Fords 2.7L Ecoboost

[white1500]

I can't deny that the F-150 is looking exceptionally cool, I think my dad would really like it. It just has so many little interesting details and the overall package is the best in class imo.

 

The direction that they're taking is commendable.

I can't deny that the F-150 is looking exceptionally cool, I think my dad would really like it. It just has so many little interesting details and the overall package is the best in class imo.

 

The direction that they're taking is commendable.

[kstruckcountry]

Hey.

 

2.7L

 

Pickup

 

Lmao

[Prokopchuk_9]

Gay

[Prokopchuk_9]

Yes what the uninformed, ignorant on the matter, do is look at the output #s and buy the ford turbo. What they do not know is that one has to stay in the turbo to get what you need. Real world mpg take a sharp hit.

 

Hell Acura tried this in their early RDX. 4 banger turbo. Had to drop it as word quickly spread on the Acura sites about the crazy bad mpg unless you stayed out of the turbo.

Ya, drive it around on some slopes with cruise on at 60mph I bet it shifts aalll over the place. The Eco boost already does that, it's laggy as hell and if you don't keep ur foot in it it's weak as hell

[LongrangeLauber]

The current GM 6.2 makes more power, wayyy more reliable, and still gets better mpg than the current egoboost. On my search to find a new truck, I have looked at the F150's and the 5.0 and 3.5 get terrible fuel mileage and my buddy who is a Ford tech said they are having troubles with the turbos on the 3.5. My other buddy has an EB and the overall fuel economy is less than 14 mpg.

 

I agree with whoever said earlier that the blue oval is going in the wrong direction

[Hillger 189]

So if everyone is doing these high output engines slapping turbos on 3.7 2.7 ect. So my question is why hasn't GM put a turbo on the 5.3 or even the 6.0??? That's high output!

[LongrangeLauber]

So if everyone is doing these high output engines slapping turbos on 3.7 2.7 ect. So my question is why hasn't GM put a turbo on the 5.3 or even the 6.0??? That's high output!

I agree! Slap twins on a 6.2 and make some serious power! I guess ford thinks a small motor will convince people that it gets good fuel mileage. Clearly not the case

 

Sent while in 'Murica...

[Cowpie]

Well, it isn't in your face, but Ricardo, who collaborated with GM to build the 3.2 V6 GM has in several vehicles, has taken that same 3.2L and slapped on twin turbos, bumped up the compression, fed it E85, and it is producing the same HP, Torque, and fuel efficiency as the 6.6L Duramax diesel. Plenty of articles around the web about it. Just search on Ricardo EBDI 3.2L and you will have enough to read for a while. GM has not been directly involved, but the engine has been tested in Silverado 3500HD pickups. I haven't seen anything lately about it, but my guess is when any bugs get worked out, we might see something from GM about offering it.

 

I like it because of the same power/performance of the Duramax, yet does not need the downstream emissions junk the diesels do (only catalytic converters like we have now) and the total package is 400 lb lighter than a comparable diesel version pickup. And if it is true that the power and efficiency are the same as the diesel, then filling with $2.59 E85 in my area compared to $3.68 diesel will make this a killer deal.

[LongrangeLauber]

That EBDI engine sounds like the shit! Could you imagine having one in a half ton!? I'm just wondering the mpgs

 

Sent while in 'Murica...

[Prokopchuk_9]

I did some reading on it last night, i would question reliability. They are pushing that engine to the very limit...although does sound pretty crazy! The amount of tq that little suck puts out is simply amazing!

[LongrangeLauber]

I did some reading on it last night, i would question reliability. They are pushing that engine to the very limit...although does sound pretty crazy! The amount of tq that little suck puts out is simply amazing!

I agree. It would probably be worse than an ecoboost in terms of reliability and longevity

 

Sent while in 'Murica...

[Prokopchuk_9]

You could make a GM v6 pump out that much HP or a 4.8 no problem. The HP and tq isn't amazing really, ya it's cool but GM would never throw a hopped up v6 that revs to the moon in a 1 ton dually lol.

 

Show me a test from about 200,000 miles of pulling and working like the diesel would and make me a believer.

[LongrangeLauber]

The weight reduction could possibly increase trailer sway if I'm correct? Not enough weight in the front of the truck. Makes sense in my mind

 

Sent while in 'Murica...

[Cowpie]

Depends on a number of factors other than front end weight. Cummins has got it's own version in the hopper. A 2.8L Inline 4 banger that uses E85 and delivers the torque of the 6.0L GM small block, and delivers that peak torque at 2800 RPM, and it reaches 90% of peak torque at 2100 RPM. Try reaching those levels at those RPM's with most GM small blocks. As for longevity of these engines, I have no clue who helped Ford develop their stuff, but Ricardo is not an OEM. They are pure designer that has been at the high performance engine game (and primarily focused on ethanol) since before WW II. They are not hamstrung by OEM Corporate nonsense. They beefed up the 3.2 block and heads, redesigned the crank, and a number of other items. They probably have the strength and reliability thing under control. Cummins, I am sure, has also probably gotten any strength and reliability issues under control with their 2.8L offering. Since their major game is engines, they can focus more on that than an OEM can.

 

Either way, this is going to be fun to watch. My only interest is that it is about time we got out of the old, last century, naturally aspirated engine concept and start using some serious technology to get these engines to finally take advantage of the fuel that is being pumped into them. No one uses a naturally aspirated diesel engine in a new production vehicle anymore. Begs the question why we are still on N/A when it comes to gas and flex fuel engines.

[truckofwinandawesome]

I wish more would read up on "turbo charged" automotive engines.

 

Another complicated piece of machinery added to an automotive engine.

 

Good luck to those when vehicle gets older.

 

"Sir (Madam) your turbochargers are on the fritz. That will be $1,500 to replace them both".

 

Fixed; because I checked the Price on the Ford Parts Website. the Turbos are $730 a Pop!