[IMG]https://www.f150online.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ecoboost2.7V6lol-.jpg[/IMG]


Chalk this one up to the hearsay and unending internet rumormill... But the word on the street (I guess?) is that they might offer up another EcoBoost for the option for the 2015 F-150. The idea is to have the best of both worlds when it comes to performance and fuel savings by having a sequential turbo system.

Neat right? I wrote more about it on the blog here. What do you think?

 

^^ Not much .... old news, repost and hence of no added value ....

Marcus Slater - once again, yer late to the party:

==> https://www.f150online.com/forums/ge...et-new-eb.html

And once again, I ask that you at least make an effort to see what the Forum is discussing before you do another useless fly-by.


Good grief.

MGD out.

 

Another IB employee, MGD.................

 

I know that - and I mentioned that before - at least Manuel identifies himself as such. This feller? "Junior Member" ... seriously?

That said, my concerns stand. At least I can put Marcus on 'Ignore', lol.

MGD out.

 

Great, a smaller engine doing more work... just what a work truck needs. I guess ford wants us to be replacing them at 100k miles?

 

Thin it is aluminum lightness and Ford's reach/search for 28 MPG issue mostly. I a little worried with the stamped steel front end arms.

 

The 2.7 is not for everyone. It's for people who use a truck like a car (like me) and want gas mileage. I'm pretty sure the 3.7, 5.0, and 3.5 EB will still be available.

 

From today's announcement the new engines will be 3.5L V6, 2.7EB, 5.0V8 3.5L EB.

 

Right, I saw that - the 3.7 is being replaced by a NA 3.5. However, I haven't seen anything about replacing the 3.7 in the 2015 Mustang - last I saw it will have the 3.7, a 2.3 EB 4 banger, and the 5.0.

 

I read the 3.7 is staying in the mustang in my new motorTrend.

 

Yeah, okay. Why so mad?

The 2.7L supposedly uses the same materials for the block that the 6.7L diesel uses.

I really doubt a stout engine block like that that kicks out 320hp/370 torque is really going to complain. No, it won't ever have a max tow option, but it has its role as the "Ranger replacement" engine.

Ford made it okay on 150 horsepower 300's and 180 horsepower 302s. I think their technology will do just fine.

 

It's all being dictated by the government. It's necessary to get to the mandated mpg numbers. It will just get worse.

Sent from my iPhone using IB AutoGroup

 

This is the truth. I hate to go into politics but all this eco crap is all due to government reg.

 

Not entirely for nothing - none of these things are zero-emissions, and the less fuel sipped, the fewer emissions result, all else being equal.

Or, would you prefer Beijing's pristine air quality?




MGD

 

While I'm about the farthest thing from a tree hugger (I own a big *** chainsaw and love using it) there is some good to come from pushing for better mileage. Our dependance on foreign (excluding Canuckistan) oil is much lower than it has been in a long time and dropping. The auto makers would not have spent the money to make more efficient engines unless pushed by the .gov. Now we are getting more bang for our buck out of the fuel we are using. I really don't see this as a bad thing.