires as you suspect.
w00t692 is offline  
Reply Like
Old 02-13-2019, 06:40 PM
  #112  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kehyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 971
Received 221 Likes on 131 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by doug97gxe
nobody buys a v8 for fuel economy .. nobody buys a truck for fuel economy either
I did, perhaps you don't know truck buyers as well as you think.
kehyler is offline  
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
Lancer463 (08-15-2020)
Old 02-13-2019, 06:47 PM
  #113  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kehyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 971
Received 221 Likes on 131 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by doug97gxe
????

Model: 2019 Ford F-150
MSRP: $39,200
MPG: 19 city / 24 highway
Horsepower: 325 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Towing capacity: 5,000 lbs
Engine: 2.7 L V6
Curb weight: 4,770 lbs
Payload: 1,730 lbs

Model: 2019 Ford F-150
MSRP: $47,475
MPG: 17 city / 23 highway
Horsepower: 375 hp @ 5,000 rpm
Towing capacity: 7,000 lbs
Engine: 3.5 L V6
Curb weight: 4,928 lbs
Fuel tank capacity: 23 gal

Model: 2019 Ford F-150
MSRP: $43,500
MPG: 17 city / 23 highway
Horsepower: 395 hp @ 5,750 rpm
Towing capacity: 5,000 lbs
Engine: 5.0 L V8
Curb weight: 4,644 lbs
Payload: 1,856 lbs
People should be aware that doug97gxe has not made a fair comparison when he presented the two wheel drive mpg for the 5.0L against the four wheel drive versions of the ecoboosts...the correct numbers for the 5.0 V8 are 16/22.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41028.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41036.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41034.shtml


kehyler is offline  
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
isthatahemi (03-20-2020)
Old 02-13-2019, 06:51 PM
  #114  
Senior Member
 
doug97gxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 4,736
Received 1,919 Likes on 1,143 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kehyler
People should be aware that doug97gxe has not made a fair comparison when he presented the two wheel drive mpg for the 5.0L against the four wheel drive versions of the ecoboosts...the correct numbers for the 5.0 V8 are 16/22.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41028.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41036.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41034.shtml
relax dude.. i used google .. that's what google said.. and its 1 whole MPG difference .. that's some ground breaking correction you brought to us
doug97gxe is offline  
Reply Like
Old 02-13-2019, 06:52 PM
  #115  
Senior Member
 
doug97gxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 4,736
Received 1,919 Likes on 1,143 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kehyler
I did, perhaps you don't know truck buyers as well as you think.
forgive me.. i forgot to turn on my sarcasm font
doug97gxe is offline  
Reply Like
Old 02-13-2019, 07:03 PM
  #116  
18 SCrew 2.7 2WD
 
BierNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 235
Received 89 Likes on 60 Posts
Default
Loathe as I am to wade into this thread - on defense of the 2.7 I'll say this; I just found myself lined-up next to both a Silverado and Ram at the stoplight, and my fat Lariat SuperCrew 2.7 left both of them in the dust. It wasn't even close.

I love this truck, and this engine.
BierNut is offline  
Reply Like
The following 3 users liked this post by BierNut:
Boostr (02-22-2019), kehyler (02-13-2019), Slvr (04-14-2019)
Old 02-13-2019, 07:15 PM
  #117  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kehyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 971
Received 221 Likes on 131 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by teejg
...For me the V8's are no longer an option when considering economy. Conclusion... towing 10% of the time an keeping the truck less than 100k miles, the 2.7 is fine. ..
Originally Posted by doug97gxe
relax dude.. i used google .. that's what google said.. and its 1 whole MPG difference .. that's some ground breaking correction you brought to us
teejg is correct. The difference between 18 and 19 mpg combined represents roughly $12/month in extra fuel costs (using 15k miles/year). That combined with the $1k upfront cost to get the V8, over 10 years, has a total opportunity cost about $3,500.

I'm glad you like the 5.0 L, honestly. I bet I'd smile hearing it growl to a start, my 2.7 sounds like an angry lawn mower. The only thing I'm hopefully helping you see is that you shouldn't turn your nose at people who crunch the numbers and make a different economic choice for themselves. $3.5k matters to a lot of people.
kehyler is offline  
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
blkZ28spt (05-12-2019)
Old 02-13-2019, 07:22 PM
  #118  
Senior Member
 
doug97gxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 4,736
Received 1,919 Likes on 1,143 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kehyler
teejg is correct. The difference between 18 and 19 mpg combined represents roughly $12/month in extra fuel costs (using 15k miles/year). That combined with the $1k upfront cost to get the V8, over 10 years, has a total opportunity cost about $3,500.

I'm glad you like the 5.0 L, honestly. I bet I'd smile hearing it growl to a start, my 2.7 sounds like an angry lawn mower. The only thing I'm hopefully helping you see is that you shouldn't turn your nose at people who crunch the numbers and make a different economic choice for themselves. $3.5k matters to a lot of people.
i have no problem with any engine anyone wants to buy .. what i do however is call people out on saying they picked an engine for fuel economy or budget reasons .. you can't budget on gas .. gas prices go up and down .. people take trips unexpected .. etc .. someone said they bought a 2.7 because they wanted one.. it was the best answer i heard.. no excuse.. no bs reason.. just straight up.. thats why i bought it .. i bought a 5.0 for power potential .. when i bought my Audi S5 in 2014 i took it over the v8 RS5 because with a smaller pulley and tune it ran high 10's low 11's while the RS5 was still stuck in 13's

i'm not buying the whole bought a 2.7 for 1-2 mpg less than a 5.0 or 3.5 that's just stupid
doug97gxe is offline  
Reply Like
Old 02-13-2019, 07:25 PM
  #119  
18 SCrew 2.7 2WD
 
BierNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 235
Received 89 Likes on 60 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by doug97gxe
what i do however is call people out on saying they picked an engine for fuel economy or budget reasons
Why?
BierNut is offline  
Reply Like
The following users liked this post:
Lancer463 (08-15-2020)
Old 02-13-2019, 07:25 PM
  #120  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kehyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 971
Received 221 Likes on 131 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by doug97gxe
i have no problem with any engine anyone wants to buy .. what i do however is call people out on saying they picked an engine for fuel economy or budget reasons .. you can't budget on gas .. gas prices go up and down .. people take trips unexpected .. etc .. someone said they bought a 2.7 because they wanted one.. it was the best answer i heard.. no excuse.. no bs reason.. just straight up.. thats why i bought it .. i bought a 5.0 for power potential .. when i bought my Audi S5 in 2014 i took it over the v8 RS5 because with a smaller pulley and tune it ran high 10's low 11's while the RS5 was still stuck in 13's

i'm not buying the whole bought a 2.7 for 1-2 mpg cheaper than a 5.0 or 3.5 that's just stupid
It’s not stupid, feel free double check my math if you like.
kehyler is offline  
Reply Like
The following 4 users liked this post by kehyler:
blkZ28spt (05-12-2019), finsfan21 (02-14-2019), isthatahemi (03-20-2020), Slvr (04-14-2019)



Advanced Search
Quick Reply: In defense of the 2.7 ecoboost


Reply Closed Thread Share

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:16 PM.