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

TruckTrend Drives a 2.7 SCrew

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-29-2014, 09:39 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
countrysquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 631
Received 204 Likes on 136 Posts
Default TruckTrend Drives a 2.7 SCrew

http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/...t_first_drive/
The following 5 users liked this post by countrysquire:
milchuck (09-30-2014), Misterwlm (09-29-2014), MP15TDriver (09-29-2014), nihilus (09-30-2014), qdangvo (10-01-2014)
Old 09-29-2014, 10:00 PM
  #2  
Patent Pending
 
MP15TDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 443
Received 226 Likes on 94 Posts

Default

Thanks.

I would have thought that the 2.7L EB, even in a Screw with all of the caveats, would have gotten better than 16mpg.
Old 09-30-2014, 12:10 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
hydro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern Cali
Posts: 461
Received 59 Likes on 51 Posts
Default

^ welcome to my world. Can't break 16 mpg to save my life.
Old 09-30-2014, 12:16 AM
  #4  
Airstreamer
 
GearheadGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 468
Received 84 Likes on 62 Posts

Default

So. SoSoSo... I own a truck because of the Airstream, so I was not really looking at the 2.7 seriously, figuring I'd be better off with Max Tow getting me way more capability than I'll every need to actually use (my heavier trailer is still under 8k lb), but with the AC driven by the engine for now, I don't want any part of start/stop. No way, no how. As a Texan, AC is the 2nd most important system to me, after the brakes.
Old 09-30-2014, 07:07 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Daytoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 352
Received 53 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MP15TDriver
Thanks.

I would have thought that the 2.7L EB, even in a Screw with all of the caveats, would have gotten better than 16mpg.
What is so hard to understand? There is no replacement for displacement. When you have a little bitty V6 pulling around that much weight (even with its weight loss it's still a very heavy vehicle) it's gonna be boosting its ***** off a lot more often. Thus using more fuel. It's the EB dilemma.
The following 4 users liked this post by Daytoman:
04fivepointfour4x4 (09-30-2014), GetYaFordOn (10-03-2014), hydro (09-30-2014), justjimmy (09-30-2014)
Old 09-30-2014, 09:54 AM
  #6  
Junior Member
 
freedomIDI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

I'm fairly certain that 2.7 will get way better mpg. Sounds like they where barely trying. Little engine looks promising.
Old 09-30-2014, 10:07 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
k-stater88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 276
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts

Default

I tend to think that it will do a little bit better. My wife's edge EB really doesn't get any better mileage than the 3.5 V6 because of all the wind we fight in KS. I expect the 2.7L to be about the same in that it really doesn't get all that much better mpg than the bigger engines if any. That's a lot to ask out of that lil guy in less than ideal conditions.

Ultimately I think the mpg of the 2.7L isn't going to be enough to outweigh the mpg and capability of the 3.5EB and 5.0L .
Old 09-30-2014, 10:37 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
azmidget91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,656
Received 138 Likes on 103 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by hydro
^ welcome to my world. Can't break 16 mpg to save my life.


Originally Posted by GearheadGeek
So. SoSoSo... I own a truck because of the Airstream, so I was not really looking at the 2.7 seriously, figuring I'd be better off with Max Tow getting me way more capability than I'll every need to actually use (my heavier trailer is still under 8k lb), but with the AC driven by the engine for now, I don't want any part of start/stop. No way, no how. As a Texan, AC is the 2nd most important system to me, after the brakes.
Most likely if the AC is on the start/stop will be disabled.

Originally Posted by freedomIDI
I'm fairly certain that 2.7 will get way better mpg. Sounds like they where barely trying. Little engine looks promising.
Why should you have to try to get decent mileage? I get 19MPG not trying in my 5.0
The following users liked this post:
Di Lullo (10-20-2014)
Old 09-30-2014, 10:51 AM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
latech_pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lantana, Texas
Posts: 104
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts

Default

You go buy a new truck with less than 100 miles on it and you will never get the best MPGs until you have a few thousand miles on it. That's been a principle forever, so their 16.7 is actually promising, as most trucks get like 13-14 at best when that new.

Don't go off a cliff and write this engine off because its only got 16.7 starting at less than 100 miles on the clock driving for an hour and a half...along with being in hilly terrain.
Old 09-30-2014, 10:58 AM
  #10  
Airstreamer
 
GearheadGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 468
Received 84 Likes on 62 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by azmidget91


Most likely if the AC is on the start/stop will be disabled.



Why should you have to try to get decent mileage? I get 19MPG not trying in my 5.0
Having read the article in question, the indication is that with the AC on it still will stop the engine if stop-start is active, hence my comment. Perhaps if you select "Max" it'll override start/stop. From the article:

Speaking of air conditioning, that’s another function affected by the auto stop-start. Since the compressor is still engine-driven, it stops when the engine does, but the system also automatically slows the blower fan speed as well.


Quick Reply: TruckTrend Drives a 2.7 SCrew



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.