Sad to see the 2.7 Eco Boost Regrets Thread Locked!!!
07-05-2016, 01:03 AM
#61
Senior Member
Thread Starter
07-05-2016, 07:12 AM
#62
Senior Member
I don't think it's gone past 8 psi. But I haven't been hammering on it.
07-05-2016, 04:04 PM
#63
Junior Member
Why is the 2.7 w/payload and 3.73's only rated for 8,200lbs instead of 12,000lbs. It has the same brakes,frame and axles as the 3.5 eco I presume.
Not taking payload into consideration, it seems to have the hp/tq to get the job done. Not that I would feel comfortable with that much weight.
I think Ford may have underrated it or the cooling system may not be up to the task.
Not taking payload into consideration, it seems to have the hp/tq to get the job done. Not that I would feel comfortable with that much weight.
I think Ford may have underrated it or the cooling system may not be up to the task.
07-05-2016, 04:19 PM
#64
Why is the 2.7 w/payload and 3.73's only rated for 8,200lbs instead of 12,000lbs. It has the same brakes,frame and axles as the 3.5 eco I presume.
Not taking payload into consideration, it seems to have the hp/tq to get the job done. Not that I would feel comfortable with that much weight.
I think Ford may have underrated it or the cooling system may not be up to the task.
Not taking payload into consideration, it seems to have the hp/tq to get the job done. Not that I would feel comfortable with that much weight.
I think Ford may have underrated it or the cooling system may not be up to the task.
07-05-2016, 04:42 PM
#66
Why is the 2.7 w/payload and 3.73's only rated for 8,200lbs instead of 12,000lbs. It has the same brakes,frame and axles as the 3.5 eco I presume.
Not taking payload into consideration, it seems to have the hp/tq to get the job done. Not that I would feel comfortable with that much weight.
I think Ford may have underrated it or the cooling system may not be up to the task.
Not taking payload into consideration, it seems to have the hp/tq to get the job done. Not that I would feel comfortable with that much weight.
I think Ford may have underrated it or the cooling system may not be up to the task.
Last edited by MagNitto; 07-05-2016 at 05:31 PM.
The following users liked this post:
rocketsurgeon (07-05-2016)
07-11-2016, 01:17 PM
#67
Junior Member
Love my 2.7 EB . No longer tow a travel trailer . Actually traded in my previous truck for an SUV but missed the truck too much. So when the opportunity to buy a 2015 2.7 EB came up , I jumped. The truck is peppy , fun to drive and hey , it's still a truck . AND I love the terrific mileage. SCrew 4x4 23 mpg highway and 18 mpg city. Never thought I would see that in a 1/2 ton truck . I have never driven the 3.5 EB but the 2.7 is all I need right now and I would highly recommend it
The following users liked this post:
MotorsportsAustin (07-12-2016)
07-11-2016, 11:08 PM
#68
Senior Member
So here's something I've been trying to figure out about the EB 2.7 and the auto start/stop. When I start the engine with the start button, it's distinctly different from when it starts from an auto stop. It's almost like the engine is pre charged or something because it seems to turnover faster. Anyone have ideas?
07-11-2016, 11:29 PM
#69
I have gone on two dealer trades and pick up up two two wheel drive 2.7 3.31 and myself and the other driver driving avg 70 mph I got 18.2 mpg and he got 18.7.
I drove my 4x4 5.0 3.55 avg 75mph back from Tulsa and got 21.2 ...
That's right glad I have the 5.0
I drove my 4x4 5.0 3.55 avg 75mph back from Tulsa and got 21.2 ...
That's right glad I have the 5.0
The following users liked this post:
Mikemeek (07-11-2016)