What Engine makes sense for me?
01-10-2019, 04:11 PM
#191
Senior Member
posting that the 2.7 has more hp/tq over the 5.0 at low RPM is just showing that if you don't baby the 2.7 every time you stop and start you are going to use more gas than the 5.0.. low HP at low RPM always you to be more fuel efficient
01-10-2019, 04:18 PM
#192
Apples/Oranges. I mean, I've got a Coyote so I think it's great that it shows the 5.0 making more TQ than the 3.5EB but that video is a bit disingenuous since the EB's are both 2015's and the V8 is a 2018. Both EB's have different numbers in 2018 and should show it on the dyno. Who cares if the 2018 5.0 makes more torque to the wheels than a 2015 3.5EB (and interestingly enough is about the same from 3k-4k) but those numbers look totally different with a 2018 EB.
As for the 2.7, yup, it should get the job done for most people...some people like more power though and there are options for that. As I said before , if you go with the 2.7, gotta make sure you get the payload package otherwise, you could very easily run out of payload with 4 adults and a bed full of stuff (and it wouldn't even necessarily need to be a lot of stuff).
As for the 2.7, yup, it should get the job done for most people...some people like more power though and there are options for that. As I said before , if you go with the 2.7, gotta make sure you get the payload package otherwise, you could very easily run out of payload with 4 adults and a bed full of stuff (and it wouldn't even necessarily need to be a lot of stuff).
01-10-2019, 05:30 PM
#193
Senior Member
01-10-2019, 08:33 PM
#194
The difference of the 2.7 to 3.5 mpg wise over 100K miles might be what? Two or three hundred a year assuming 20K a year, if that? (Too lazy to do the math) On a per tank basis, negligible. Couple bucks here or there. A couple shots of good scotch at an airport would cover the years difference.
01-11-2019, 06:38 AM
#196
The difference of the 2.7 to 3.5 mpg wise over 100K miles might be what? Two or three hundred a year assuming 20K a year, if that? (Too lazy to do the math) On a per tank basis, negligible. Couple bucks here or there. A couple shots of good scotch at an airport would cover the years difference.
01-11-2019, 06:55 AM
#197
No fart cans allowed
I've been reading the continuing responses in this thread with amusement, especially after the OP posted his decision. Take a look at horsepower and tow ratings of 1/2 ton pickups in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s. Any of the current engines is far more capable than all but the largest of engines back then. Buy whichever one that suits your wants/needs best.
01-11-2019, 08:06 AM
#198
01-11-2019, 08:08 AM
#199
Senior Member
01-11-2019, 09:20 AM
#200
Senior Member
The difference of the 2.7 to 3.5 mpg wise over 100K miles might be what? Two or three hundred a year assuming 20K a year, if that? (Too lazy to do the math) On a per tank basis, negligible. Couple bucks here or there. A couple shots of good scotch at an airport would cover the years difference.
3.5 is a good engine. People just need to be honest with what their needs are. The money saved with the 2.7 could also be used to go up a trim level. Or buy a nice mountain bike. If you'd rather that money go towards the 3.5 there's nothing wrong with that, provided you understand the cost. Different people have different needs and priorities.
