danii20

Direct injection, twin turbo, roller finger follower, direct acting mechanical bucket? Which engine is reliable? Aluminium, compacted iron?
Of what i know the aluminium engines are not trully easy to warm up so a compacted graphite iron engine seems easier to bring to an optimal temperature when doing short city driving? But the issue I see with the 2.7 is the direct injection and the roller finger follower. The roller finger followers, are they high rpm friendly? They say... Not so much.
http://themustangsource.com/forums/f...482730/index2/
The damb seems a better solution.

danii20

So I try to understand which of the 4 engines is reliable and performance wise but am having a tough time.
I will take the 4x4 XL trim supercrew 5-1/2' Box, 3.73 axle, as a configuration available throughout the entire range of engines.

3.5L V6 FFV Engine Payload:1,600 max. lbs. Towing Capability:7,100 max. lbs.Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm)253@4250 rpm

2.7L V6 EcoBoost® Engine Payload:1,960 max. lbs. Towing Capability: 8100 max. lbs. Torque (lb.-ft @rpm) 375@3000 rpm

5.0L Ti-VCT V8 Engine Payload:2,080 max. lb Towing Capability:10,900 max. lbs. Torque (lb.-ft @rpm) 387@3850 rpm

So the 3.5 FFV compared to the 2.7 Ecoboost can pull but can't carry? Compared to the 3.5 FFV the 2.7 can carry but can't pull (tow)despite the 375 pounds feet of torque it has.The 2.7 Ecoboost, compared to the 5.0 FFV V8, can carry but it can't pull (tow). Compared to the 2.7 Ecoboost, the 5.0 FFV V8 can pull (tow) but it can't carry. I doubt the realiability of the 2.7 Ecoboost, especially looking at coolant capacity which has an incredible ammount compared to the V8. Knowing that iron (compacted graphite iron) gets heated and reaches the operating temperature faster than aluminium is it ok to consider the 2.7 a city engine ?3.5L V6 FFV Engine Coolant Capacity (qt.)15.3
2.7L EcoBoost® V6 Coolant Capacity (qt.) 16.4
5.0L Ti-VCT V8 Coolant Capacity (qt.) 15.9

tanked_darren

Realistic reliability requires looking back at these trucks in the year 2025.

packplantpath

Agree. Unless it turns out one or more are junk early it will be hard to tell until the mikes rack. up

danii20

Okay, finished editing my previous post. Appologies for taking me so much.

Curmudgeon

Perusing the figures posted, there is a difference of less than 4 1/2 cups of coolant capacity between the three engines. Considering all the possible synergies involved in engine design, including oil sump capacity, related to achieving optimum engine operating temp as quickly as possible to reduce emissions, it would appear (to me) that one could overthink the effect of ~ 4.4 cups of coolant on engine reliability. Perhaps I'm missing something.

danii20

What do you believe? It is a lot of coolant for a V6 compared to the v8, considering the displacement as well?

Curmudgeon

Perhaps the 2.7 engine's manifold with integrated turbo coolant system requires a bit more plumbing.

danii20

so much that would exceed an engine almost double in displacement?

Curmudgeon

Can't answer that without a review of the two engine's architectures. The block structures and materials are totally different and the designer's thermal and other objectives are beyond my knowledge. My 3.0 Fusion engine has a coolant capacity of 10.6 QTS...sounds very miniscule, but...? To be candid, I was very surprised at such a small capacity. My Hyundai 1.6 engine contains 5.3 QTS, exactly half of the Fusion, but it warms up within blocks.