I've been watching tons of reviews on the new F150 and most of them feature the 2.7 Ecoboost. Seems like a great engine, but isn't the 3.5 superior? The other engines almost go unnoticed.

 

Sure, the 3.5 EB is superior, but Ford is trying to position the 2.7 as the mainstream engine in the F-150. It gets the best EPA (not real world) gas mileage, it offers stop/start technology, and it's a relatively low cost option in the models where the 3.5 NA is standard.

 

The real fuel mileage results that I have read, for instance in Motor Trend (who has been very critical of the EB fuel mileage, and in my opinion slapped Ford across the face when the 15 F150 didn't win toy), would indicate to me that the 2.7 returns 99.5% of the unloaded performance of the 3.5 EB, while getting a real world combined average that is at least 3 mpg better than the larger EB. In MT's 3 way test with the Dodge-er-Ram Ecodiesel, they chose the Ram because in their test it got significantly better mpg, (along with a couple other points that made zero sense to me), but the 2.7 finished 2nd both in mpg and final tally, while effortlessly whipping the Ram and the 5.3 Chevy in every acceleration test loaded or unloaded.

 

Because its smaller and better and will keep getting most of the attention until the next smaller and better engine comes out.

 

I think the 2.7 Ecoboost is in the right spot! It just seems to fit for so many truck boys. Maybe me included. I do know I will be giving it a strong look for my next truck, probably buying soon. It just has a combination of power and economy really not seen before now. A true credit to the Ecoboost name.

 

If I went with anything other than the 5.0, it would most likely be the 2.7. I think the average driver who doesn't drive like raw eggs were under the gas pedal actually gets better economy out of the 5.0 than the 3.5 Boost. Obviously, the 3.5 is probably the best towing engine available in a half ton pickup, regardless of size.

 

I had a 2011 5.0 and loved it, I now have a 15 with the 2.7. I chose the 2.7 for a few reasons, I wanted better mileage for my commute and it was cheaper. To get a 5.0 loaded up the way I got the 2.7 was running a few thousand more. Not saying I couldn't get it close, just all the 5.0 in stock or already ordered had more options that I didn't want and made the price go up. Now my thoughts on the 2.7 compared to the 5.0. As far as off the line I have to go with the 2.7L it feels faster off the line then the 5.0 did, but when you get to about 30 mph or so the 5.0 had more pull. The 2.7 cant hang in the higher RPM range like the 5.0 does. The 5.0 also sounds so much better under acceleration. Highway driving with grade changes, I live in a hilly area of northern VA and the 5.0 would have to down shift more to keep up speed, the 2.7 keeps the gear changes to a minimum just uses boost to keep up the speed. Again the 5.0 felt like it could out accelerate the 2.7 on big hills but it would drop 2 gears usually the 2.7 only drops 1, but splitting hairs here as both will easily get you over the speed limit going up hill pretty quickly. Economy the 2.7 is crushing my old 5.0, right now its not apples to apples with set ups.
2011 FX4 lux package 5.0 SCREW 4x4 3.73 gears 2" level 34.1" tires daily commute 16mpg (before bigger tires I was at 16.5-17)
2015 Lariat Sport 501a 2.7 SCREW 4x4 3.55 gears no level 32" tires daily commute 20mpg (almost at 21 mpg with my second tank)
Im going to add a level and 33" to it after the first 1000 miles so Im sure itll go down a little, but hands down better fuel economy, this is the first ford that Ive owned that is actually getting what the sticker said it would, and doing a little better even.
I do miss the sound but I am completely satisfied with the 2.7, I rarely tow so this wasn't a concern and I wasn't going to go over a 33" wheel with this one since it is my daily commuter.

 

My understanding is the 2.7 is not offered in a SuperCrew 6.5'. That rules this engine out for me. Should be interesting to watch how it works for mileage for a large number of folks though.

 

It's the new thing, efficiency, and price. That MT test ignored that the diesel adds $5k.

Thanks for the detailed comparison, tsdahc!

 

Yeah, my main gripe with motortrend voting the eco diesel as most fuel efficient is as follows. I consider fuel economy to be the cost of the fuel per mile traveled by me. So if I am driving a diesel truck getting 30 mpg, but burning ~$2.65 diesel, but the 2.7 gets 23mpg burning regular unleaded at $2.15 per gallon, the regular burning truck is cheaper. SMH it seems obvious that fuel economy is about $ per mile not mpg. You could make a truck that burned some exotic race fuel at $15 a gallon and got 50mpg, but that isn't better, it's worse.

 

Thing is, the price delta between gas and diesel varies widely across the country and is also constantly changing. Right now, here in Joplin, 87 gas is $2.25 (89 is $2.45) and diesel is $2.39 at the same station. I've seen it here in the past where diesel was $1.00 more than gas.

 

Motor Trend lost all credibility with me in 2005 in regards to their awards. The 2004 truck of the year was the F-150. No major changes were done to any of the competing trucks for 2005 and no problems had surfaced with the F-150, so by default the 2005 F-150 should have won two years in a row. Motor Trend did not see it that way and named the Toyota the truck of the year in 2005.

I did the same comparison when I saw Dodge came out with their diesel truck. In my area it would cost much more to drive the diesel than my Ford 3.5 ecoboost due to the higher cost for diesel fuel. That did not include the higher cost for the diesel engine or maintenance costs. I agree efficiency is about cost of operation for me, not what comes out the tailpipe.

 

communist and hippies...

 

If the 2.7 is supposed to be somewhat comparable to the 5.0 for power output and ability, do you anticipate the 2.7 being offered in a SuperCrew 6.5 4x4 in the future?