In defense of the 2.7 ecoboost
01-27-2019, 08:54 AM
#31
Senior Member
Thread Starter
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:
BadBoy4fun_wa (06-25-2019)
01-27-2019, 08:54 AM
#32
Senior Member
Thread Starter
01-27-2019, 08:56 AM
#33
Senior Member
Thread Starter
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.
01-27-2019, 08:58 AM
#34
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Not sure why the 2.7 needs defending. It’s a ford engine. Ford is trustworthy.
theres a guy on this forum with a 2.7 and over 200k Miles, with basic maintenance. So the 2.7 is great.
I am a 5.0 guy, I’ve had 2. I have also driven a 2.7 for 26k happy miles.
It’s like a big running back vs a tight end. Similar weight, one is quick, the other has top end speed
theres a guy on this forum with a 2.7 and over 200k Miles, with basic maintenance. So the 2.7 is great.
I am a 5.0 guy, I’ve had 2. I have also driven a 2.7 for 26k happy miles.
It’s like a big running back vs a tight end. Similar weight, one is quick, the other has top end speed
The following users liked this post:
John Neese (03-21-2020)
01-27-2019, 09:10 AM
#35
Senior Member
i think the 2.7 topic has been beaten to death already so nobody is commenting .. some 2.7 owners said they bought it for gas mileage.. we dispelled that myth in another thread where gas mileage is so close between engines driving style could change that. Then we had some 2.7 owners said they will save on gas yearly vs buying a bigger engine .. we dispelled that myth when you can't really budget on gas as gas prices change and life changes.. people take trips.. a monthly gas budget is not realistic when choosing a means of transportation when the MPG is so close between each other. Nobody will admit they bought it because it was cheaper and they didn't want to spend more so for now everyone is tired of engine topic dancing
i bought the 2.7 because it was cheaper. Although I wouldn’t have if it wasn’t so impressive in a test drive. I went to the lot
knowing I didn’t want the n/a 6 or the 2.7. But it was cheaper and impressive.
The following 3 users liked this post by 2.7ecobeast:
01-27-2019, 10:12 AM
#36
Senior Member
It is not a myth. EPA & Fuelly.com averages show about a 10-15% increase between the 2.7 and 3.5 and 5.0. I once calculated the cost to my net worth by upsizing the engine when I didn't need it. Overall, it was like 10k to go up to the 3.5 over the 10-15 years I plan to own this truck. For those that don't need/want the extra engine, its a great way to lower cost of operation.
If you baby the 2.7 around town or never change lanes on the highway yeah you will see the numbers .. but in a real world environment the 2.7 will see 1-2 MPG better in city driving and 2-3 MPG worse on the highway. The reason for this is that it takes the 3.5/5.0 less power to change lanes than the 2.7 does and when you hit the gas and the turbo's spool to change lanes your MPG drop.. this isn't my theory 2.7 owners have reported worse mileage on the highway.
reminds me of my buddy who had a 600 cc and ran out of gas because he assume that my other friend and i on 1000's were going to use the same amount of gas on the highway AND he had a fuel gauge
01-27-2019, 10:13 AM
#37
Senior Member
this is the response i respect.. plain and simple.. it was cheaper and does what i need it to do.. plain and simple .. no MPG here .. no blah blah there.. real direct and to the point.. i have no issues with the 2.7 i like it.. i think its impressive .. i just feel people need to stop making excuses why they bought one and just be direct like you are
01-27-2019, 11:26 AM
#38
I had a 01 5.4 2V with 198K, a 07 F150 5.4 3V with 168K and a 07 Expedition 5.4 3V with 135K and absolutely no issues. Sure, the timing system isn't ideal, but mine were flawless. Of course. I changed my oil/filter every 3K and took care of them. So many people neglect them, then bitch.
Last edited by ModularFord; 01-27-2019 at 11:28 AM.
01-27-2019, 11:28 AM
#39
Turbo --> :-)
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.
01-27-2019, 11:38 AM
#40
Same reason we put 502 CID V8s in the boats, at cruising rpm (3,200-3,500) it’s more efficient than a boosted gasoline engine under that constant load.
Last edited by ModularFord; 01-27-2019 at 11:49 AM.