Ford Eco Boost 2.7L

[elchilero53]

I would go with the 3.5L or 5.0L in the Ecoboost. In the Chevy/GMC the 6.2L + 8-speed is the bomb. It was ever so slightly edged out by the 3.5 Ecoboost with Max Tow on the Ike Gauntlet tests but got better mileage (not that it will matter much towing 9000# loads up a 7% grade at 60 MPH). We will be testing our new Chevy with the 6.2L in September in the New Mexico mountains. A report will follow. Right now, it is getting 20 MPG on regular highway driving and no down-shifting on the long hills around here without a load at 75 mph. We'll see how it does when we tow the trailer to NM.

[OLDNAVY]

Thanks for all the input. Ended up buying 3.5L EcoBoost with 10 speed tranny.
Thanks

[Stovebolt]

The GM 6.2 need premium fuel all the time.

[superhawkman]

Nice, congrats !

[buffalobutt]

Originally Posted by goduc

For that weight TT I'd go with the 5.0. Less problems to deal with and will yank that TT like it's not even there.

Apparently you have never towed with a 3.5 or you would not have a 5.0. Have a nice day

[elchilero53]

Originally Posted by OLDNAVY

Thanks for all the input. Ended up buying 3.5L EcoBoost with 10 speed tranny.
Thanks

Good choice! Congrats!

[elchilero53]

Originally Posted by Stovebolt

The GM 6.2 need premium fuel all the time.

It is the recommended fuel but man, what beast! I'm getting excellent mileage (more that 21 mpg) and this thing hasn't met a hill it didn't like yet. We'll see what it does in September on some mountain passes.

You can use lower octane gas (87 is the lowest permitted) but if the engine starts knocking, you have to go back up. My old F-150 with the 5.8L Windsor motor didn't like anything lower than mid-grade (nominal 89 octane). I like the power and mileage with the premium so that it what it will get.

[Stovebolt]

As long as you're happy that's all that matters.

[Restcure]

Originally Posted by OLDNAVY

Thanks for all the input. Ended up buying 3.5L EcoBoost with 10 speed tranny.
Thanks

I think you'll be very happy with the truck. IMHO the weak point is the payload but the aluminum body gives you a lot more of that.

[Stovebolt]

Originally Posted by Restcure

I think you'll be very happy with the truck. IMHO the weak point is the payload but the aluminum body gives you a lot more of that.

I agree. My Aluminum F150 maxtow package doesn't handle the weight as well as my 2013 F150 maxtow. When they lightened up the new truck, they took at least one leaf spring out on each side and the truck sits down farther under load. My 2013 was in my opinion a better towing vehicle but the new one is sooo much nicer.

[goduc]

Originally Posted by buffalobutt

Apparently you have never towed with a 3.5 or you would not have a 5.0. Have a nice day

He hardly needs more power for his TT. Not having two turbos to cause issues is a lot safer. Just more glitz to go belly up. Lots of carbon problems with the EB as well.

[Seasonal]

Like others on this thread, I own a 6.7L but understand that cannot be in the plan for everyone. If I needed a pickup for around the house, hauling mulch, utility trailer, or such, 2.7L for me all the way. It would also make a nice truck to run at highway speeds empty and get the good mileage.

If I thought that I needed to haul anything with weight, 3.5L or 5.0L would be what I would want. I would rather have more than I need then not quite enough. In some cases, neither the 3.5L or 5.0L is enough, that's why Ford sells the 6.7L.

[great white]

Originally Posted by goduc

He hardly needs more power for his TT. Not having two turbos to cause issues is a lot safer. Just more glitz to go belly up. Lots of carbon problems with the EB as well.

The 5.0 Coyote is fine engine and tows just fine. The EB and 5.0 are very close in power, at least the 3.5 is. 2.7 is a little further behind on the numbers sheet. The Coyote and 3.5 EB are even rated within 1-2 MPG of each other. Statistically insignificant.

That being said, where the engines differ is in how they deliver their power. The absolute numbers are close, with the EB having more torque, but the Coyote having more HP.

But the 5.0 Coyote needs rpm to build those peak numbers. The EB, being forced induction, reaches peak numbers much lower int eh rpm range and the torque curve is much flatter. What that means in laymans terms it that the EB (or any turbo charged engine) build more power, lower and longer than any NA engine.

If you don't mind getting your foot harder into the throttle for the same amount of go, Then the coyote will do ya fine.

Now, get a NA and a forced induction engine into any kind of altitude and the Forced injection engine is going to just run away from the NA engine.

The concept that two turbo's is a problem as compared to a NA is unfounded. It's a public perception that there are more parts in a 3.5 EB. The Turbo's in the EB are Borg Warner turbos. BW makes some of the highest quality units out there and are cutting edge technology wise. That's performance, reliability, metallurgy, etc. truth is, the 5.0 Coyote and the 3.5EB are equally technologically complex.

In many ways, the EB is a tougher engine than the Coyote. Reason being the EB is built similar to a diesel engine. Compacted graphic iron blocks, 6 bolt cross bolted mains, deeply shirted blocks, direct injection, combustion chamber in piston construction, short piston skirt construction, piston squirter oil cooling jets, forged frank, and on and on. That's all diesel construction stuff and it makes for beef and strength.

In fact, the 3.5 EB outweighs the Coyote by almost 60 lbs. Consider that a v6 weighs MORE than a V8. The V8 has 2 more pistons, two more rods, longer heads, longer block, longer crank, longer manifolds, etc, etc. That 60 lbs difference isn't two turbos and some thin wall tubing, it's engine beef. It's a lot of the reason the Raptor EB makes 450 hp and 510 hp with not much more than an engine management tweek.

The EB carbon problem is NOT related to the F150 engines. Anyon etrying to sell you that line is trying to sell you a bridge of land in teh florida leys.

Early EB engines in the cars and SUV's did have some valve cooking issues, and that's what the snake oil salesmen selling "catch cans" keep pushing as a problem with ALL EB engine. It's all flat out lies lies to generate a revenue stream for themselves.

I, personally, have caught one of these chareltons trying to keep pushing the myth on an F150 board. He was posting up that he had several 3.5 EB engines in his shop that he had taken pictures of with carboned up valves. The pictures were absolutely horrible. So much carbon the ports were at least half blocked. But his mistake was that he wasn't posting pictures of 3.5 EB engines. They weren't EB engines at all. In fact, they weren't even ford engines. He had posted pictures of an Audi/Volks engine. It was an early Direct injection engine that did indeed have horrible cooking issues. His mistake was that I was able to recognize the intake ports as an Audi/volks intact tract as they have very district channels machined into the port walls that no other engine does. When he was challenged, he stopped replying and pulled all his pictures posts down. I ran across him on another board pulling the same trick. Strangely enough, it turns out he owned and "internet business" that sold $400 "catch cans" that were "guaranteed" to solve the EB cooking issue in the F150. Total BS.

don't believe it just because you read it on the internet.....

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with either the Coyote or the EcoBoost towing inside their ratings. even the 2.7 makes a fine towing rig within it's rating (and sometimes, outside them, although I won't advocate that to anyone).

The difference in what you choose is what you want to do with it:

All out towing; 3.5 EB, configured right, you can get it in a 12,200 lb rating. That's a RCLB 2WD. Step up to a full boat crewcab 4x4 and you're still 11,600lbs

Great towing and that V8 sound: Coyote. Configured the same as the 3.5 EB above, you're looking at 11,000 lbs/10,800 lbs. but where the 3.5 Eb gets it done with 3.55 gears, the 5.0 needs 3.73. Drop the 5.0 to 3.55 gears like the EB and you're looking at 10,000lbs/9100lbs. That's the torque difference and where it is in the RPM range that makes it different between the two engines.
Decent towing and better MPG than both the Coyote and EB: 2.7, but you have to accept your towing rating limitations. No Heavy duty payload package available on the 2.7 either, which brings the payload capacity of most F150's up into the 2000 lb range. The HDDP is availabel on 3.5 EB trucks up to the Lariat trim, I can't recall if you can get the HDDP on the Coyote trucks.

Honestly, there's not a bad choice between the three of them. You just have to decide which way you want to go.

[buffalobutt]

Originally Posted by great white

The 5.0 Coyote is fine engine and tows just fine. The EB and 5.0 are very close in power, at least the 3.5 is. 2.7 is a little further behind on the numbers sheet. The Coyote and 3.5 EB are even rated within 1-2 MPG of each other. Statistically insignificant.

That being said, where the engines differ is in how they deliver their power. The absolute numbers are close, with the EB having more torque, but the Coyote having more HP.

But the 5.0 Coyote needs rpm to build those peak numbers. The EB, being forced induction, reaches peak numbers much lower int eh rpm range and the torque curve is much flatter. What that means in laymans terms it that the EB (or any turbo charged engine) build more power, lower and longer than any NA engine.

If you don't mind getting your foot harder into the throttle for the same amount of go, Then the coyote will do ya fine.

Now, get a NA and a forced induction engine into any kind of altitude and the Forced injection engine is going to just run away from the NA engine.

The concept that two turbo's is a problem as compared to a NA is unfounded. It's a public perception that there are more parts in a 3.5 EB. The Turbo's in the EB are Borg Warner turbos. BW makes some of the highest quality units out there and are cutting edge technology wise. That's performance, reliability, metallurgy, etc. truth is, the 5.0 Coyote and the 3.5EB are equally technologically complex.

In many ways, the EB is a tougher engine than the Coyote. Reason being the EB is built similar to a diesel engine. Compacted graphic iron blocks, 6 bolt cross bolted mains, deeply shirted blocks, direct injection, combustion chamber in piston construction, short piston skirt construction, piston squirter oil cooling jets, forged frank, and on and on. That's all diesel construction stuff and it makes for beef and strength.

In fact, the 3.5 EB outweighs the Coyote by almost 60 lbs. Consider that a physically smaller v6 weighs MORE than a V8. The V8 has 2 more pistons, two more rods, longer heads, longer block, longer crank, longer manifolds, etc, etc. That 60 lbs difference isn't two turbos and some thin wall tubing, it's block beef. It's a lot of the reason the Raptor EB makes 450 hp and 510 hp with not much more than an engine management tweek.

The EB carbon problem is NOT related to the F150 engines. Anyon etrying to sell you that line is trying to sell you a bridge of land in teh florida leys.

Early EB engines in the cars and SUV's did have some valve cooking issues, and that's what the snake oil salesmen selling "catch cans" keep pushing as a problem with ALL EB engine. It's all flat out lies lies to generate a revenue stream for themselves.

I, personally, have caught one of these chareltons trying to keep pushing the myth on an F150 board. He was posting up that he had several 3.5 EB engines in his shop that he had taken pictures of with carboned up valves. The pictures were absolutely horrible. So much carbon the ports were at least half blocked. But his mistake was that he wasn't posting pictures of 3.5 EB engines. They weren't EB engines at all. In fact, they weren't even ford engines. He had posted pictures of an Audi/Volks engine. It was an early Direct injection engine that did indeed have horrible cooking issues. His mistake was that I was able to recognize the intake ports as an Audi/volks intact tract as they have very district channels machined into the port walls that no other engine does. When he was challenged, he stopped replying and pulled all his pictures posts down. I ran across him on another board pulling the same trick. Strangely enough, it turns out he owned and "internet business" that sold $400 "catch cans" that were "guaranteed" to solve the EB cooking issue in the F150. Total BS.

don't believe it just because you read it on the internet.....

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with either the Coyote or the EcoBoost towing inside their ratings. even the 2.7 makes a fine towing rig within it's rating (and sometimes, outside them, although I won't advocate that to anyone).

The difference in what you choose is what you want to do with it:

All out towing; 3.5 EB, configured right, you can get it in a 12,200 lb rating. That's a RCLB 2WD. Step up to a full boat crewcab 4x4 and you're still 11,600lbs

Great towing and that V8 sound: Coyote. Configured the same as the 3.5 EB above, you're looking at 11,000 lbs/10,800 lbs. but where the 3.5 Eb gets it done with 3.55 gears, the 5.0 needs 3.73. Drop the 5.0 to 3.55 gears like the EB and you're looking at 10,000lbs/9100lbs. That's the torque difference and where it is in the RPM range that makes it different between the two engines.
Decent towing and better MPG than both the Coyote and EB: 2.7, but you have to accept your towing rating limitations. No Heavy duty payload package available on the 2.7 either, which brings the payload capacity of most F150's up into the 2000 lb range. The HDDP is availabel on 3.5 EB trucks up to the Lariat trim, I can't recall if you can get the HDDP on the Coyote trucks.

Honestly, there's not a bad choice between the three of them. You just have to decide which way you want to go.

Boy after all of that I think I'll just get a bicycle and a tent.

[great white]

Originally Posted by buffalobutt

Boy after all of that I think I'll just get a bicycle and a tent.

LOL! that one way to go and definitely a "back to basics" theme!



But all that info is really just making sure you know what you're buying before you plunk down your cold hard cash (or credit).

That's what I did.

[Stovebolt]

Originally Posted by great white

The 5.0 Coyote is fine engine and tows just fine. The EB and 5.0 are very close in power, at least the 3.5 is. 2.7 is a little further behind on the numbers sheet. The Coyote and 3.5 EB are even rated within 1-2 MPG of each other. Statistically insignificant.

That being said, where the engines differ is in how they deliver their power. The absolute numbers are close, with the EB having more torque, but the Coyote having more HP.

But the 5.0 Coyote needs rpm to build those peak numbers. The EB, being forced induction, reaches peak numbers much lower int eh rpm range and the torque curve is much flatter. What that means in laymans terms it that the EB (or any turbo charged engine) build more power, lower and longer than any NA engine.

If you don't mind getting your foot harder into the throttle for the same amount of go, Then the coyote will do ya fine.

Now, get a NA and a forced induction engine into any kind of altitude and the Forced injection engine is going to just run away from the NA engine.

The concept that two turbo's is a problem as compared to a NA is unfounded. It's a public perception that there are more parts in a 3.5 EB. The Turbo's in the EB are Borg Warner turbos. BW makes some of the highest quality units out there and are cutting edge technology wise. That's performance, reliability, metallurgy, etc. truth is, the 5.0 Coyote and the 3.5EB are equally technologically complex.

In many ways, the EB is a tougher engine than the Coyote. Reason being the EB is built similar to a diesel engine. Compacted graphic iron blocks, 6 bolt cross bolted mains, deeply shirted blocks, direct injection, combustion chamber in piston construction, short piston skirt construction, piston squirter oil cooling jets, forged frank, and on and on. That's all diesel construction stuff and it makes for beef and strength.

In fact, the 3.5 EB outweighs the Coyote by almost 60 lbs. Consider that a v6 weighs MORE than a V8. The V8 has 2 more pistons, two more rods, longer heads, longer block, longer crank, longer manifolds, etc, etc. That 60 lbs difference isn't two turbos and some thin wall tubing, it's engine beef. It's a lot of the reason the Raptor EB makes 450 hp and 510 hp with not much more than an engine management tweek.

The EB carbon problem is NOT related to the F150 engines. Anyon etrying to sell you that line is trying to sell you a bridge of land in teh florida leys.

Early EB engines in the cars and SUV's did have some valve cooking issues, and that's what the snake oil salesmen selling "catch cans" keep pushing as a problem with ALL EB engine. It's all flat out lies lies to generate a revenue stream for themselves.

I, personally, have caught one of these chareltons trying to keep pushing the myth on an F150 board. He was posting up that he had several 3.5 EB engines in his shop that he had taken pictures of with carboned up valves. The pictures were absolutely horrible. So much carbon the ports were at least half blocked. But his mistake was that he wasn't posting pictures of 3.5 EB engines. They weren't EB engines at all. In fact, they weren't even ford engines. He had posted pictures of an Audi/Volks engine. It was an early Direct injection engine that did indeed have horrible cooking issues. His mistake was that I was able to recognize the intake ports as an Audi/volks intact tract as they have very district channels machined into the port walls that no other engine does. When he was challenged, he stopped replying and pulled all his pictures posts down. I ran across him on another board pulling the same trick. Strangely enough, it turns out he owned and "internet business" that sold $400 "catch cans" that were "guaranteed" to solve the EB cooking issue in the F150. Total BS.

don't believe it just because you read it on the internet.....

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with either the Coyote or the EcoBoost towing inside their ratings. even the 2.7 makes a fine towing rig within it's rating (and sometimes, outside them, although I won't advocate that to anyone).

The difference in what you choose is what you want to do with it:

All out towing; 3.5 EB, configured right, you can get it in a 12,200 lb rating. That's a RCLB 2WD. Step up to a full boat crewcab 4x4 and you're still 11,600lbs

Great towing and that V8 sound: Coyote. Configured the same as the 3.5 EB above, you're looking at 11,000 lbs/10,800 lbs. but where the 3.5 Eb gets it done with 3.55 gears, the 5.0 needs 3.73. Drop the 5.0 to 3.55 gears like the EB and you're looking at 10,000lbs/9100lbs. That's the torque difference and where it is in the RPM range that makes it different between the two engines.
Decent towing and better MPG than both the Coyote and EB: 2.7, but you have to accept your towing rating limitations. No Heavy duty payload package available on the 2.7 either, which brings the payload capacity of most F150's up into the 2000 lb range. The HDDP is availabel on 3.5 EB trucks up to the Lariat trim, I can't recall if you can get the HDDP on the Coyote trucks.

Honestly, there's not a bad choice between the three of them. You just have to decide which way you want to go.

I've heard all the snake oil BS about the 3.5 ecoboost also. I just laugh. I'm on my 2nd eco powered truck and my wife has had two ecoboost powered suv's with absolutely no problems. The trucks tow great, are quiet and could blow away nearly any 60's muscle cars I have owned in the past plus get better gas millage. Comfort, quiet, luxury and towing power.....what's not to like?

[great white]

Originally Posted by Stovebolt

I've heard all the snake oil BS about the 3.5 ecoboost also. I just laugh. I'm on my 2nd eco powered truck and my wife has had two ecoboost powered suv's with absolutely no problems. The trucks tow great, are quiet and could blow away nearly any 60's muscle cars I have owned in the past plus get better gas millage. Comfort, quiet, luxury and towing power.....what's not to like?

Yep. Every time I drop the hammer, it never ceases to amaze me that something this big, can move this fast with "only" 3.5 liters.

How can a full boat crew cab truck right off the showroom floor be capable of pulling 13 sec 1/4 mile times.

And it's pulling a lifetime MPG average of 18+ mpg.

I used to chase low 13's all day long when I was building cars for the 1/4 and it took some serious effort to get there. Nothing under a V8 was getting down there in my days. I fyou broke into the 12's on street tires it was high fives and beers all around.

Then the little turbo'd 4cyl front drivers started getting down there. WTH was going on there?

Now a full sized crew cab straight off the dealer floor is "in the zone", front drivers are pulling 10's or better and even the "mild" V8's are absolute monsters right from the factory.

Don't even get me started how unbelievable the diesel world has gotten. What do you even do with 800-900 lb/ft OEM? then a "tune" and you're 900-1000 or better. That's just....wow.

How times have changed.....

[Stovebolt]

Originally Posted by great white

Yep. Every time I drop the hammer, it never ceases to amaze me that something this big, can move this fast with "only" 3.5 liters.

How can a full boat crew cab truck right off the showroom floor be capable of pulling 13 sec 1/4 mile times.

And it's pulling a lifetime MPG average of 18+ mpg.

I used to chase low 13's all day long when I was building cars for the 1/4 and it took some serious effort to get there. Nothing under a V8 was getting down there in my days. I fyou broke into the 12's on street tires it was high fives and beers all around.

Then the little turbo'd 4cyl front drivers started getting down there. WTH was going on there?

Now a full sized crew cab straight off the dealer floor is "in the zone", front drivers are pulling 10's or better and even the "mild" V8's are absolute monsters right from the factory.

Don't even get me started how unbelievable the diesel world has gotten. What do you even do with 800-900 lb/ft OEM? then a "tune" and you're 900-1000 or better. That's just....wow.

How times have changed.....

The new diesels can burn some serious rubber if you disable all the traction, sway control and whatever else you can think of.

[howie70]

Originally Posted by Stovebolt

I've heard all the snake oil BS about the 3.5 ecoboost also. I just laugh. I'm on my 2nd eco powered truck and my wife has had two ecoboost powered suv's with absolutely no problems. The trucks tow great, are quiet and could blow away nearly any 60's muscle cars I have owned in the past plus get better gas millage. Comfort, quiet, luxury and towing power.....what's not to like?

I have been researching the EB and really like what I read/hear. I'm curious, what mileage was on your previous EB's when you traded/sold them?

[Stovebolt]

Originally Posted by howie70

I have been researching the EB and really like what I read/hear. I'm curious, what mileage was on your previous EB's when you traded/sold them?

If you keep your foot out of them ( and that's hard to do :-) ), You can get into the low 20's depending on gearing. My steel F150 was good for 22 MPG's at about 55 to 60MPH not towing. It would average roughly 16 city/highway average. The new one is slightly better because they dropped gearing numerically on the Maxtow option. The steel truck had 3:73's and the aluminum one has 3:55's. Now some will say that ain't much but remember you are getting this with regular fuel not premium fuel like you have to run in the 6.2 GM engines or the 6.4 Hemi's. There's a big difference in price between regular and premium. Now Fords manual says they recommend running premium when towing. I have tried it both ways running the same route in roughly 2,000 miles with both trucks towing a 7500 lb trailer. I noticed 1 MPG better towing with premium and no noticeable difference in seat of the pants acceleration. But when not towing I can use regular fuel all day long. I'm not putting down the GM or the Ram, they are both really great trucks, I just happen to like the Fords do to the fact they are so far ahead in towing equipment and the fact you have a step and handle that comes out of the tailgate to get in the bed. GM has slits in the bumper, which is OK. Ram you better bring a ladder or jump in. I'm too old to jump anymore.