jetjoe

Follow along guys. The torque specs you quote are not at 2000 Rpm's as I mentioned. And that torque is generated with your foot all the way in it or wide open throttle! With the heaviest load produced by the dyno can apply and still maintain that RPM. How often and how long would you drive that way? As I said, my 3.5 NA moves the truck around 78 MPH @ around 2000 RPM's. The throttle is not wide open by any means. Again, at 50 MPH the little engine is turning less then 1500 RPM's. And assuming your truck with similar gearing and tire sizes, ECO or not, will do exactly the same thing.

So, find me a chart that shows the torque values of each engine at those RPM's with the loads one might expect under those conditions. You might have a hard time finding that as they only advertise "peak" torque and horsepower. (wide open throttle @ any given RPM) Also, find a chart that tells us just how much torque is required to move our trucks at a given speed with a given load. (like two people) You won't find that either!

Once again, the question was asked - "What engine makes sense for me?" Not, home much torque should I buy? I doubt if this guy drives around @3500 RPM's with the throttle wide open. You guys need to stay on point. All of that torque quite likely will do the guy absolutely no good 99.9% of the time. And perhaps the thread starter might just be interested in economy, not power. I get 23 MPG all around. What do you get? And, I won't ever have to deal with all the gadgetry Ford installs to make the two turbos work. KISS works for me. Time will tell how that works out.

And yes I do know what a Turbo does for an engine. A lot more then most of you do. Try aircraft that fly at 35,000 feet or class nine trucks that pull 80 thousand pounds and do it at 2200 RPM's. Over forty years worth. I'm sure next year Ford and Chevy will up the game by another 50 ft. lbs. and you guys will run out and buy it.

doug97gxe

what i'm starting to realize with your posts are you post a lot but its not necessarily accurate. I think people start to read your posts then give up because they are long but don't realize its not accurate. Often times we get the idea a long post means that its all facts. You made an astronomically inaccurate statement that without the turbo's this engine would produce as much TQ. I believe its on YOU to prove the data to support your ridiculously inaccurate claim not for us to prove that you said is incorrect.

jetjoe

All I'm trying to say is at a given speed and load the Torque required to do the work would be equal with or without turbo's. Not that the two engines are equal! And that the numbers stated by the manufacturers refers to peak horsepower and torque only. Not what one would use on a day to day basis. Just trying to explain how an engine, 3.5 in this case can do just as well in real life situations without turbo's. Those numbers stated are produced under conditions that will seldom if ever be put to use. (Wide open throttle and maximum load) Again, my point is not to disparage turbos of those who buy them.

Yeeks! Whoever "US" is? I won't bother you anymore.

F175

OK, I'll bite.Been flying for close to 40 years.... What aircraft fly's at 35000 that is reciprocating powered?

doug97gxe

i'm all for a good debate .. a lot of my knowledge learned on forums are based on forum debates.. very good information comes from them i would never want to silence or censor you or give the impression i have no desire to hear your opinion, however i would say you should make it clear its a theory of yours and an idea.. not really a statement of fact .. your statement that the turbo's isn't really providing that much low end TQ was what got my attention

RubyRed18

I plan my budget to have thousands left over each month, not a few hundred, and especially not to the point where gas increasing $1/gal would blow my budget. Again, if the difference between you being able to pay your bills is $40, $80, even $100 you should not be buying such an expensive vehicle. If you were that concerned about his budget you would tell him that buying a depreciating asset like a new vehicle is a poor financial decision and you'd recommend he buys used. Or maybe you would tell him that buying a Lariat isnt a smart decision if you are on a tight budget and he should consider an XLT. But that isn't really why we are here is it?

So, assuming this guy isnt an idiot who didnt plan his budget to allow for variances each month, I'd say if I'm spending $50,000 on a vehicle, an extra $1600 to ensure I wont be wishing I had more power is an easy choice. I've bought plenty of cars in my life and have settled for the lower end because I thought it would be enough only to find I was wanting more later. It's a lot cheaper to buy it once the way you want it than it is to take the bigger loss when you eventually upgrade to what you wish you had bought in the first place.

At the end of the day he has to live with whatever he decides, not any of us. I sure as hell ain't paying his bills. But whatever man, you do you. I'm sure your far superior to me or something.

Yooper39

jcluns

vmchahon,
in 2016, after much research, i went with the 3.5 l ecoboost. i have a Crew, 4x4, with the 6.5 bed. 3.55 RE and the 6 speed. I get amazing gas mileage and have tons of power. Its the first gas engine i have ever had that seems to work and pull like a diesel. With the Turbo engine, the power band seems to have no end at times. However, in my mind if you really want to convince yourself of it go and watch the videos Fast Lane Truck has on Youtube.

doug97gxe

even though this video showed that the 5.0 is better in this test, there is a part in the video where they say most people go for the 2.7 because its cheaper and better gas mileage and i think that's what a lot of people are going to gravitate towards even though in the end of the video he does say the gas mileage difference isn't that drastic enough for him to choose the 2.7, however people are already programmed mentally that if its 1 MPG better they are going for it

Vengenz

I'll never understand the gas mileage comparison between the 2.7 and the rest of the engines. The same guys that say they want the best mileage will then option their 2.7 to the gills, probably destroying any mileage savings. You're not going to get EPA advertised mileage if you get a 2.7 with one of the higher packages, the twin panel moonroof, etc. At that point the mileage between the 2.7 and others is probably the same.

People see the 2.7 and immediately think they will get the best mileage, then when they don't, they wonder why.