Towing 2.7 vs 3.5
 

I am sure this has been hit 5000 times but here goes. 2200 trailer plus 2 atvs so around 3600 pounds, so 4000 at most. I have a tacoma that does the job but my next truck is going to have more power and torque. Need a crew cab for family. Obviously the 3.5 would be the best but do I need to dump the $$ on that vs the 2.7. Does the new transmission 10 speed make a big difference? Going up the north shore of Lake Superior, wawa etc and it's not flat. Gas milage while towing cause limited gas stations on trips....ie if travelling after 9 pm you better have lots of Jerry cans. The boss wants an expedition EL so she can cruise with the other super hockey moms...I just want a truck

10sp makes a difference. Keep in mind payload. Figure 10% tongue weight from your trailer assuming you don't have a WDH, so knock 400lbs off the payload for your truck, then subtract weight of passengers and cargo. Towing mpg is going to be a tough one. Technically the 3.5eb will not have to work as hard to tow that weight so it SHOULD use less fuel than the 2.7. Especially on hills, with the 10 speed.

I'd say an Screw 4x4 3.5 ecoboost in XLT guise will give you the most payload with good creature comforts and easily handle your towing load.

Buy a Supercrew, add a cap and you'll forget about the Expedition and spend a LOT less money. The supercab just isn't enough room.

Based entirely on others who own the 2.7 and post here I think it'll easily do what you want to do. Don't confuse the little hills around Lake Superior for mountains and elevations above 10,000' like you'd see in the west.

If you think there is a chance of upgrading to a heavier trailer in the future and towing up truly steep mountains at high altitude then it would probably be cheaper to just go with the 3.5 now rather than having to trade trucks in a few years.

Fuel mileage, the 2.7 impresses me. It seems that the 3.5 doesn't really do any better on fuel than the 5.0 V8. The 2.7 by all accounts is the only option that really gets good fuel mileage. While towing there probably won't be 1 mpg difference between any of them. But you don't tow all the time and the 2.7 easily beats the others at that. Get the 36 gal fuel tank and you can drive a long way even when towing.

The idea that the 2.7 is somehow underpowered is a myth. In 2011, the most powerful gas engine Ford offered in the F150 was the 5.4 Triton. Compare its power numbers 360HP and 380 lb-ft to the 2.7's 325HP & 375 lb-ft of torque.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...4-50-v8-review

(Btw - the 2001 Triton only made 260hp)

For anything that doesn't need a WDH (<5000 lb), the 2.7 will tow it like it isn't there.

if that's all you're pulling the 2.7 is plenty of grunt. 3-4K lbs is nothing.

I am almost certain the Fast Lane truck guys did a test with around 7000 lbs (it was more than the 2.7 was rated for).

The 2.7 was actually quicker than the 3.5 and used less gas.

Great point


I towed close to 5,000 pounds from a Texas to New England in 1999. Along the way, I had to spend hours going up/down the mountains/hills of Tennessee. My tow vehicle was a 1999 Silverado with a 4.8L v8 that made 255HP & 285 ft-lbs of torque.

My only problem - There is no radio in the middle of nowhere TN & Virginia. Bored out of my skull.

Let the numbers speak for them selves.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/102...922/gOuD15.jpg
.

Typo? The last year the 5.4 was used is 2010.
.

Yes.

stating peak power figures is utterly meaningless when it comes to performance.

Either an engine can produce the necessary power or it can't. Trucks have been safely towing 5,000 pounds or less for years with a less horse power/torque than a 2.7EB offers.

If the Tacoma does the job, the 2.7 will make you happy. As another said before, be aware of payload if you ever plan to tow a camper. Compare the payload of the 2.7 to the Tacoma and to a 3.5EB. Kids will get grow and the bigger truck will enable you to bring more stuff. Just be sure you have the payload to haul it all.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...b8ce1ba642.jpg

I have a '13 3.5 EB, but back then the only other choice was the 5.0 V8. I'm glad I went with the turbo. It's great for towing. I need the higher payload because of a 1000 lb. toy hauler tongue weight.

I tow a 6800 lb. toy hauler and get 10-12 mpg in the southeast.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...6c6a34b48e.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...f5be4840dd.jpg

I recently got 14.2 mpg towing a 3500 lb., 6x14 enclosed trailer from GA to CO and back, 4500 miles. My truck has 110,000 miles on it.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...b97e22f1b4.jpg

Yes, the ten speed makes a difference. It enables a lower numerical rear end ratio to pull like a higher gear ratio in the lower gears, but still turn fewer rpms at highway speeds for better fuel economy. A 3.15 ten speed has the same first gear final drive ratio as a 3.55 six speed.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.f15...69097e7656.jpg

of course, the point I was making was that people ignore the fact that the 2.7TT makes most of its torque in the low to mid range unlike the V8 offering which has nearly all its power in the mid to high end range.

turbo motors make tons of torque lower in the powerband compared to NA motors. its a common misconception that they don't but that can be fixed with some edumacation in most cases :D

A lot of the fear is that turbos are "new" technology. Quite the opposite. Keep in mind diesels have been utilizing turbos for decades. This is just a 'first' for use in a light pickup. Don't let that dissuade you from the pros to ecoboost motors.

While this statement is true, I would not consider it to be accurate. Diesel motors by nature are already quite large in displacement and could generally pull the load regardless if they were turbo or NA.

The best example I can give is the differences between a 7.3 IDI diesel and a 7.3 turbo diesel. Neither of these diesels had any real differences in the load that they could pull, but people preferred turbo diesels because they wanted to pull their campers at 80MPH.

In the case of the turbo f150's, the turbos are being utilized to create performance that would of been vastly unobtainable with out the forced air induction. The engineering challenges that need to be overcame to produce performance are completely different.

Take, for example, the small diesels, such as the VW TDI's. Ain't no 2L non-turbo diesel going to make 150hp and 230ft-lbs of torque.

Point being, turbos have made diesels more efficient and powerful for decades, and the only reason they haven't been used in cars is because for decades fuel costs were low and displacement ruled. Efficiency and emissions changes have forced hand. Look at all the Mercedes, BMW, and audi turbo motors in high-end cars? Or smaller-displacement V8 twin turbos making the same power with less effort and better powerbands!

Fords first attempt at gas turbo was in the 80's, they made that 4 cyl Turbo coupe T-Bird, epic failure. Those things would move once you got the engine breathing but were a royal pita to work on when they stopped working which was quite frequently, maybe I'm biased because I worked on them at a dealer and saw more of them.
.

to the contrary, the SVO mustang came before that and absolutely wrecked shop on all the V8's that were struggling with the new super restrictive emissions requirements before they figured out how to make power again. To top it off, those engines were awesome.

have you looked under the hood of a 2.7? tons of room to work. that's one of the things I consider when buying a car because I know I'll be turning wrenches on it at some point. the turbos couldn't be more accessible. its amazing to me how much thought ford put into this engine. its built like a diesel.

It's obvious the technology has improved greatly as far as turbo power goes. Never worked on an SVO our dealer was not certified, just your regular old small farming town dealer, we sold mostly trucks. I remember when the 7.3 DI powerstrokes came out in mid 94. They sent me to school for 2 weeks to get certified on them. Those are pretty easy to work on, I left in 2004 when the new 6.0 came out, I opened the hood and thanked gawd I was leaving, that's one huge headache under that hood.

You don't have to sell me on turbo anything I'm well aware of how the technology works.
.

great, i would recommend looking under the hood of a 2.7 and driving one before you issue the tired mantra "there is no replacement for displacement".

because there is a replacement for displacement: shove more air into the engine.

When Ford makes a twin turbo V8 I'll buy one, you just can't make anything sound like a V8. ;)
.

well this thread is about performance not sound preference as were the others you commented on. #BreakTheCycle

I'll talk about what ever I please.
.

That's fine too just don't pull the ford master tech card and expect people to respect it when you're out of your depth on a subject.

The 2018 2.7 is now 400 lb ft of torque!