Stunning acceleration, a positive working relationship with the F-150âs six-speed automatic, minor capability cutbacks, and a lower price tag combine to make the 2.7-liter completely worthy of full-size pickup truck duty, difficult though it may be for owners of 6.8-liter V10-powered Ford Super Dutys to believe.
But based on our week-long experiences with each F-150 EcoBoost engine, fuel economy hardly plays into the 2.7-litreâs favorable equation.
Admittedly, no two real-world fuel economy tests are identical. Our 2015 F-150 (SuperCrew, 4×4, 145-inch wheelbase) 3.5-liter EcoBoost test specimen arrived last November in Platinum guise with 275/55R20 Hancook Dynapro AT-m tires and a 3.31 rear axle. After a week of exhaustive use, the result was 17.8 miles per gallon.
Little more than four months later, a 2.7-liter EcoBoost-equipped F-150 (SuperCrew, 4×4, 145-inch wheelbase) arrived in our driveway courtesy of Ford Canada as a heavily equipped XLT on 275/65R18 Goodyear Wrangler Fortitude HTs with a 3.55 rear end. This time, a slightly greater portion of the test was completed on the Trans-Canada Highway between Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia, and Shubenacadie, and fuel economy was better: 19.4 miles per gallon.
A meaningful difference? Hardly. Imagine youâre driving 12,000 miles per year and prevailing fuel prices in the heart of truckland, Dallas, Texas, are $1.80/gallon, as they are now. At 17.8 miles per gallon, the F-150 EcoBoost 3.5-liter will cost $1,213 per year. At 19.4 miles per gallon, the F-150 EcoBoost 2.7-liter will cost $1,113 per year, a savings of â drum roll, please â $8 per month.
Fuel wonât always be cheap, of course. If our hypothetical Texas truck owner keeps his F-150 long enough, heâll pay $4.00/gallon. (Eventually. Some day. Maybe.) At that point, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost F-150 will cost $2,697 per year at 12,000 miles, $223 more than the 2.7-liter F-150 will cost. Still, thatâs only a $19 savings per month, hardly the stuff of Prius or even Ram EcoDiesel dreams.
(Keep in mind, we drove a couple of F-150s around town and on the highway for a week, but the EPAâs fuel economy numbers arenât much different: 20 mpg combined for the 2.7-liter; 18 mpg for the bigger 3.5 turbo. On Fuelly.com, 2016 F-150 SuperCrews with the 2.7-liter are averaging 19.2 mpg while 2016 F-150 SuperCrews with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost are down at 16.3 mpg. Consumer Reports calls it 17 mpg for the 2.7; 16 mpg for the 3.5.)
If the available fuel savings are limited, if the 2.7-liter gives up 40 horsepower and 45 lbs-ft of torque, and if the 2.7-liter needs more revs to reach peak torque, how is this the pick of the F-150 range?
Indeed, the 2.7-liter feels quicker in everyday driving and seems to have a somewhat happier marriage with the six-speed automatic transmission. Perhaps at fault are the 3.5 EcoBoostâs bigger 20-inch wheels and the Platinum trimâs presumably greater curb weight.
Granted, over the life of a five-year payment plan, the 3.5-liter EcoBoostâs $1,400 premium wonât seem terribly arduous. Ford is currently offering interest-free financing over 60 months, which means the bigger EcoBoost costs only $23 more per month.
Now, however, our monthly savings total $31 for a truck thatâs just as quick. And we do mean quick. Consumer Reports tested the duo and found the 2.7-liter EcoBoost accelerates to 60 miles per hour in 7.0 seconds, two-tenths quicker than the 3.5-liter EcoBoost. Car And Driverâs SuperCab 2.7-liter EcoBoost did the deed in 5.7 seconds, one-tenth shy of the heavier SuperCrewâs 3.5-liter time. Acceleration times at higher speeds were essentially the same, as well.
At best, the outright power difference is imperceptible, though the 2.7-liter sounds less like a vacuum when being hustled.
Not until you take towing and payload capacityÂ into account does the 3.5-liter EcoBoost outshine its little brother. Like for like, an F-150 SuperCrew 4×4 with the 145-inch wheelbase and the 3.5-liter powerplant can tow up to 11,500 pounds, 3,500 more than the 2.7-liter, and accepts a 2,060-pound payload, 100 more than the 2.7-liter.
Those arenât irrelevant numbers, but if regular high-weight towing is on your radar, isnât a heavy-duty truck the more suitable vehicle?
Thereâs hardly any towing of any kind on my radar. Filling the bed with home reno materials that would otherwise be chucked into the back of our Odyssey will scarcely challenge either EcoBoost F-150. With superior economy, similar off-the-line punch, a significant price advantage, and all (if not more) of the 3.5-literâs driveability and refinement, I canât imagine paying more and, in my case, getting nothing for it.
Then again, Fordâs rumbling 5.0-liter V8 costs only $800 more than the EcoBoost 2.7 and doesnât sound like a sewing machine in need of repair.
Timothy Cain is the founder ofÂ GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcarÂ and on Facebook.
Would the more aggressive rear end ratio (3.55 vs 3.31) play into your impressions of ‘peppiness?’
that will play a huge role. All the print rags raved about the performance of the 2010 Mustang GT. After I bought one I wondered where all of that performance was. The press cars all had the 3.73:1 rear, mine was 3.31:1.
3.31 vs 3.55 isn’t as big a difference as 3.31 vs 3.73. Yes, there may be some improvement in ‘peppiness’, but not a shocking amount. The fact that it was the bigger engine with the lower ratio means there was a visible effort to balance the revs to power output somewhat. The smaller engine turning just that little bit faster, sacrificing a bit on economy to keep some semblance of performance. It sounds like Ford did fairly well at it, but reducing frontal area would go a long ways towards improving that economy even more on the highway.
“Then again, Fordâs rumbling 5.0-liter V8 costs only $800 more than the EcoBoost 2.7 and doesnât sound like a sewing machine in need of repair.”
Yeah but what’s the cheapest truck that you can actually order the 5.0 V8 in? Asks the guy who feels like he’s the only one not on a construction site that uses his truck for work and not to commute.
Try to plug those figures into the “find inventory” application, though, and you’re out of luck. They don’t let you search for 5.0s.
In my area, dealers with the biggest inventories and widest choice are Shamaley in El Paso, and Don Chalmers in Rio Rancho. I have a number of friends and collegues who bought from both and said they got a fair deal.
Don Chalmers is well within the drive range for Dan. I just hope it’s not as ghetto as the other Ford dealership… you know, the one by I-40.
Much of the time it’s “Wham, Bam, Thank you ma’am.” The sales staff is instructed to follow a routine and if that doesn’t result quickly in a sale, move on to another customer. If they make the sale, they’ll spend all the time the buyer needs with them. Otherwise, they’re outta there.
Since the collapse of 2009 I haven’t seen any of the sales staff at any dealership standing around playing pocket pool.
Better off ordering and waiting if you can rather than picking something off the lot unless there is a very compelling reason to.
“Better off ordering and waiting if you can rather than picking something off the lot unless there is a very compelling reason to.”
My last two vehicles purchased new were specifically ordered. I won’t buy off the lot any more because they never have one equipped the way I like in a color I like. Since I almost never keep a car less than 6 years (usually 8 to 10) I don’t care if the color I want is not popular.
@Timothy Cain – there isn’t really much of a size difference between a 20 inch wheeled tire or an 18. IIRC the circumference is virtually the same and weight isn’t much different. Weight does make a difference but more so around town.
I can easily live with a 2 mpg difference. I have driven the EB 3.5 and it is an impressive motor. I found that it seemed happier being driven more like a diesel than a typical rpm happy V6.
The MPG numbers posted don’t appear to be much better than my 2010 F150 supercrew with 5.4. I have averaged 24.5 Imperial or 11.5 litres/100km or 20.4 US. That was on Highway 97 through the Fraser Canyon on 2 separate occasions (750 km one way). I was on stock tires and deliberately trying to improve mpg. Going to Calgary (780 km) through the National parks on 10 ply tires I was lower at 21 mpg Imperial but I wasn’t trying to hypermile.
I actually have been in “Quality New Mexico” (Baldrige National Quality Awards) meetings with Don Chalmers head of fleet sales. Depending on what you were looking for I’m sure they could fix you up.
I was asking in jest, my truck doesn’t get worked enough days of the year to warrant replacement, it’s paid for and is in third vehicle/work truck status.
I was really just more curious about the state of things now that we have reached the point where trucks are at the same place sedans were 30 to 40 years ago. Too few of us are ordering Biscaynes and Custom 500s to justify their existence much longer.
The big question is this: for long-term owners, which engine is most likely to be still operational without having incurred expensive repairs, say at 200K miles?
You know, I don’t have an issue with ‘sewing machine’ engines. My first car had a 196 c.i.d. inline six that always sounded like a sewing machine but was essentially unkillable. Granted, at 96 horses it wasn’t the strongest beast in the world, but it also tended to keep driving even in some adverse conditions. On one occasion when the points slipped, I was forced to run the engine backwards almost a mile before I could pull over and re-gap the points… driving in reverse but traveling forwards. Didn’t even phase the engine. Finally replaced those points and the engine continued to run like a champ.
If you think the acceleration is ”stunning” now… go visit http://www.unleashedtuning.com/programmers-electronics-12/ after bringing the 2.7Eb home. Gains of +40hp and +60ftlbs are not uncommon with premium fuel. or go the other way and get yourself a custom 87-tune and buy cheap gas and get the SAME power as stock premium numbers.
Impressive. I’ve read similar gains but I just can’t bring myself to hotrod it just yet. The second-gen 3.5TT is the opportunity to really open the floodgates and use the 2.7TT’s compacted graphite iron block architecture and DI. Should be a rocket.
I think 400 or so will be possible, but it will be at the bleeding edge of the powertrains ability to not gut itself. It would be at 150hpliter which is a bit high even in this day and age.
Yeah. And watch your fuel mileage go through the floor. I remember a friend of mine who was proud… PROUD… that he managed 5mph from his engine. Of course, it was a 60s-vintage car, too.
I’ve test driven the 2.7 and the 5.0, both super crew 4×4, as a friend is currently looking to buy one. Drove them both a few times, highway and city.
The 2.7 really is excellent. I was fully set to favor the v8, but it’s really hard to argue against the ecoboost. I kept waiting to hate the 2.7s start stop feature, but in actual driving, it doesn’t come on very often- it doesn’t activate if the engine is cold or the battery isn’t fully charged.
One thing you didn’t mention about the 2.7- availability and incentives. Where I’m at (Chicago suburbs), dealer lots are loaded with 2.7s and thin on 5.0s. ALSO, the 2.7s get more incentives tacked on to them. Coupled with the $800 lower actual price, It’s pretty clear which engine Ford wants you to buy.
Pretty clear Ford wants you to buy the 2.7 @ 10% better mileage and (guessing) more compared to the 5.0. You may not mind the worse mileage but CAFE sure does.
You can now build one on Ford’s website. Starts around $33K, I believe, and it looks to be awesome.
The 2.7-liter TT will also be available in the Continental, as an upgrade from the carryover 3.7-liter Duratec. Additionally, a 3.0 TT with a supposed 400 HP will be available on both the MKZ and Continental.
I find it amusing how for years people insisted that trucks had to have V8s because TRUCKS NEED LOW-END TORQUE.
Now we have modern turbo engines that make far more low-end torque, and people are insisting that trucks have to have V8s becuase… well… there must be some reason.
Well, V8s are usually fun. For some reason truck and CUV/SUV buyers have a major aversion to admitting they prefer something purely for personal enjoyment
I consider the 5.0L to be more entertaining than the 3.5EB, even with the turbo’s low RPM torque advantage. I test drove the SHO back when I was shopping and even though the Ford was a few tenths quicker I preferred the V8 experience offered by FCA and Hyundai.
ajla – you are bang on. Truck buyers don’t want to admit that the beast they purchased is a toy. 1/2 of truck buyers buy them for work. The other 1/2 is just a lifestyle choice. V8’s definitely sound better especially with aftermarket exhaust. I hate the sound of piped V6’s.
The EB 3.5 feels more like a diesel than a standard V6. That can take some of the fun out of your typical V8 experience. It has a broad flat torque band but once you get to the end of it it falls on its face rather quickly. One guy I know has complained about turbo lag in his company truck. The 5.0 is supposed to have more torque off idle than the EB which fits with the turbo’s needing to spool up. That off idle torque characteristic would tend to make me slightly more inclined to favour the 5.0 for off-road situations.
“Truck buyers donât want to admit that the beast they purchased is a toy. 1/2 of truck buyers buy them for work. The other 1/2 is just a lifestyle choice. V8âs definitely sound better especially with aftermarket exhaust.”
I would argue that 80% of consumers who buy trucks use them as a toy. They argue they need all the horsepower for “work” yet never work them. They’re DIY haulers, not work trucks per se. The remaining 20% tend to have expensive and somewhat heavy hobbies, either through frequent camping with a heavy RV or they’re into racing and haul a car around. All the rest are commercial operators one way or another.
It’s the biggest, safest, multi-taskable and comfortable small-family hauler on the market and here in deepest, greenest Flyover that fact is starkly evident.
People seem to be ready for the turbos in my area. I see a lot of them. I think the bigger issue was that these (the 3.6) was marketed on improved fuel economy. Then people saw that the economy wasn’t much better, if any. So people who towed were faced with choosing a new engine or getting something proven that they knew would do what they needed.
But now that they’ve been around a couple of years and they’re proven, I see quite a few around. I particularly pay attention at campgrounds and it seems like almost all the newer fords I see have the eco-boost label.
Seems like a pretty strong set up, but I think labeling them ‘eco-boost’ was a mistake in a truck if you aren’t really going to be putting up the mileage numbers. I think a lot of truck buyers aren’t as afraid of turbos because of diesels.
At the deep low end, below 1500rpm, as in slowly repositioning big construction and ag machinery on a site or farm, turbos have approximately NO torque at all. Unless paired with either deep crawl gears, or trannies with Allison like startability numbers and heat rejection, they are completely useless.
Perhaps more relevant for half tons, the complete fall off a cliff torque curve below X rpm (X being between 1400 and 2000 depending on engine) combined with transmissions that need to jump from locked up to locked up to avoid overheating, the little turbos are a nuisance for slow, technical off road as well. Ram’s 6.4 in the Power Wagon may not pull any harder than the EB 3.5 on the highway, but finessing around at idle, it’s night and day. Will be interesting to see the turboed Raptor. With 10 speeds, and from what I hear, a 9-1 gear spread, it may be just what the turbo needs…
@stuki – from what I’ve read the EB 3.5 in the EB is a different animal than the current one. The turbo’s are supposed to produce zero lag. It may be advertising hyperbole but we will find out soon enough.
I spent nearly a year truck shopping to buy a tow vehicle for my Airstream travel trailer. The 3.5 Ecoboost does develop impressive torque. However, like all turbocharged engines I have driven, it has a non-linear throttle response (though not as bad as, say, the first generation Acura RDX. Also, consider that when you’re on boost, the effective compression ratio of the engine is very high. To fight detonation, the engines are run very rich in that condition leaving the catalytic converter to clean up any unturned fuel. So, you will get worse fuel economy than a normally aspirated engine of larger displacement doing the same work. I ended up choosing a GMC with the 420 hp 6.2 V-8 engine, with cylinder deactivation. It reliably will get over 23 mpg at 65 for sustained driving and over 13 towing the trailer at 55-60. Typical engine RPM towing at 60 is 1750.
thornmark – V10 not an option unless you buy an F550 or larger. There is a rumour that Ford is going to offer it again in the F250 and F350.
They don’t put it in the quarter ton trucks so it isn’t comparable. My limited experience with a mid-2000s F350 single rear axle is that it feels dead slow and drinks a hell of a lot of fuel. Smooth though.
I’ve got an ’07 F250 with the 5.4, and I’ve driven a 17′ U-Haul Econoline-chassis with the 6.8.
Honestly, empty (and on a fresh rebuild, but “5.4L Triton blows up” is not a new story), the SuperDuty goes pretty well even with the 5.4, if you’re willing to put your foot down a bit.
The U-Haul went *much better than expected* with the 6.8, and I can’t believe it wouldn’t be impressive in the F250/F350.
(Note: *my* truck has a 4.10 rear, which probably helps its get-up-and-go immensely. I can imagine the V10 with the lowest option (the 3.55) would be slower feeling…)
This was more than a few years ago, so I can only rely on old impressions. I may try some googling on the off chance that someone actually measured acceleration in a v10 equipped rig.
The 2014 F250 with 6.2L V8 will go well enough if you are serious with the right pedal, but the 5.0 in the F150 feels far more eager and linear. I really don’t like the F250 for that reason, but the F150 I enjoy and can see why they are so many people’s daily drivers.
I always thought the lowest rear end option in the Super Duty was a 3.73. Maybe that’s only after 2008. Our 4.30-rear-end V10 F-350 hits the ceiling at 70 MPH.
Don’t take this the wrong way, because there’s much wrong with Americans, but Canadians have some sort of chromosomal defect, and they are essentially mutants of the western world, with their love of loaded-up, high priced compact and subcompact cars, French fries with gravy on top, curling, “gifts” of Justin Bieber, Seth Rogen and Mike Myers (though Martin Short somewhat compensates), and love of high-stressed, boosted, hamster mill engines in large vehicles.
I’m still waiting for the doubly overblown 4-banger squirrels to make an appearance in the half-ton pickup trucks. You can sell people anything and pass it off as legit.
Funny as you keep buying your Chinese made clothing, buying your grandkids their education because they wouldn’t afford it and buy your Honda Camry. Ford Marketing once believed in your viewpoint until profits and take rates proved them wrong.
If you owned a RGM, vintage Elgin, Waltham, Bulova or actually gave a crap about domestic made product, I’d choke on my coffee, die and wouldn’t have to ready your comments anymore.
tres, Chinese-made clothing? I’ll have you know my underwear is made in Honduras! And my dress clothes are from JC Penney, Hecho en Mexico y Guatemala!
And we’re an all Toyota, all the time family these days – 2015 Sequoia, 2016 Tundra SR5 TRD 4-door 4×4, and 1989 Camry V6.
You got me on helping to pay for my grandkids’ education. At least they entered the job market debt free. They’ve got great jobs, too. That edumacation really pays off.
I don’t doubt the acceleration figures, but a p/you is a specific tool, and I’ll take towing capability, hauling capability, long-term durability, and simplicity & ease of maintenance a d repair (KISS) in the motor of any pickup I’d buy (since I’d be buying it to use, and not as a empty bed daily driver).
I agree. It’s why I have a fuel hungry stripped down trim 4×4 coyote. If I wanted fuel efficiency, I’d wait for a plug in variant.
The short drive I had in the 2.7 was an eye opener. It made my 5.0 feel weak. It’s take rate will be testament to the real target customer of a ‘1/2 ton’ pickup: modern day V8 sedan.
The 1/2 ton market doesn’t make any sense which makes niche buyer B&B go crazy. It’s a profit generator. God bless America. If the B&B drove the S&P, we’d be in a recession.
DeadWeight – if tow and/or haul is what you want then max tow comes only with the EB 3.5. HD Payload is either 5.0 or EB 3.5.
My brother works for a company with a fleet of F150 reg cab 4×4’s all powered by EB 3.5’s. No issues and those trucks spend their lives on logging roads sucking in dust or snow. Another guy I know is also a Forester and his company has several EB 3.5’s. The very 1st one when it came out had the intercooler condensation issue. Once fixed it has had zero issues. Same can be said for the other trucks in their fleet.
“towing capability, hauling capability, long-term durability, and simplicity & ease of maintenance and repair (KISS) in the motor of any pickup Iâd buy ”
So basically you’ll never buy a 1/2-ton in the first place, since all of those say 3/4 or full-ton pickup?
(And as someone who – see elsewhere – saw a 5.4 Triton blow up at 130kmi, I honestly don’t see how the 2.7EB is likely to be *worse* – and Ford sold about ten bazillion 5.4 Tritons.)
The EB 3.5 handles massive payloads very well. I rode in a coworkers 3.5 towing his enormous boat and it felt like we were hauling with a F250. Trailer brake control coupled with that motor was all he really needed.
Questions about long-term durability with neglectful maintenance aside (which is valid given that precedent trucks are on the market with miles well into 250k+), the 2.7 has a few issues…
I will agree its an impressive motor. We had one in a over-order Canadian F-150 we bought wholesale with 88 miles. Truck was a crew cab 4×4 Sport and we ended up putting on a lift kit, oversized tires, etc. and the motor showed zero signs of regret even with all that stuff on it.
That’s what the boys and girls in Marketing are for. They CREATE an aura around this Chihuahua that is designed to make it appear ferocious and strong, but it still can’t run with the big dogs.
No doubt there will be some people taken in by the Marketing hype. Ford needs to sell these to bring their CAFE numbers in compliance.
Once again, you are wrong about Marketing and their initial stance on forced air induction. This is a result of consumer driven demand.
Driving habits are the biggest limiting factor on any ecoboost motor. I either drive too slow or everyone who claims to know the real world mileage of these products are liars.
tresmonos – true. A prime example are 2 guys I know with EB3.5’s. One is a self described lead foot and says empty mpg is on par with any other V8. Load mpg is also on par but with better tow characteristics. The other fellow admits to being real gentle on the gas and has hit 30 mpg (Canadian) or 25 mpg USA empty. He loves the EB 3.5 towing his 10k 33 ft long camper trailer.
No one can drive 55 in a 3.5 EB. When I did, I was playing a game with the real time fuel efficiency graph on the I/P. I got an easy 22-23 mpg city driving over a 2 week period. My 5.0 I can barely hit 18. I have since given up and relegated it to 16.9 with a lead foot.
“A prime example are 2 guys I know with EB3.5âs. One is a self described lead foot and says empty mpg is on par with any other V8. Load mpg is also on par but with better tow characteristics.”
Lou that’s not even a good comparison. So can I drive the ecoboost with a lead foot and still get the same mileage as the guy with V8 who isn’t a lead foot?
For me the only unanswered question with these ecoboost motors is long term durability. If they can deliver similar to what I’d expect out of a regular V8 then it’s a no brainier to go ecoboost. Hell even if the ecoboost isn’t as good in that respect over a regular V8, if tows circles around the V8, I’m probably still going ecoboost.
The one owner I’ve talked to said his ecoboost pulled like a freight train when towing his boat. And that’s what he loved about it.
Carlson Fan: If someone tells you that the 5.0 gets the same or better mileage, they are full of sh1t. I own the 5.0. The 3.5 EB can either be really efficient, or really thirsty. If I drove my 5.0 as hard as my coworker drives his 3.5 EB, I’d be getting 14 mpg, not 17 in the city. He pegs 18-19. When I drive his 3.5, I get > 20.
Looking at Fuelly it look like the 3.5 Eco boost and 5.0 are damned close averages out to about 1 mpg better the 3.5. Not a ton of 2.7 out there yet but there seem to do a lot better. Talking to people who pull RV’s and looking at the boat and RV forums (oddly most of the boat people I know have Chevys or Dodges) they all seem to agree the 3.5 pulls like no tomorrow while sucking down gas like a big block. Most of the RV guys seem to show 8-9 mpg towing near the max while the V8’s seem to pull around 10.
tres is among 7 or 8 peeps around here whose factual assertions on things mechanical or inside baseball I do not question.
He has what I consider to be unimpeachable credentials and speaks from 1st hand experience on those things he speaks about.
@Carlson Fan – I’m not understanding your comment. To clarify, the one guy I know who drives more aggressively says mpg is the same as V8’s that HE has owned. Basically, he feels it is a wash but power is much better.
The other guy used to have a Ram Cummins 3500. He actually preferred it for towing but it was a PITA for everyday driving to and from work. The fuel consumption obviously was better loaded with the Cummins but was worse every where else plus the extra maintenance costs. He felt that the EB 3.5 was better all around than the Cummins and was better than other trucks he had owned.
I was concerned about durability at first but I know guys that beat the sh!t out of them in the logging industry and they are holding up.
The best way to think of the EB 3.5 is that of a gasoline powered “diesel”. I’ve driven plenty of diesels. The only thing that is not like a diesel engine is compression braking. I found that the EB3.5 needed to be in a lower gear to be effective. The same thing was true with the Ram 1500 and Pentastar V6. Off throttle engine compression braking is obviously going to be better in a larger displacement engine.
I’m telling you mopar4wd, the 3.5 EB begs the driver to drive hard. The quality test fleets were seeing the same deviance from the sticker. Place someone in there that likes to play the ‘save the earth’ game with the real time fuel efficiency graph on the I/P and you’ll be amazed. Better yet, put a calibration engineer behind the wheel. I’m neither and if I can do it, so can everyone else. I don’t speed, fill the gap, I coast when I can, use cruise when I can and dislike using my brakes. I never achieved the best hwy ratings on the sticker, but I’ve always been 1-2 mpg off. In general, people can’t f*cking drive worth a sh1t. They think they do, but they don’t. Most people treat the throttle as go and brake as stop and don’t know much in between. Everyone is always in a hurry to shave off that pesky 30 seconds of their trip. Those Timken wheel bearings are super efficient. Everyone should give them a boy scout try.
But you are right about towing. My 5.0 goes to hell while towing, just not nearly as bad. It also tows like sh1t compared to a 3.5 EB.
My 2.7 literally just got 26.2 on the drive from my parents in North GA back to Augusta. 2wd, crew cab, and the less aggressive rear axle. I tow a 5100 pound travel trailer with it andyou can feel it working but it is fine. Towing MPG is in the 12-13 range but I really only pull it once a month or so so it is much appreciated on the other 29 days of the month. 22.1 MPG over the roughly 9000 miles I’ve had it but I drive it very grandmotherly most of the time but it will go when you get on it.
Tresmonos- agreed on driving habits being the biggest limiting factor, but that’s true of ALL engines. And the eco-boost seems to take a bigger hit when towing. * That being said- I really like the EB engines.
I agree. It is also up to the sales staff to persuade or “sell” the buyer on the myth that a nervous-nellie high-revving heavy-breathing squirrel engine is somehow better than a slow churning, stump pulling, torquey V8. Any V8 no less.
Faced with this choice, I chose that magnificent all-aluminum 32-valve DOHC 5.7L Tundra V8. Not just once. But three times!
My abstinence from these tiny impostor engines is a good thing for one of the wannabe pickup truck owners who wants to look good driving an F150 Ecobust. You can buy the one I didn’t buy.
The take rate on the 3.5 EcoBoost is driven by consumer demand. Ford is selling about twice the number they initially expected.
Yes the EcoBoost engines exist because of CAFE but they sell so well, at least the 3.5, because people prefer them. The 5.0 is harder to find than it used to be because the dealers started ordering more of the 3.5 EB and less of the 5.0 because that is what sold quicker.
The same goes for diesel. If the US had biased diesel regulations which includes energy policy, diesel fuel quality, etc you would see a larger take up diesels.
The EU, particularly France has biased energy towards diesel. This is not driven by consumer demand, like the EcoBoost engines, even though there are popular diesel powered vehicles in the EU.
Australia has an unbaised energy, emissions policy. We have diesel, buy mainly in larger SUVs, pickups, etc. Smaller vehicles tend to be petrol/gasoline.
Policy via the use of tariffs (like the chicken tax, etc), technical barriers (like US vehicle design regulations) do impact a vehicle market significantly.
Imagine if people in the US had to pay what we pay for fuel in Australia? The US market would look very EU because of the lower wages of the American on Struggle Street.
I am not going to question Scoutdude’s interpretation of the data because he has long established himself as one of the very few of ttac’s B&B who know what they are talking about.
Maybe I’m old school. For me more cylinders is better. I rue the day I sold my red 1999 F250 V10. Wadda truck!!!
If people choose a V6 pickup truck because they have to worry about mpgs, they ought not to buy a truck.
So, I’m thinking EPA pressure and CAFE mandates are what causes this downward spiral to ever smaller engines in the half-ton pickup truck segment.
But, it appears when any issue involves US regulations/policy in the auto industry he tends to be one eyed.
This was also driven by US regulations and the past attempt by US manufacturers to remain where they were.
The unions and US manufacturers did have a win of sorts in Washington to maintain the large SUV and pickup market.
If this never occurred you would see very little in the way of large vehicles in the US as the “ecological good doers” would of destroyed the US industry.
Scoutdude as I mentioned is one eyed. His technical knowledge is good on what he has done over the years as a mechanic. But, things and the world has changed, even politically, economically, etc.
It’s all about one’s perspective. Some are closer to the action than others are. Some are even in the arena, doing battle.
Hence, they may have a much more defined and detailed view of the spirit, intents and purposes of what is happening around them.
I only write about the things I actually have experience with, on which I base my interpretation of the available facts, as I have them.
There are some commenters who have consistently demonstrated that they know wtf they’re talking about, and in such they curry respect.
So, even if I don’t agree with someone’s interpretation of the facts from their perspective, I accept that their analysis may be equally valid.
Scoutdude is consistently better than those self-aggrandizing airheads who pose as experts but really are just drips under pressure, gaining their new-found knowledge from Google and Wikipedia.
Those of us who have been on ttac since Robert Farago can generally separate the wheat from the chaff, or worse.
highdesertcat, Google and Wikipedia are good instruments if used wisely, and importantly you can verify the credibility of the the information contained.
Like you, I do see many comment with omission, over and understating on these sites. Much of this tends to be created by bias for a particular brand and even country.
In my many and varied travels I do attempt to drive and use the vehicles I comment on, even US pickups.
Myself working in a highly technical environment do and can make claim to the credibility in my comments.
As with my language used, it can be confronting to some. But, I can live with this. Also, I do get ridiculed for my grammar. I don’t really care much about grammar on these sites as I’m not generating technical reports or writing personal documents. This site is sort of an unwinding for me, entertainment along with some informative comments.
@BAFO – Your grammar is the least thing you’re ridiculed for, although you’re a self proclaimed “Aerospace Engineer”. How? What?
US vehicle standards are the toughest anywhere, but they apply to all car makers, foreign, domestic, transplants, just the same.
US regs, don’t exactly favour fullsize SUVs, large pickups and “truck” classes, with an exemption from Gas Guzzler taxes, but regulators fully understand there’s an honest and real need for bigger ‘private’ vehicles that blur the line between commercial and domestic/family chores, be it home-based business, farms, ranches, etc, or simply having more than 1.2 kids, or “extended” families.
Anyway, most bigger and “exempt” US vehicles are non union, and or made in Mexico, Japan, Europe, Korea, etc.
But mostly, it’s silly to compare USA and Australian “choices”. OZ is a known dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest (emissions) and dangerous/poor crash safety vehicles.
@highdesertcat So lets see what those 3 extra litres of displacement bring to the table 2.7 EB[email protected], 375 lb-ft @3000 RPMs
Of course this is comparing what is basically the bottom end motor (most 3.7s are in XL fleet specials) to the top dog Tundra motor. so all that displacement gets you 25 extra lb-ft at 600 more RPMs. Yes it is more powerful but it hardly is a class above the 2.7 especially given that the Ford weighs less.
The true “stump puller” would be the 3.5 ecoboost which makes 420 lb-ft at 2500 RPMs. That is 19 more at 1100 fewer RPMs in a lighter package. The 5.7 barely bests the 5.0 in the Ford in the torque department and it is down on it in HP. The Toyota can’t pull or haul as much either.
Look, Toyota makes some good stuff, but the Tundra is outclassed by the powertrains in the F150 and for all the knocks on the fuel economy of the Ford, the Tundra is pathetic no matter how you drive it.
The best thing about the Tundra’s engine offerings is that they are the same (or very similar in some cases) to what is offered in the Land Cruiser, GX460, LX570, and LS460.
Those are some of the jewels of the ToyotaCo fleet and have a quality reputation that practically puts them at heirloom levels.
Personally, if I was planning to keep something forever, it might be worth taking the power and FE hits to get the same engine that goes in a Land Cruiser.
I don’t know about that either. Most Land Cruiser types say the marque died with the solid front axle when the 100 series debuted. I have much experience with Land Cruisers. My last was the 1FZ-FE inline 6. It croaked at 250k and became the most expensive rebuild I have ever done…all Toyota parts to include the short block assembly shipped from Tokyo. That truck was built from unobtanium parts none of which were less than 250 bucks a piece. They are like industrial equipment…you had better maintain them or else. The reputation for durability is from the old F series motors. The 3FE was the last and went away in the FJ80 in 1992. I was very happy to unload my 93, but I’ll miss it if the zombies come. Id still love a 60 series though, but rust free ones are stupid expensive now and my wife would probably run me over with it if I brought another Land Cruiser home.
Big Al From ‘Murica, ultimately, it boils down to a buyers personal preference. If a V6 rings a driver’s bell, go for it. It’s not for me. And it’s not for many others if they have a choice.
Back in 2007 the Tundra made news because of all its innovations and everybody was comparing themselves to Tundra, in commercials and ads.
I have to admit to buying a 2011 Tundra reluctantly, at first. But it proved to be a great ownership experience.
I believe that if more V8 F150s were made available, Ford would sell all of them. They sell every one they make now.
So, I see this whole V6 effort as a ploy on Ford’s part to limit V8 F150s and force more people to buy a V6 F150, so that Ford can meet CAFE mandates.
If it was only about power, why not put in an 820hp @10,000rpm 4-cyl supercharged race engine in the F150? Should get great mpg.
I came from a time when my first truck had an inline-6 with three on the tree. My first V8 truck was a 1988 Silverado 350. My second V8 truck was a 2006 F150 XLT.
Al why is it when you are proven wrong about a vehicle you go off on one of your Eurostrailian Policy/tics.
Yes if we paid super high fuel prices and taxes the automotive landscape in the US would be different. But it isn’t and that is what it is.
Now I fully admit that Ford is pushing the 2.7. Throughout the time it has been around Ford has usually offered a rebate on it that essentially makes it a free upgrade from the non turbo 3.7.
Now that may be because of CAFE or it could be that they just guessed wrong based on the take rate of the 3.5 EB in the earlier trucks. If the 2.7 rebate keeps popping up on the 2017s then you can bet it is because of CAFE.
For the record I like my V8s very much and that is what you’ll find in my fleet, from big old lumps like a 460, or 392 fed by a good old Holley 4bbl carb to a modern aluminum DOHC 4.6. The lone exception is the wife’s hybrid.
Glad Scoutdude could back up my factual data. Current 2.7L is suspect for EPA leverage, but determining what is driving that volume is impossible without talking with product planners and the manufacturing business office.
you want to see something goofy, peek under the hood of a Ram with the Pentastar V6. All that room they needed to package the monster Cummins ISB means you look at that V6 and wonder where the rest of the engine went.
Actually, all Ram HDs since 2010 have a taller front clip than the 1500s to fit the Cummins and (later) the 6.4.
they’re taller, but I’m talking about the space between the front of the Pentastar and the radiator. I could probably climb in and stand in there.
Gotcha. Yep, the Cummins is one looong mother of an engine, and there isn’t much length difference between a 1500 hood and an HD hood (if any).
JimZ – when I was a kid a buddy had an inline 300 ci Ford and my brother had a Chevy with the 250 I6. We used to go to a lot of outdoor parties and the police would often set up road blocks and check for booze. We carried a ton of beer in those gaping engine compartments.
What, you can pop the hood, climb a stepladder, look into the engine bay, and see the ground beside it?
Well if I’m going to buy an american fullsize truck you better believe this would be the box I would check.
“Then again, Fordâs rumbling 5.0-liter V8 costs only $800 more than the EcoBoost 2.7 and doesnât sound like a sewing machine in need of repair.”
just eyeballing things, it might be difficult to fit the turbo hardware without crashing into the steering shaft.
Terrible motor for a Mustang. Effortlessly overpowered when you don’t get on it and a top end that falls off when you do.
Peeps have been claiming truck motors dont work in pony cars for decades. Mustang 5.YO, corvette/camaro, viper, and ma mopar prove them wrong every time. Match your shifting to your power band. Corvette gets 30 mpg hwy running at 1500 rpm for a reason.
nickoo – or guys slam pickups for having “car” engines. You go back far enough and “truck” engines were commercial engines. Those often found duty in racing just because they were designed to survive heavy work. We see cross over now for the same reasons. A performance engine needs to hold together under “racing” loads and a truck engine needs to hold together under “work” loads. An engine does not know the difference between a Mustang hood or an F150 hood. It just does what it is designed to do.
Traditionally, “work loads” meant high torque at low rpm, requiring strong, heavy everything. Which capped revs, hence peak power.
While in displacement limited racing engines, everything was light (and balanced/blueprinted), to allow for high rpm, hence max peak power.
stuki – my dad started trucking in the 50’s with gas powered commercial trucks. He was hauling logs and the gassers were against the rev limiter all day long. A lot of guys, my dad included, would disconnect the rev limiter to get more power. The switch over to diesel trucks was mind blowing. High torque with low rpm and the difference in fuel consumption was huge.
I had no idea logging trucks were ever driven that way. In a bizarre kind of way, and unless you are the one who have to pay for fuel, that sounds kind of awesome…. At least for a short period, before the buzz gets tiring…
BC logging must have been an absolute goldmine and a bonanza in it’s early days. Simply “infinite” amounts of tall, dense forests of high quality trees ripe for the picking. Who cares about fuel costs… :)
A bit like the situation in the frac fields a couple of years ago, I imagine. I spent some time in Alberta 3 summers ago, and from the air, all the flaring made it look like Aliens had arrived and were landing thousands of spaceships every night….. And every able bodied male above 17, drove a brand new Platinum grade diesel truck….
@stuki – Back then, in the Northern Interior they used bulldozers to skid the logs out to landings and then arch trucks would skid (sort of like a tow truck) the loads onto river ice, or for reloading on rail cars or semi-trailer style haul trucks. My dad ran arch trucks. Many logging contractors would pay for fuel and you got paid by the load hauled. A winch was mounted behind the cab and the cable ran out the raised fairlead. Multiple choker cables were slung to the hook off the main cable. A large wide plate ran across the back of the truck for logs to butt up against and ride up under the arch.
As logging technology improved they phased out bulldozers and used rubber tire’d skidders. These skidders also phased out arch trucks. Booming logs down rivers was phased out more to danger and loss of wood (IIRC) than any environmental concerns.
A lot of lumber has been pulled out of the forest. Too much actually. A while back I was wondering why my dad always knew where to go in the back country. It was simply because there wasn’t that many roads into the bush. You pull up Google Earth and it is mind boggling the number of cut blocks and areas denuded of trees.
@Stuki – here are a few pictures I found of arch trucks. The length of the links were screwing up my post.
Some of those trucks look awesome. The later ones were getting rather large, but the earlier ones are exactly what is missing for the “expedition vehicle” builders to build on. I have driven a few of the old army 6x6s. They go pretty much everywhere, as long as 45mph is acceptable. And they run on pretty much anything flammable. Probably not up to modern emissions and safety standards, but they’re pretty neat for genuinely unsupported boondocking.
@Stuki – the yellow truck is a Pacific. That is the company that made them. They were purpose built off highway trucks. Many of them are still in service on the Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) and the North and South coasts. The red one is an International. My dad started out in Ford single axle trucks and moved to B model Mack’s. I love the looks of those old B model trucks.
In the short term at least, this engine is very impressive. 5.7 seconds to 60 is Accord V6 performance from a fat pickup truck, a full second quicker than the 5.0 V8 from an engine half its size. If the 2.7 has little turbo lag, it would be my pick. I love the smooth roll-on of power starting from a stop in the 5.0 in the 2011 I’ve had time in, but the transmission is ridiculously slow to kick down a gear so it is kind of pokey on the move. I can’t help but think the low rpm power of a turbo would help here.
The Edmunds long term F150 with this engine has a few concerning aspects. EPA highway economy is apparently a pipe dream even when driving gently and empty; this is a fast truck but not an Eco one and you will pay for that power. The oil change procedure invites serious overfills from sloppy technicians even at dealerships that should know better, so check the dipstick every time and think twice about buying a used one.
Twin scroll turbo should help minimize any lag. The 2.7 is just all around a great engine. Cant wait to see it paired to the next generation transmission.
I’ve never driven an Ecoboost vehicle where I couldn’t beat the sticker mpg. I think some people just have “interesting” ideas on what constitutes driving “gently.”
they do. they use relatively tiny turbos which spool up ridiculously fast. the downside is that they start to run out of breath around 5500-6000 rpm. GTDI engines are really starting to feel more and more diesel-like every day.
That probably improves driveability in the situations I’m thinking of. The 5.0 doesn’t have enough shove to move the truck at the low rpms the transmission keeps it on a cruise and it doesn’t like to downshift.
The fuel economy reference is here, it’s a bit more careful and detailed than a lot of the crap blog entries that site publishes:
I never trust any car writer when he or she says he drove anything “gently.” Based on the numbers they usually get I think “gently” to a car writer must mean “not sending the engine to redline from every stop.”
I agree with where you’re coming from, but I don’t think so in this case. Dan Edmunds is the most mature and methodical member of the staff over there. But it is just one vehicle, one experience.
I’m curious if Consumer Reports has numbers on this truck and the 5.0, that would be a comparison that would hold some water.
And it doesn’t help that recent Ford engines seem to have a long break-in process in terms of fuel mileage results
this. I’ve been a passenger in a number of people’s Ecoboost Fords. if they complain about their gas mileage, it takes me all of about 4 seconds into the ride to figure out why.
JimZ, looking at CR’s limited online data for us non-subscribers, their standardized tests returned 17 and 16 mpg respectively for the 2.7 and 3.5 Ecoboosts. No data for the 5.0 in this generation, but the Silverado with 5.3 returned 16mpg and the Tundra and Hemi Ram 15mpg. So, the most efficiennt gasser quarter tons by a hair in their tests. And while they aren’t the fastest using CR’s acceleration methods, they pretty much are using those from other outlets. Now I kinda want one.
I agree. I own 2 ecoboost engines. The Escape 2.0 managed to go from 24.5 ave to 26.7…27 once I started using premium and/or marine fuel. This change started when I found out our boat marine sold the non alcohol gas for the same price ad mid grade. I tried it and my MPGs rose quickly.
I have always used premium in my 3.5 ecoboost 2010 MKS. The car has always averaged around 22 in Chicago suburbs and now around 23 in the Ozarks. Hell…I get 26 ave when we load up and drive to Florida and back. And that is FULLY weighted down with everything we can push into the car. IF you drive easily, you do get the MPG you are buying the tech for. And…when you really want power, the damn engine pushes you like a train hit you in the rear.
JimZ – Exactly. It feels like a diesel and if you drive it like one you’ll be rewarded. I found that applying smooth throttle inputs keeping it from downshifting and riding the torque curve gives great acceleration and holds very well on steep hills. Compression braking wasn’t as good as my 5.4 or large diesels though.
I haven’t driven this 2.7 in a long term test. I’ve heard mixed reports about it’s efficiency. Now I’m looking up it’s service documentation.
This is the pair of articles I was referring to, if you want to compare with the documentation you are looking up:
The oil change is a voodoo ritual…I’ll give you that and it is the reason nobody but me will ever change the oil in it. Drop the aerodynamic shield, remove the plastic plug from the plastic pan and be ready…it flows out like you just ran the Exxon Valdez into some rocks. Fill it up…wait like 15 minutes, check the level and you are done. I the overfilling issues are the results of carelessness. If you know the crankcase holds 6 quarts from, I don’t know, the owners manual maybe, why would you dump lime 10 in as some were doing.
Interestingly, last weekend I booked an Alamo rental in Atlanta. I was expecting the usual Corolla/Altima/Malibu, but there were two 2016 F-150s parked with the Standard Rental group. The attendant told me to take whichever. My wife and I thought it would be fun to drive the pickup, so we chose that. I expected the 2.7 or 3.5, but lo and behold, it had the 8.
The trick to get these moving quickly is to activate Sport Mode (trans mapping recalibration), enable AdvanceTrac Sport, and critically, place it in 4×4 HI. I’ve only done it once but it absolutely flies, I don’t doubt the C&D time of high-fives. Real world mileage I’m seeing around 20 mpg, but that’s with a lot of highway driving. No perceptible lag in the 2.7TT, but I have noticed the trans gets a bit confused in its kickdown from 5-4.
What I would like to know is how the EPA does all of its MPG. The F150s FWD with ecoboost engines are: 2.7 18/24/21 the 3.5 16/22/18
What is the MKX doing wrong? Its not big. You stand next to it and it looks smaller than the Edge, although not.
I also believe that number is calculated from the un-rounded hwy and city numbers and then rounded to the nearest whole number. So those right combination of extra or missing 10ths can skew the combined from taking 60/40 from the whole numbers.
ya, always understood the ration when they do it…but the question to me is why the MKX is equal in MPG to this large truck. This bothers me since, well, I want to like the MKS. It is sweet looking, but the MPGs on this thing suck for its size.
possibly gearing. The F-150 offers several different rear end gear ratios, and I don’t know what the rules say about which one (or how many) need to be tested.
Did you mean to say “F150 4WD” in that second line? “FWD” would mean “front-wheel-drive.”
Dr… Yes, sorry about the error. It was the 2wd. F150 2.7 that averaged the same MPG as the MKX. And this is really bothersome to me.
TrailerTrash, Judging the many articles that have reported to the poor FE from the 2.7 EcoBoost might mean Ford has used some creative arithmetic.
I test drove all three engines in the Ford when I was shopping last year and concur with this 100%. The 2.7 is only the economy engine on paper. It isn’t economical, subsidized sticker price to the contrary it’s at least as complex and expensive to build as the older 3.5 and significantly more so than a conventional V8, and between the electronic throttle calibration and the short gears it comes with it just plain scoots. The dyno charts and acceleration times that I’ve seen suggest that Ford’s brochure numbers are sandbagging considerably.
As much as I love a V8 and wanted to dislike the vacuum cleaners it only takes one press of the pedal to have to admit that this vacuum cleaner drives the best. If only it sounded less terrible.
Absolute night and day. That 5.3 felt strained and legitimately slow while the 2.7 was the complete opposite.
Yep. The 5.3 has plenty of power on the dyno but you sure wouldn’t know it in the first 2/3 of the pedal. Those trucks are dogs.
Rear gears and break in play a huge roll in this. Go drive a 3.42 axle Chevy truck with some break in miles. Much quicker than a new green truck with 3.08’s.
that’s only true if your driving style is “stomp on the gas until I have to stomp on the brake.”
well, the “base” motor in the 2016 F-150 is a 6 cylinder with 280 hp and 250 lb-ft of torque. it has 130 more hp and only 10 lb-ft less torque than the “legendary” 300 six, and has 60 more horsepower and only 10 lb-ft less than the last six offered in the F-150, which was the Essex piece of junk.
JimZ – agreed. People drive like the gas pedal is like a light switch. Either on or off. I’ve been in traffic with my windows down and you hear other engines revving up and then off. You even notice a bit of jack-rabbiting. Vehicles with aftermarket exhaust are the most noticeable since it is so easy to hear.
You guys get it. I feel so much better knowing I’m not the only one. Even my immediate family doesn’t seem to understand Newton’s laws of motion.
@tresmonos – when I was around 16 my dad read an article in the paper about drivers. It said around 33% of drivers should not have a licence. It had some other sobering facts. He made me cut it out of the paper. I’ve never forgot it and now that my sons are getting close to driving age I’m passing on a lot of his driving tips.
I visited Ford’s website today, and saw the build feature is active for the ’17 Fusion, including the Sport which will have this engine. That’s a review I can’t wait to read.
Looks good, doesn’t it? Disappointed in the wheel choice, though. 19 inches and finished in Brake Dust Grey.
Because if all you’re doing with a column or console shifter is flipping an electric switch, you might as well make the shifter take up less space.
There’s a pragmatic case for that. But looking at pictures, with the shift lever the console had buttons for the parking brake and something else, and 2 laterally arrayed cupholders. With the dial it has buttons for the parking brake and something else, and 2 longitudinally arrayed cupholders. What space was saved?
Agreed, it doesn’t look like it actually saved any space. There’s less of a travel space for the shifter, but they didn’t do anything with it.
Those dark wheels, I don’t get it either. There’s not even an option for different wheels. They did the same thing with the Mustang Performance Pack, and finally, for the next model year, relented to the complaints by offering a choice of wheels.
That stupid rotary dial just made me very disappointed in the 2017 Fusion and I agree the wheel choice sucks
I’d like to see you put at least 3 ton behind each engine and see how they handle it. Add an RV to the test as well and see how it pulls that billboard down the interstate @ 70 MPH. Then tell me what’s the better engine to order my new F150 with.
so what are you disputing? The three “big” engines in the F-150 (the 2.7EB, 3.5EB, and 5.0) have 325, 365, and 385 horsepower respectively. The use case you describe depends entirely on horsepower. So I don’t see what your problem is.
Besides, the average 18 wheeler out there has about 400-450 horsepower, so I don’t see why you think 325+ isn’t enough for a pickup truck.
I honestly have no idea what your talking about and maybe it’s because my post wasn’t clear. Let me do some tow testing with both ecoboost engines and then I’ll tell you which engine is the better of the 2. And it might not be the smaller one. Or it may be.
And HP is meaningless in a truck, it’s effortless torque down low to get a load moving without having to drive the sh$t out of the truck. That’s what you want in a truck motor. Why do you think people love to tow w/diesels in trucks.
that’s a load of crap. Horsepower tells you everything you need to know about how much work your truck can do (power being the time derivative of work.) Power tells you how much work an engine can do. The engine’s torque (and torque curve) tell you how you need to gear it to do that work.
” itâs effortless torque down low to get a load moving without having to drive the sh$t out of the truck. ”
huh. my region’s gas utility company uses CNG-fueled Triton V10s in their F-750s, and they seem to get on just fine.
I wouldn’t say “meaningless”, either. Deceiving, yeah. 1st tell me of the torque, then if there’s time, where/when/how long it hits. And oh yeah, the “Horse Power” too.
With just a “HP” figure, it leaves too many questions. It’s a fairly arbitrary figure/equation based on complete torque specs.
” I wouldnât say âmeaninglessâ, either. Deceiving, yeah. 1st tell me of the torque, then if thereâs time, where/when/how long it hits. And oh yeah, the âHorse Powerâ too.”
it’s deceiving because diesels have been able to use high-pressure turbocharging for a long time. Diesels don’t rely on stoichiometry and thus are immune to detonation, so you can cram as much air into one as you want and you probably won’t blow it up.
the “Diesel=torque” mindset came about because we’ve had decades of comparing high-pressure-turbocharged diesels against normally-aspirated gas engines. Now that gasoline turbocharged direct injected (GTDI) engines are commonplace, they’re out-torquing and way, way out-powering diesels. you can crank up a GTDI engine to insane power and torque levels, so long as you stave off detonation.
The ‘power gap’ between gas and diesel engines is narrowing, pound for pound and turbo vs turbo, but I’m still way more interested in torque rating and torque curve, than the “HP”, peak or otherwise, gas or diesel.
Except the ‘fuel economy’ *gap* between gas and diesel engines is narrowing too. Also the total costs of owning a diesel is severely outpacing gas engines.
Carlson Fan – from what you describe you might as well skip straight to the EB 3.5. It has an incredible torque curve.
There you go Lou. It’s the curve I want to see. Torque & HP at what RPM. I don’t care how much horsepower an engine has in a truck if you have to rev the piss out of it to make it.
Carlson Fan – the EB 3.5 has an impressive torque curve. http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1037722-performance-3-5l-vs-5-0l-3.html
There are articles showing the EcoBoost engines are not delivering the boasted FE that Ford is shoving down the the throats of the consumers.
I don’t know…I drove the Ram Eco-Diesel and it felt underpowered. With gas prices hanging out around 2.00 per gallon though I wouldn’t put money on ever seeing a light duty diesel here. When total cost of ownership enters the equation they lose some of their shine. Now don’t get me wrong…If I had my neighbors ginormous 5th wheel I’d have a diesel, but these small diesels aren’t equipped for the serious work the big ones do like that.
On the occasion that you do get stuck in stop and go on a warm day, just hit the button and switch it off.
why not? what’s the advantage to having your engine sit there burning fuel doing no useful work whatsoever?
so lemme ask this. the stopping and starting must use a motor. not sure about the modern cars…but starters were expensive and hard to put in and out. how do modern motors turn on…then off and on again…so quickly without any wear n tear on something? even the battery must get hit on by these in stop n go traffic jams to and from work.
just seems like a lotta work to save very little. more an attempt to fool with the MPGs and government regs. at the cost of future expenses.
Yes, start/stop cars use starter motors, but not the same starter motor as a ’75 Duster. Audi was experimenting with using just spark and fuel in a compressed cylinder, but I don’t know if that’s in production yet. It should go without saying that start-stop starters are built to different specifications. For one thing, they work in a fraction of a second.
I don’t think you can generalize about starters being hard to replace. They rarely fail anymore. Shop time depends on make. Typically, you will pay more to do a job in a cramped engine bay (V6 or V8).
Start/stop is disabled when battery power is low, at least in every implementation I’ve seen. It’s also disabled when HVAC requirements are high, and when the engine is not up to temperature. You can also disable it yourself.
No MPG advantage in EPA tests, because the test cycle doesn’t include any significant time at full stop. You will get an advantage in real life, if you spend time in stop and go traffic.
Is it really a lot of work? Software, some parts built to different specs? Every new car has that to some extent.
Mazda’s start/stop system doesn’t use electric motors. They squirt fuel into one of the cylinders with the fuel injector, then fire the plug. Sweet and simple.
so I can presume when heavy heating is required as well? This leaves the system working in mild weather?
“They rarely fail anymore.” Gonna guess this is because this is a newer tech and was wondering if you have any knowledge of systems with miles on them or any data that includes these systems…not just starter data in general?
I have nothing against them, other than the 3 series and XC60 and they were irritating. If the system can work without me noticing AND the repairs are not important over time…got nothing against them.
The start stop feature does show up in the EPA testing results, that is the only reason that anyone offers it. You may not see it on the twice adjusted sticker but it does show up in the raw numbers that are used to determine CAFE compliance.
@ Heavy Handle, The starter motors in conventional vehicles with start stop systems still have brushes and the brushes wear with every rotation of the starter. You can design it with longer brushes to last longer but that only takes you so far. Hybrid vehicles for the most part are different in that they use one of the drivetrain motors to start the engine.
@ Trailer Trash, yes if the demand for heat is high you will suck all of the heat out of the engine and when the engine temp gets below the target min temp the engine will start back up. This is the reason that Hybrid vehicles loose so much MPG when operated in cold temps. It is pretty easy to suck all the heat out of the engine in my Wife’s Fusion Hybrid in the coldest parts of the year. My wife did a little experiment with her car. Her to work commute is a net drop in elevation. If she leaves the heat set a 70 and it is 40ish outside he to work MPG will be an indicated 45mpg or so. Turn the HVAC off and use the seat heat and she can get 52mpg.
Back home the difference is negligible since it is mostly up hill there is not a lot of engine off time available. Of course being a Hybrid exaggerates the difference since it can go engine off at speeds up to 45mph.
I own one. I don’t worry about the starter as much as I worry about the increased potential for wear on the bottom end with all the extra starts. It is a small worry, but it does cross my mind.
@Big Al – It used to be you could buy a brand new pickup, drive ’til the wheels fell off, then walk away (or restore). Now I’m thinking it’ll be best to lease, as it’ll drive you crazy, past 150K or 10 years, keeping the basic functions alive, long before the wheels can think about falling off.
naa…If you look at what they put into that motor I have no doubts it’ll run 250k like pretty much anything else on the road. Turbos arent really exotic hardware anymore. besides there is plenty of room to get at stuff under the hood. So long as it doesnt have any stupid 5.4 type issues it will be fine. It really is an impressively engineered vehicle, though the base sync system has me wanting to go back to an iPhone…the integration is much tighter than with Android and the nav will mute the radio unlike Android.
It’s not the turbos per say , it’s mostly all the added processing necessary for the turbos and simple, basic functions to keep the truck starting/running/stopping/steering/etc.
Functions, “simple, basic” in ‘tasks’, but not in function/operation. Does the start button simply a 12 volt momentary ‘pulse’ to the starter relay/solenoid, or is there a processor involved? What about the electric power steering? Direct 12 volts, or does it have its own processor board?
It’s all just more crap to fail, and will lead to early disposal/scrapping. Especially when no one is re-popping or rebuilding all the specific modules.
AS for HVAC effect on start/stop – cold weather has effectively no effect once up to operating temp. Once the engine is warmed up, there is plenty of thermal mass to provide heat with the engine off for a long time. BMW uses an electric waterpump so circulation is independent of whether the motor is running or not. I would assume Ford does the same, or at least an electric aux pump. My 328i actually has the ability to keep the heater running after you shut the engine off manually. Will keep the cabin warm for 30 minutes or more on a cold winter day in Maine. My old Saab 9-5 had that feature too.
In hot weather, it will definitely shut off less and turn back on sooner unless in EcoPro mode, in which case it lets the cabin heat up quite noticeably before restarting. In the BMW you can also get the motor to start by giving the steering wheel a yank I have found. Not sure if that one is a bug or a feature.
I figure it must do something, because around town with it on my M235i almost matches my 328i for fuel economy despite the massive power advantage – which I have a tendency to use. They weigh the same, both are six speed sticks.
I’m a big fan of stop/start. Chances are if it causes the starter to fail prematurely it will happen after I no longer own the car, so not my problem.
One additional factor – warm DI engines start just about instantly, generally in less than a full turn of the motor once warmed up. In the case of my BMW with start/stop, it goes from off to running in less than the amount of time it takes me to push the clutch to the floor (it will only shut off with the stick in neutral and the clutch released).
There’s lots more to ownership than just fuel economy, especially trucks. If it’s a lease, then maybe, but for long term, get the V8. Geeze my 4.6 goes 40K miles between oil changes and I never have to think about it. I’ll crack open the oil filters out of curiosity, and all’s fine every time. No metal, so I have to laugh maniacally.
Full synthetic 5W20, but regular unleaded only and over 200K miles on the ’04 F-150 with original sparkplugs, air filter, coolant, etc.
My nephew has a 15 Raptor with the 6.2l mill and is broken in with about 25k on the clock and his wife’s new Platinum 2.7 with less than 500mi will smoke him every. Single. Time. In a drag race. It doesn’t matter gow amd when you line them up either! Rolling, stoplight, interstate…she smokes him every time.
They haven’t had it long enough to comnent on longevity of course and they likely never will as he trades about every three years(roll eyes).
I’m just sitting over here wondering how cheaply I could swap one of those 2.7’s into my 04 Ranger 2wd and make one heck of a sleeper!
Yep. Assume 15 psi of boost, and you effectively double your cubic inches. So that 2.7 becomes more like a 5.4L, and at the same time, you tune your turbo with twin scrolls to have adequate performance over the entire RPM range and you’ve reduced your friction and rotational mass…
I’d love to be “anti”-Ford here for a minute and say I don’t know what you guys are talking about. For one you have to keep this truck in sport mode for it to shift acceptably, the auto start-stop is highly annoying and cannot be left off, there is zero reason my engine should shut off when stopped. And my biggest issue is that fact this engine is buzzy, loud, and downright unrefined at idle. Who let this out of the door like that?
I really don’t care for the performance, it is best comparable to a GMT800 5.3l in power except it runs out of power 5/8 of the way to the rev limiter. I have no experience with the current 5.0 or 3.5, but if this is truly the best engine then that’s a pretty p poor job by Ford.
Clearly Chevrolet isn’t doing any better in this department as the 5.3 is severely undertuned, and the 6.2, which should be available across the board at a small up charge is being treated like hens teeth. I will opine that the Ram with the 5.7 is probably the best deal on the market, it’s the only truck that delivered acceptable performance at an acceptable price.
Yes that extra $0.005 of gas is really going to put the multi-billion dollar company paying for its fuel out of profitability for the month. (Or a personal owner for that matter)
I would love an explanation of a situation where this system makes sense, if I’m sitting in traffic, I’m probably pretty annoyed, the last thing I want to hear is the GD engine that can’t make up its mind if it should run or stop. Half of these trucks are going to run for 8 hours a day regardless if no one is driving or sitting in them for a couple hours at a time, yet somehow people actually believe that the engine shutting itself off for 3 seconds is going to create noticeable fuel gains? These are likely the people that have degrees in the arts or soft sciences.
It’s not 3 second stops that make it shine, but rather 90 second red lights. Being a manual kind of guy, I’d prefer to have the start/stop button right on the steering wheel, but in a world where ther aren’t enough people around capable of even outshifting a dumber than a fruitfly computer, fat chance of seeing that on a halfton anytime soon. In the meantime, the combination of quick spool, high pressure turbo, well programmed slushbox and auto start stop works pretty unobtrusively.
Hummer – compared to the GMT800 5.3? Really? I found a graph comparing a stock EB 2.7 to a 2015 Chevy 5.3. The little 2.7 kills it everywhere. http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1363119-ford-2015-2-7l-eb-vs-gm-5-3l-silverado.html
Even Ford’s 5.4 had superior torque characteristics to the Vortec 5.3 and only in a very narrow part of the rpm range (close to WOT) did the 5.3 have a HP advantage and that was a miniscule one at that. IIRC 5 hp difference.
That’s what it reminds me of, it isn’t anything exceedingly special but it’s capable of taking care of itself. Plus without actually looking I would guesstimate this truck weighs more than a equivalent GMT800.
Hummer – the GMT800’s are going to be heavier than the current F150. The old F150 was 500-600 lbs heavier. I’ve only ever seen one test that compared the 5.3 F150 to the 5.3 Chevy. The 5.3 was 0.1 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile.
For what it’s worth, I went to a Ford test drive event when the 3.5EB first came out, and one of the things they had set up was a towing comparison (20ft trailer, 6000lbs, I believe, but it was several years ago), between an Ecoboost F150, a Hemi Ram, and a 5.3 Silverado. Rural roads, probably a 5 mile loop, and no quicker than 50mph. I didn’t manage to get to the Silverado (having driven a number of ’15 Silverados with the 5.3 last summer sans trailer, I don’t think I missed much), but the Ford felt noticeably stouter than the Hemi, and got slightly better fuel economy as per the MPG meter in each (obviously, neither were great).
Now, it’s entirely possible that, being a Ford event, they were able to manipulate specifications in their favour, or the trailers weren’t loaded up equally, or something. Still, the Ecoboost is perfectly capable of towing, and the Hemi Ram is a muscle car for guys who think Florida Georgia Line is music.
The 5.3 should be dropped from fullsize GM pickups with the 6.2 as the base V8, or base, base engine. The 5.3 would be perfect in the Colorado/Canyon, and a great alternative to the baby D-MAX. And add a 5.3 V8 option for the Camaro and base engine on all Cadillacs.
There’s really no shame in ‘base’ fullsize pickups starting at 6.2 V8s, to upgraded half-tons with 8.1 gasser V8s. They have great pushrod efficiency of size/weigh, and of course, respectable fuel economy. You do trade an increased cylinder volume for multi valve DOHCs, but it works out to the same. No need for turbos or diesels here.
Hummer, I’ve just been driving around the southern half of Florida in a 2015 SLT dual cab Ram with a 5.7 Hemi.
Nice engine, but the FE I was getting was around 14mpg and I was no where’s near flogging the engine. I mainly was just keeping the traffic.
I’m not anti-Ford at all or anti-Ecoboost. In fact, its the rest of the truck that kept me away from an F150; not the powertrain. I’m not fond of the interior design or color choices (without spending for king ranch) and I think the ride and handling balance is off (rides too hard with little handling benefit). GM seems to have gotten the basic truck stuff better IMO.
The Ecoboosts have one BIG flaw IMO (that GM’s 6.2L shares) and that’s the “premium recommended”. I refuse to pay a $0.60 upcharge for fuel that barely costs more to manufacture in order to get the full benefit of my engine. Sure you can run 87 octane, but you aren’t getting advertised power or gas mileage. Throttle response really suffers as timing is pulled to prevent detonation. Ford’s 5.0 and GM’s 5.3 get advertised power and mileage on 87 octane. Ram’s HEMI demands 89. Around me the difference is nearly $0.60 a gallon to go from 87 to 91 octance. Comparing a F-150 2.7/3.5 to a 5.0 on 87 octane, the 5.0 has better response, better mileage and likely will last longer. The Coyote is a fantastic motor that’s completely ignored. The reality is that ALL full-size truck engines are powerful motors that are more than up to the task; the rest of the truck is where differentiation happens for me. My choice in F150 land is a 5.0 V8, in GM land its a 5.3L V8. If for releases an ecoboost that does not carry the premium recommended label, I’ll bite. Same with GM and the 6.2L. Or offer flexfuel; that works too.
As far as a 5.7 HEMI vs a 5.3L GM, the performance is basically identical. You can thank the Ram’s massive curb weight for eating the advantage the extra 40hp and 2 gears give it. Ford gets all this attention for making a lightweight aluminum truck (which don’t get me wrong is AWESOME, its rustproof and way more dent resistent!) but GM’s were pretty lightweight already. IIRC the k2xx trucks use aluminum hoods?
Frylock350 – IIRC Ford recommends premium fuel only for heavy towing or hauling. GM recommends premium for the 6.2 all of the time.
My friend showed up in a 2016 red Dodge Ram 1500 Big Horn quad cab short bed with Hemi engine and 8 speed auto that he rented and took me for an extended drive. It seemed pretty quick but not all that quick and when we got to a stop light on a 4 lane highway a brand new Red Hot Silverado double cab pulled up alongside us with it’s sticker still in the window and proceeded to pull a full truck length on us foot smashed into the floorboards and all. I could make out the mileage on the sticker as 15/22 which would indicate a 4X4 5.3 and 6 speed automatic probably tied to a 3.42 rear end. Judging by that little race I would put the 5.3 in the middle of the Hemi and the 2.7Ford EB in comparable body trucks with comparable gearing.
Am I looking at the picture wrong or does that bumper not correctly line up with the fender? I can’t tell if it’s even or just the angle of the photo.
@Hummer – the bumper looks bent on the orange F150 but the red one looks okay. All pickups have sh!tty bumpers due to safety standards.
They should all start using thicker metal, these bumpers are just barely thicker than the sheet metal across the board.
@Hummer – I agree. My brother had a new Chevy HD and the first time he took it out to a logging show a rock bounced up and hit the inside of the back bumper. It pushed the metal out at least 1/2 an inch. It looked like a guy hit it with a ball peen hammer.
A negative with 2.7L is electronic parking brake. Well, it is on the 3.5L too. If you get the max towing package with larger rear end then you get mechanical. You have to use a scan tool to retract brake calipers when doing brake job.
That is good to know. Hopefully I don’t have to do the rear brakes too often. The one thing I like about the electric is that it will stay on in gear but give it gas and it releases…nice if you are taking off on a hill with a trailer. I’ve had enough issues with mechanical parking brakes that I don’t think the electronics will be any worse. Probably easier than coroded and broken cables.
The metal is thin on the newer vehicles. I prefer steel bumpers but as thin as the metal is it makes plastic bumpers more appealing. Thinner steel actually makes for a stronger argument to use more aluminum, plastic, and carbon fiber which is light and more resilient.
As for the EcoBoost, enough years have gone by that there are no major issues with it. Most likely other manufacturers will offer turbo V-6s in their trucks. I myself would prefer a non turbo engine but that is my opinion. My preference is for compact and midsize trucks and do not have a dog in this fight.
Story and comments have me very interested in the upcoming Fusion sport. Hopefully Ford can do something about the engine sound for that car.
The regular-cab, long-bed, RWD, XL trim version of this truck looks like a pretty good value. They are throwing a lot of incentives at it if you buy an XL trim, and even more if you buy the 2.7L engine. According to true car, roughly $23k after incentives in my area.
If I were to start a small business that needed a truck I might choose the above model, although a cargo van and a little trailer are probably more versatile.
Actually you can get a quite few options in the base F-150, including power window/locks or “Power Group”, cruise and more. To me, it’s the Goldilocks of trucks. Everything you want, minus the fluff. And no chrome! Vinyl flooring and steelie wheels too.
I preferred the STX trim on the previous generation. My boss had one as a company vehicle and it was “just right”: 5.0, 4×4, Sync, alloys, foglights, vinyl floor and body colored bumpers.
I’ve driven all four motors and I’ve got to say, there’s not a bad one in the bunch. If I were buying a F-150 today I’d be looking at either the 2.7 or the 5.0. Those two are the most fun in my experience. The 3.5 EcoBoost is a fantastic motor but it’s the workhorse and isn’t quite as playful as the other two mentioned. Just my experience and $0.02. You can disagree.
Let’s get real – my Dad’s 1975 F-150 super cab with a 300 cid engine could barely get 13 mpgs when new and during its 250,000 mile lifetime it barely bettered 15 mpgs.
Whine all you want, the new trucks are far better than the old ones and that mileage that was noted here is fantastic for real world usage.
164c.i.d. Only a little smaller than the inline six I had in my first car. Wonder what the horsepower would be on that if the turbo quit working?
We bought a 2016 Ford F150 with the 2.7 L Ecoboost engine in September 2016. On Dec 23, 2016 with only 6200 Kms (which is approx 3600 miles) it was dead in the driveway and towed to the dealer. Error message was “Engine Coolant Overtemperature” which did not make sense in a December Canadian winter on a truck that had sat in the driveway all night. How would it get overtemperature in those conditions? The dealer diagnosed a coolant sensor and wiring problem. To date we STILL do not have our truck back. It has been sitting in the exact spot on the Oshawa dealer’s lot since it was towed in. Ford says they have to make the wiring harness for it. It is almost 7 weeks now and still no truck. Why would Ford not have a wiring harness in stock on a vehicle that’s been in production over a year now? This totally stinks and we are sorry we ever bought this truck. We are exploring Canadian laws that force manufactures to buy back vehicles under certain conditions. Our experience attests to at least one 2.7 ecoboost engine that does not deserve any accolades but rather quite the opposite. It deserves 5 lemons and a rotten egg award.
2 People Seats New Electric Car
I’ve had similar problems with v8’s, in line 4’s and 6’s. So does that mean all engines are bad? Think about it.
I just sold my Dodge Ram with high mileage. It had the 4.7 v8 which was a dog in the wind and was awful at acceleration on the highway. I then went to buy another Dodge with the 5.7 hemi which I took for a test drive. While waiting for the dealer to locate the truck with features I wanted, I decided to test drive a Ford F150. I checked out the v8, the 3.5 and 2.7. It was a slam dunk. Among all I tried the 2.7 was the quickest, had the most power for my driving situation and had the best price of any. I went home began to study the technology and see if this engine was feasible for long term and would do the occasional tow/haul, commute, lumber load, etc. I ended up with the 2.7 ecoboost and am still amazed at the performance. I live near 65 miles from the nearest town out here in W Texas and even when I hauled lumber I still needed something to get me there unloaded. The fuel savings coupled with the ability to handle the load all in one vehicle made the choice a definite. I was very skeptical about the small turbo boosted v6 for a full size pickup. The aluminum body coupled to the small v6 was a no brainer. I’m so glad I chose the Ford over the Dodge. Even after owning Dodges for over 40 years, the advanced technology Ford uses sold me. And for those who think the 2.7 isn’t on par with the v8, you are wrong. At least for my situation, I was surprised to find I no longer need a v8 pickup to do work with. Anyone who hasn’t used one of these new high tech trucks needs to shut their pie hole until they do. The v8 is not necessary for most 1/2 ton buyers.
Carton Toy Car, Children Car, Children Motorcycle, Kids Car, Toy Motorcar - Haizhibao,https://www.chinatoycar.com/