New Ford F150 2.7 V6

Anyone have one?

The numbers look impressive with 325 hp and 375 torque and it has faster 0-60 times than than the base V8s in both the Dodge and Chevy. We weighed the 5.0 V8 against the 2.7 V6 before opting for the V8 on the last pickup we bought (today). I was surprised to learn that the V8 is only in 20% of F150s sold in 2015. We glanced at the Dodge with its V6 diesel, but you have to spend $40,000 to get one (they won't put one in a base pickup - requires several option packages before the diesel is available). That and it is SLOW and gutless when towing. Given my experience with Dodge I would have fought them on buying one.

I'd only heard about the 2.7 recently, but it seemed half the new pickups on dealers lots are equipped with with them. Very very few were available with the base 3.5 NA engine. Its seems the 3.5s are doing well with longevity, but under load they seem to really suck down the gas, hard telling if the 2.7 will work.

We have very little issues with the 3.5, all I'll say is the 2.7 will surprise you.
As for longevity who knows?? I hope it does as well as the 3.5 & 5.0 & 6.2......

My employer has a fleet of about 10 trucks and the latest one has the 2.7 engine in an F150. The driver is an electrician who loads quite a few hundred pounds on the truck and it seems to do just fine. He complains that the gas mileage isn't much more than 15, but the gas is not paid for out of his pocket and he is a dyed-in-the-wool Chevy man, so I'm not so sure I believe everything that comes out of his mouth anyway. With the exception of a flat tire (the warning went off, the driver ignored it), this truck has had no problems in about nine months of ownership.

In my opinion, if you are going to work it hard, there is no replacement of displacement. My 08 Chevy 5.3 (36,000 miles) gets between 19 and 20 mpg empty and 10 mpg towing a 24' travel trailer. 90% of the miles on this truck are towing some form of a trailer. My neighbors 2012 eco boost v-6 150 (50,000 miles) gets 20 to 21 mpg empty and 10 towing the same size trailer. 90% of his miles are his wife driving empty. It seems to me, running the same amount of gas through both engines to accomplish the same task, the 6 cyl. must be working harder to get there. I'll get back to you in about 10 years for the longevity part.

If the guy won't even check a tire when the truck TELLS him its going flat I wouldn't give his opinion much weight either.

(quoted from post at 11:43:37 09/11/15) In my opinion, if you are going to work it hard, there is no replacement of displacement. My 08 Chevy 5.3 (36,000 miles) gets between 19 and 20 mpg empty and 10 mpg towing a 24' travel trailer. 90% of the miles on this truck are towing some form of a trailer. My neighbors 2012 eco boost v-6 150 (50,000 miles) gets 20 to 21 mpg empty and 10 towing the same size trailer. 90% of his miles are his wife driving empty. It seems to me, running the same amount of gas through both engines to accomplish the same task, the 6 cyl. must be working harder to get there. I'll get back to you in about 10 years for the longevity part.

Click to expand...

Actually the 3.5 ecoboost is most likely less stressed than your 5.3 as it has max. torque @ about 2500RPM and never has to be rev to 4200RPM to tow were the 5.3 max torque is at about 4200RPM and has to be revved far beyond that to pull a heavy load. Love my ecoboost, Chuck

2.7 Ecoboost Vs Dodge 3.0 diesel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQQGYJCG65E


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpcJJxhvPWU


The Dodge never even hits the speed limit even though the guy has it floored all the way up the hill. The Dodge gets 6 MPG the Ford gets 4 MPG, but I wonder what mileage the Ford would get had they limited it to 50 mph while making the climb like the Dodge did?

times 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Using some semi-scientific testing one of the 4x4 magazines tested all the half tons. The egoboost was best empty but only the Toyota used more gas when towing.

I have a 2013 F-150 crew cab with the "long" bed (6.5') and 4wd and 5.0 v8 for my company vehicle. I drive it as if it were my own, no unnecessary fast acceleration and always drive right at the speed limit or maybe 2-3 mph over (company really looks down on moving violations in their vehicles so I pretty much follow the letter of the law when driving). I've put 10,000 miles on it in the last 4 months, mostly highway no trailer and generally unloaded but a trip to Fargo area from Peoria area with 1500lb payload and a trip to Poplar Bluff, MO and back with same load. I've been averaging 17.2 mpg over the last 10k miles. Recent unloaded trip to Iola, KS and back got me 19.2 mph for all highway miles with cruise control on mostly 4-lane roads.

If you want a truck to last 300,000 miles I'd get the 5.0 with no turbo. BMEP will be lower with bigger engine resulting on less stress on main and rod bearings and you don't have a turbo to deal with although the turbo in my VW Passat has been good for 215k miles and my 7.3 Powerstroke has 240k and doesn't appear to be anywhere near needing a rebuild.

(quoted from post at 07:43:37 09/11/15) In my opinion, if you are going to work it hard, there is no replacement of displacement. My 08 Chevy 5.3 (36,000 miles) gets between 19 and 20 mpg empty and 10 mpg towing a 24' travel trailer. 90% of the miles on this truck are towing some form of a trailer. My neighbors 2012 eco boost v-6 150 (50,000 miles) gets 20 to 21 mpg empty and 10 towing the same size trailer. 90% of his miles are his wife driving empty. It seems to me, running the same amount of gas through both engines to accomplish the same task, the 6 cyl. must be working harder to get there. I'll get back to you in about 10 years for the longevity part.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the same results with our 2012 Silverado with the 5.3 Never had a trailer hitched to it so I don't know about towing. Towing is done with my 2001 3500 dually. Equipped with the 8.1. It gets right at 10 to 12 mpg whether towing or empty, but has never met a load it couldn't handle.

I have an 11 Silverado with 5.3 and installed a Range AFM disable on it, and average about 19 MPG empty, but I do like the truck a LOT better with the afm shut off (wish I had bought the 6.2 that year that did
not have the afm). Not much difference in mpg with the afm disabled, and seems a little better actually as I usually averaged about 18 before I plugged in the Range device. Guess this does not have any
bearing on the OP questions on the Fords though, but I have always wondered about the longevity of the turbo 6's, I guess time will tell. Myself, I wish someone would build an inline 6, as I always liked
inline 6's better than V6 engines. Guess that is out of the question. It is ironic I bought a new truck in 92 with TBI engine, 3:73 rear end, and 5 speed manual, and it got nearly identical MPG as the 5.3
in my '11 with 6 speed auto, and 3:42 rear axle (both were 4x4s)... 20 years later, yet we read about all the increased efficiency in engines.....yeah my 11 is more comfortable, and generally more powerful,
but still goes same miles on a gallon of fuel -- go figure. Seems we are fighting a losing battle in some ways, as for every aluminum body panel, or additional overdrive or higher gear ratio they install,
they hang another air bag, on that offsets the savings in weight. End of rant.

(quoted from post at 11:51:57 09/11/15) I have an 11 Silverado with 5.3 and installed a Range AFM disable on it, and average about 19 MPG empty, but I do like the truck a LOT better with the afm shut off (wish I had bought the 6.2 that year that did
not have the afm). Not much difference in mpg with the afm disabled, and seems a little better actually as I usually averaged about 18 before I plugged in the Range device. Guess this does not have any
bearing on the OP questions on the Fords though, but I have always wondered about the longevity of the turbo 6's, I guess time will tell. Myself, I wish someone would build an inline 6, as I always liked
inline 6's better than V6 engines. Guess that is out of the question. It is ironic I bought a new truck in 92 with TBI engine, 3:73 rear end, and 5 speed manual, and it got nearly identical MPG as the 5.3
in my '11 with 6 speed auto, and 3:42 rear axle (both were 4x4s)... 20 years later, yet we read about all the increased efficiency in engines.....yeah my 11 is more comfortable, and generally more powerful,
but still goes same miles on a gallon of fuel -- go figure. Seems we are fighting a losing battle in some ways, as for every aluminum body panel, or additional overdrive or higher gear ratio they install,
they hang another air bag, on that offsets the savings in weight. End of rant.

Click to expand...

Something just doesn't add up, does it? If all this high tech wizardry is so great, how was it even possible for my first car, a 1960 Chevy, Bel-air 4 door with 283 and 2 speed automatic, to average 18 to 20 mpg? And also to note that I was 17 years old at that time. Fuel mileage was not even a consideration, but making that dual exhaust cackle WAS important.

What is the price difference between the engine options?

http://www.tfltruck.com/2015/02/2015-ford-f-150-2-7l-ecoboost-ike-gauntlet-extreme-towing-video/

http://www.tfltruck.com/tfltruck-hall-ike-gauntlet/

Not the 2.7l, not very scientific testing
http://www.tfltruck.com/2014/10/2015-ford-f-150-3-5-ecoboost-vs-chevrolet-silverado-6-2-vs-ram-5-7-towing-video/

Still debating getting a truck myself. Might get a new f250, maybe gas, diesels are ~ok but lots of gremlins with the new diesels (yes, some have luck). Or F150 and continue hiring most of my hauling (cheaper route of course). I'd need better towing, so 2.7l is basically out. Either 5.0 or 3.5 eco, wouldn't be scared of either one, eco would tow better. I'd tow loaded hay trailers and cattle if I get a heavy enough pickup, but my neighbor hauls anything I want (as business).

The 5.0 and the 3.5 Eco are both more powerful than anything you could buy in the 1990s in an F250 or F350. I beleive the V8 and 3.5 Eco are both tow rated over 11,000 with conventional hitch - when properly equipped.... That's more than the F250s were rated in 2000.

The emissions on the diesels since the late 1990s have made their cost of operation horribly high. Ford, Chevy or Dodge they are all expensive to operate.

Exactly. Growing up Dad bought a new 66 Impala with 283, two speed Powerglide, and only other option was AM radio. Yep.....20 MPG fairly easily, even if I drove it like
I stole it, and that was a big old heavy car. If memory serves, that car new was about $2500. Maybe it would have done better with synthetic oil (sarcastically)

One difference between now and 20 years ago is that the legal highway speed has gone up by 10 mph in most states and it simply takes more power and fuel to move a vehicle at higher speeds. I drive a 2012 F-150, crew cab, long box, 4x4 with the 3.5 turbo and 3.73 gears. On my daily commute I drive a straight and flat seven mile stretch of 55 mph county road and can see 23 to 24 mpg in wind-free conditions (it happens occasionally in Kansas!). Hop on the interstate and spin it up to 75 and it's showing 18 to 19.

(Just for the record, no, I am not campaigning for the return of the double nickel!)

(quoted from post at 19:51:57 09/11/15) I have an 11 Silverado with 5.3 and installed a Range AFM disable on it, and average about 19 MPG empty, but I do like the truck a LOT better with the afm shut off (wish I had bought the 6.2 that year that did
not have the afm). Not much difference in mpg with the afm disabled, and seems a little better actually as I usually averaged about 18 before I plugged in the Range device. Guess this does not have any
bearing on the OP questions on the Fords though, but I have always wondered about the longevity of the turbo 6's, I guess time will tell. Myself, I wish someone would build an inline 6, as I always liked
inline 6's better than V6 engines. Guess that is out of the question. It is ironic I bought a new truck in 92 with TBI engine, 3:73 rear end, and 5 speed manual, and it got nearly identical MPG as the 5.3
in my '11 with 6 speed auto, and 3:42 rear axle (both were 4x4s)... 20 years later, yet we read about all the increased efficiency in engines.....yeah my 11 is more comfortable, and generally more powerful,
but still goes same miles on a gallon of fuel -- go figure. Seems we are fighting a losing battle in some ways, as for every aluminum body panel, or additional overdrive or higher gear ratio they install,
they hang another air bag, on that offsets the savings in weight. End of rant.

Click to expand...

I had a '94 F150 2wd that had the 4.9L inline 6, 5 speed (had a "beater" 3/4 pickup for 4x4 use on the ranch). It was about a year old when I got it to drive to school. It was geared as high as it could be, couldn't really tow anything, so I got a deal on it, it had the 2.73 rear (no, not 3.73). Low miles, had it been 4x4 it would have had over 100k at the same price, mine had less than 15k on it. 15 miles to school, sometimes needed to haul stuff. Anyway, I'll agree, I like inline 6. Even though it was geared way too high, it had a decent amount of torque and could idle in the first few gears without dying, went down the road just fine. 302 v8 would have gotten similar mileage though, had I found one in my budget.

I see people here mentioning older cars getting 20. Pickups from the '60s/'70s, at least any I've been around that were full size work pickups got about 12 at best. Emissions stuff makes it difficult to get the most mpg out of the newer stuff. MPGs go up if you delete some of the junk on new diesels, and you get better reliability (plus, break the law, void the warranty, etc.). I had an '89 Ford Tempo before I got the pickup, it always averaged over 40mpg. Not a lot of power (but I wasn't a power junkie and didn't care), but went down the road fine. Can't say about reliability with the Ecoboost, except they look "decent". They put out their torture test videos for the 3.5l when it was released.

Roads around here are often gravel, if I go to Walmart, about 70 miles, half gravel, the short way. Otherwise 2 lane highway, with shoulder, 65mph, without shoulder, 55 or 60mph. Interstate is 100 miles away, never drive on it, been many years. Often see the upper end of the MPG average on the road vehicles, because there is basically very little city driving to average in (even close town, 30 miles away, two stoplights total). With pickups, many variables when stating their mpg. First, they aren't going to get "car" mpg, but it's fairly impressive that they can get as decent as they do, with all the emissions junk plus all the power they make. Factor in several gearing choices, cab/bed options causing varied weight, tire options, nearly identical trucks aren't going to get the same mpg under the same conditions.