I expect the 2.7L to be just under the 5.0 in power/torque. I would expect maybe 325/360, or something in that range. Yes, it will make more power and get better fuel economy than the 3.5. The 2.7EB is to the 5.0 what the 3.5EB is to the 6.2L. Comparable in power/torque while getting better fuel economy.

Personally, I wish a 2.7L EB F150 would fit my needs, as I think it would be the perfect truck for me if I didn't need to tow my fifth wheel. More power than the old 5.4 with a 700lb lighter truck and 50% better fuel economy. What's not to like?

 

Yea why not? Better MPG. And the 5.0 is heavily detuned (compared to mustang version but its mainly due to intake cam difference etc for torque) and not even related the 5.4 which I'm thinking you think it is.

Here is some info on the 3.5 for you since you don't seem to realize that it only makes 290hp/254tq in a car. A car which doesn't need a towing torque curve. Towing torque curves need to be long and flat and usually hurt HP numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cyclone_engine
Why would ford have an underpowered motor? To get you to buy a newer 2.7 Eco over it. As I'm sure it will cost more and probably get even better fuel economy being a newer design.[/QUOTE]




there is no way ford will drop hp and tq from where they are now with the 3.7 going to the 3.5 if you think they would you must be on glue. like ever one else ford wants to say we have the most powerful na v6 with best mpg. as soon as ford posts the real numbers you will see. just name the last time a new motor car out and they dropped the hp number that tq number going from old to new. in say the last 15 years. = to = .

 

Ford Mustang loss hp going from the 5.0 to the 4.6 in '94 (I know not 15 years but true none the less). I was reading on motor trend and I believe it was Hyundai just lost like 33hp in one of their cars but improved the torque curve. I have to see if I can find that article again. Its very common from what I've seen (if you read car and driver and motortrend daily like I do) then you'll see.

When Cadillac revamped their lineup they went down in HP but the size of the cars changed. The old 4.6 Northstar made 300hp but the CTS came out with 255hp. Now it offers 304. I'm saying it can be less HP with 700lbs of less truck.

I get those are different motors (except Hyundai) but basically same thing, they go from one car to another year of it and HP drops. Look at the 5.0 in the trucks currently, they lose 40hp+ going from car to truck because they have to make torque differently.

 

Another case...the '13 Fusion lost the 3.5 V6 and the HP that came with it.

 

Talk about pulling numbers out of one's rear end!

*Every engine works hard pulling a load up a hill. Listen to the 6.2 trucks scream pulling a trailer to the Eisenhower tunnel.
*90% torque at 2500 rpm is not gutless. boost kicks in very fast. Most that actually drive this truck complain more about the top end so shows your experience. cars with single large twins are gutless before boost, but I have yet to find a gutless turbo truck.
*your expirience again. So HOW , like others have asked, did you come to the conclusion the engine was working harder? did you attach some sensors to the engines? did you check bearing stress? Really curious to know!
*way to get me on that technicality, but speaking of research....
*maybe you should do some of your own before talking about the 3.5 NA which you really know nothing about.

6.8 v10 you say? Sorry, way too many moving parts on that engine and the cylinders are WAY to small. You need a 7.5L v-8! It will be a gas hog, but that engine will not have to work very hard according to my "experience" driving those engines. P.S. turbo lag is a bad thing.
Ford Announced the 3.5L will be all new, yet this guy is being snarky and "educating" me on the engine's specifications. This joker cracks me up.

 

I love the "only a V8 will do" crowd. They ignore all performance facts and are relegated to "it just feels better," and " nothing beats displacement." It reminds me of this commercial.

Your like those guys who will keep their bushes.

 

Guess I want to keep the bushes. Didn't watch the video, so have no idea what you are referring to but it is nice that we can all have different opinions and choices. I'm 70 years old and I preferred a V8 since my first car at 14. Doubt that will change at this late date.

I respect your choice of engine for you, but it won't be mine.

 

Jim, In another 3 years or so that ol 5.0 will be the base engine in the f150 like the 4.2 use to be and be about as slow as the 4.2 was compared to the new ecobeasts

 

Blah, blah, blah.

 

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the base engine will be some 4 banger Ecoboost. It's all about gas mileage and as good as the 5.0 is, it will never get good enough mileage to squeak in under the CAFE requirements.

 

I'll just wait to have both. A V8 Ecoboost

 

A V8 Ecoboost would rock!

 

It used to be the V8 crowd was so because you could correctly associate V8's with better performance (i.e., better acceleration, towing, horsepower, torque). So it used to be that wanting a V8 meant wanting better performance, now that it doesn't I don't understand the loyalty to the number of cylinders.

I am a performance guy, give me what performs the best, I don't care how many cylinders that is.

 

Yup, that's me. Don't like change in politics, my country, or my vehicles.

To someone that cares deeply about exhaust note, and to whom the sound (or lack thereof) of a V6 is a complete deal breaker, I need my V8 to be happy. How a car, or truck, sounds is just as important as how fast it is or how well it performs.

 

I bet you would really love a Tesla.