Ford Discontinues the 2.7 Ecoboost Engine

[DCDG]

Perhaps ford will take what’s good from the 2.7 and use it to redesign the 3.0 I wouldn’t necessarily jump on this as a flaw or ford being intentional on giving it to the consumer.

 

[Aichiguy]

I like my F150 with a 2.7. It works well when pulling a 4500# TT and is efficient for everyday use. I serviced the tranny before the 20k mark as a precaution. Time will tell on the 3.0.

 

[grasscutter]

2.7 has both port and direct fuel injectors, while the 3.0 only has direct injectors.

That's all I needed to know right there. I won't be buying the 3.0.

 

[TacoFergie]

My recipe has been suck out whatever I can every 10K and refill with ULV and LG Platinum at 1oz per qt. 60k filter changes, although if someone makes a pan for the 10R80MHRT I'll do a filter when I install the pan.

Kept the 2020 Ranger shifting perfect through 65k and at 20K on the F150 is continuing to work well.

I've read people having good things to say after adding LG Platinum, seems way more prominent in the Ranger community. I've been considering that myslef when I do the PPE pan and fluid swap. Also using Motorcraft ULV. Seems like aftermarket ULV reviews are all over the place.

 

[Hohn]

The Powerboost 3.5 didn't lose any with it.

Most likely is that there's no need for 2 'small displacement' V6's in the lineup. They're putting the 3.0 in more and more things, it doesn't make sense to keep the 2.7 around if the 3.0 can cover the same applications.

Apparently Ford didn't want to end up with the absurd prolferation of V6s that Chrysler had in the 1990s to up until the Pentastar.

Some of us remember the 3.0 (mitsubishi), the 3.3L, 3.5L, 3.8L, 3.9L. Only the 3.3 and 3.8 had any common DNA, as the 3.5 was the DOHC hotrod for the LH debut. The 3.9 was a shortened 318 V8. There was also a 3.7L.

They had almost every decimal liter from 3L-4L covered.

Then there was the 2.7L that gets very little attention.

When they did the Pentastar, they eliminated a half dozen engines. It was such a farce it makes you wonder how it persisted so long.

 

[DCDG]

Then there was the 2.7L that gets very little attention.

that engine was a complete waste and a pig not to mention a festival for a sludge fest. why oh why did they stick that engine in a 300 and charger.

 

[TacoFergie]

Apparently Ford didn't want to end up with the absurd prolferation of V6s that Chrysler had in the 1990s to up until the Pentastar.

Some of us remember the 3.0 (mitsubishi), the 3.3L, 3.5L, 3.8L, 3.9L. Only the 3.3 and 3.8 had any common DNA, as the 3.5 was the DOHC hotrod for the LH debut. The 3.9 was a shortened 318 V8. There was also a 3.7L.

They had almost every decimal liter from 3L-4L covered.

Then there was the 2.7L that gets very little attention.

When they did the Pentastar, they eliminated a half dozen engines. It was such a farce it makes you wonder how it persisted so long.

It makes me wonder what Ford will do with the Ranger and Bronco that use the 2.7. Will they all go 4 cyl only, bump up to a lower output 3.0 (can't top the Raptor versions or they become less special) or something else? It doesn't make sense for Ford to continue the 2.7 just for comparatively lower production vehicles.

 

[Oliveoil2]

Ford, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

 

[DCDG]

It makes me wonder what Ford will do with the Ranger and Bronco that use the 2.7. Will they all go 4 cyl only, bump up to a lower output 3.0 (can't top the Raptor versions or they become less special) or something else? It doesn't make sense for Ford to continue the 2.7 just for comparatively lower production vehicles.

2.3 and 3.0 on higher trims?

 

[2002 Maxima SE]

That's all I needed to know right there. I won't be buying the 3.0.

Getty's Garage mentioned this in the video. Since the architecture for the 2.7L and 3.0L engines is the same, it's possible they could modify the port/direct fuel rail from the 2.7L to work on the 3.0L. Time will tell....

 

[TacoFergie]

Getty's Garage mentioned this in the video. Since the architecture for the 2.7L and 3.0L engines is the same, it's possible they could modify the port/direct fuel rail from the 2.7L to work on the 3.0L. Time will tell....

Whose to say Ford won't add port injection to the 3.0 in the F150? The 3.5 and 5.0 have dual injection as well as Ford added dual injection to the 2.7 in 2018, so it'd make sense Ford would add it to the new 3.0 just based off pattern recognition.

Very little is known yet about it. Just that displacement is increasing and the only current knowledge we have is the high output 3.0 we currently know. I say high output because it's in performance model variants and Ford certainly wouldn't keep those output specs for theF150 since it would step on the toes of the 3.5 and 5.0 which would be senseless.

Besides, if it does end up being direct injection only... the juice to retrofit dual injection wouldn't be worth the squeeze. The amount of work, R&D and tuning wouldn't be a good return on investment IMO. The port injection kit for Explorer ST's is over $2k for parts alone, not including tuning and that's a performance focused system, not daily reliability focused.

 

[melk]

Apparently Ford didn't want to end up with the absurd prolferation of V6s that Chrysler had in the 1990s to up until the Pentastar.

Some of us remember the 3.0 (mitsubishi), the 3.3L, 3.5L, 3.8L, 3.9L. Only the 3.3 and 3.8 had any common DNA, as the 3.5 was the DOHC hotrod for the LH debut. The 3.9 was a shortened 318 V8. There was also a 3.7L.

They had almost every decimal liter from 3L-4L covered.

Then there was the 2.7L that gets very little attention.

When they did the Pentastar, they eliminated a half dozen engines. It was such a farce it makes you wonder how it persisted so long.

Also the short lived 4.0 SOHC V6 2007-2011

 

[ctechbob]

I've read people having good things to say after adding LG Platinum, seems way more prominent in the Ranger community. I've been considering that myslef when I do the PPE pan and fluid swap. Also using Motorcraft ULV. Seems like aftermarket ULV reviews are all over the place.

I believe I was the first one to advocate for its use on the Ranger5g site. I'd been using it for a while before I actually admitted to it. Once several people used it with very positive outcomes I started really making it a point to recommend it. It doesn't 'fix' them all, but I've seen enough good results and learned enough about balky valve bodies over the years to make my decision that it isn't a placebo and that it really does have a positive effect on 10R's.