Fords new 2.7 vs Chevy 5.3 vs Dodge 3.0 Diesel

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: D189379
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: tstep
Maybe it's just my perception from the video, but both the Ram and Chevy take the Ford off the line, then it seems the Ford's turbos spool up and take over. I suppose it'll operate in the real world similar to the difference between a Chevy 350 and the first 5.3 engines, grunt vs speed.

Seeing how all the manufacturers across the board have finally gotten sufficient power, daily driver performance, and decent economy out of the pickups, I am most intrigued by the aluminum construction. I have 200k on my truck and dont feel the need at all to dump it except for the body rusting out. If only the body had been aluminum construction......hmmm.


If the body were aluminum, it wouldn't be rusty .... But it would have disintegrated and flaked away by now.


Here's a shot of the aluminium paint on my 2013 Expedition. The entire edge of the liftgate is bubbling and peeling like this. I really hope Ford has solved this with the new aluminium F150.

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/6w948a0ezqzgvnp/AABsJm01HU6EJzGs9JKq-R_ua

To be fair, Ford is repainting it for me under warranty.


Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean to take the thread off topic.


That happens on ALL F150s, Explorers, TaurusX/Freestyle with aluminum hoods and body panels up here ...

 

[Cujet]

I drive an Ecoboost 3.5L and love it. I'd guess that the 2.7 in a 700 pound lighter truck will perform similarly.

I'm a huge fan of the Ecoboost engines. Ford really has done a great job with these.

I'm not going to claim they get 52 MPG, or are faster than a big block Chevy powered pickup.

I will say that every Ecoboost powered vehicle I've driven really performed well in the real world. With plenty of satisfying "mid range torque". While returning good MPG's when driven responsibly. AND, if driven extremely carefully, will return stellar MPG's.

 

[Cujet]

That is one robust block!

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Nice! Thanks for the topic.

We can now predict the responses.


See what I mean. Using turbocharged V6's and aluminum body's are not new. Just different instead of applauding an manufacturer for the R&D of implementing different ideas to obtain greater fuel efficiency in which the public believes it desires(Arguments can be made it does not). You get comments like the towing and acceleration can not be accurate. The truck's paint will peel and the body will disintegrate. I prefer not to use "Haters got to hate", but in this instance this phrase is accurate.

 

[earlyre]

The new 2.7 ecoboost is Built @ the same plant here in town, as the naturally aspirated 3.5 & 3.7 cyclone.

All new line, built in the part of the plant where they used to make the Vulcan 3.0l V6.

Personally, I'm waiting for someone to mate 2 of the 1l econetic/ecoboost 3cyl's @ the crank for a 2l 240 HP straight 6.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Nice! Thanks for the topic.

We can now predict the responses.


See what I mean. Using turbocharged V6's and aluminum body's are not new. Just different instead of applauding an manufacturer for the R&D of implementing different ideas to obtain greater fuel efficiency in which the public believes it desires(Arguments can be made it does not). You get comments like the towing and acceleration can not be accurate. The truck's paint will peel and the body will disintegrate. I prefer not to use "Haters got to hate", but in this instance this phrase is accurate.


Correct, Ford uses aluminum body parts currently. And they disintegrate, peel, chip away when exposed to salt.

 

[leeharvey418]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
The truck's paint will peel and the body will disintegrate. I prefer not to use "Haters got to hate", but in this instance this phrase is accurate.

I'm not trying to be a hater... I just happen to have firsthand knowledge of the difficulties encountered in the development of a vehicle that puts an aluminum body on a steel frame.

I truly hope that Ford is able to work out the problems with the P552, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I'm a huge fan of the Ecoboost engines.


That is obvious.

Time will tell on those semi-open decked siamesed cylinders.

 

[440Magnum]

I'd be very interested to see how it holds up compared to the other two if it was asked to do that daily for 10 years.

I think the "towing race" misses the target audience for that truck. The turbo 2.7 is *perfect* for a commuter/weekend hauler that occasionally gets asked to tow, not a truck that regularly hauls a 7k pound trailer. Bravo to Ford for keeping half-ton trucks on the upward curve in efficiency (and to Ram for the Pentastar/8-speed combo and the EcoDiesel/8-speed combo for the same reasons). But let's face it: the diesel and the 5.3 could definitely tow that grade all day long for the whole life of the truck without issue. Thermodynamically, the turbodiesel has it in spades over a boosted gasoline engine. And whether or not a tiny, boosted gasoline engine can handle that kind of abuse... well, like someone else said: thank you early adopters!.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
like someone else said: thank you early adopters!.

That goes for any "Completely New Model".

Downsized, turbocharged, high output engines have been around for over 30 years. I drove 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, with 2.3L engine. It was a heavy car, that's for sure. And the little turbo engine, with increased boost (by me) held up perfectly over the long haul. Albeit on a diet of Mobil 1, 15W-50. The demise of that car was not the engine wearing out a 180,000 miles, but an underhood fire, related to old, plastic, fuel line connectors.

The technology is not in question, nor is longevity. It's been proven. New model "mistakes" are another story.

People seem to think that small, turbocharged 15psi engines have double the internal stresses. In many cases, that's just not true. The combustion event takes longer to complete, and peak cylinder pressures are on par with high performance normally aspirated engines. Nor are peak bearing, connecting rod, ring pack and pin loads higher than high performance, NA engines. RPM related inertial loads are considerably more stressful than turbo-charging.

Direct injection significantly reduces detonation, as there is no fuel in the combustion chamber to ignite early. Thereby effectively eliminating the one, damaging thing boosted engines suffer.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead

Time will tell on those semi-open decked siamesed cylinders.


That's one aspect of the engine I'm not concerned about. CGI is stout stuff.

Exhaust valves on the other hand, in a boosted engine in a heavy vehicle...They better be using Inconel (or better).

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
like someone else said: thank you early adopters!.

That goes for any "Completely New Model".

Downsized, turbocharged, high output engines have been around for over 30 years. I drove 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, with 2.3L engine. It was a heavy car, that's for sure. And the little turbo engine, with increased boost (by me) held up perfectly over the long haul. Albeit on a diet of Mobil 1, 15W-50. The demise of that car was not the engine wearing out a 180,000 miles, but an underhood fire, related to old, plastic, fuel line connectors.

The technology is not in question, nor is longevity. It's been proven. New model "mistakes" are another story.

People seem to think that small, turbocharged 15psi engines have double the internal stresses. In many cases, that's just not true. The combustion event takes longer to complete, and peak cylinder pressures are on par with high performance normally aspirated engines. Nor are peak bearing, connecting rod, ring pack and pin loads higher than high performance, NA engines. RPM related inertial loads are considerably more stressful than turbo-charging.

Direct injection significantly reduces detonation, as there is no fuel in the combustion chamber to ignite early. Thereby effectively eliminating the one, damaging thing boosted engines suffer.


My parents early adopted a 2013 Escape.

So far, the only issue is the hatch panel popped off. Turns out it wasn't installed properly.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
A little more about the 2.7 EcoBoost:



Direct link to video in the Motortrend Story.



Pretty impressive for such a tiny engine in a full size truck.

Economy both loaded and unloaded will be interesting, maybe they will do a video of that like they did with the Superduty. Glad they picked the EcoDiesel too, thats another interesting vehicle.


TFLCar on youtube tried a similar test with the 3.5 ecoboost against a few other 1/2 ton V8 trucks.

They had to let off on the Ecoboost because they exceeding the speed limit by a good amount.

The other trucks were no slouch, but didn't have to let off.

 

[rslifkin]

The place where the Ecoboosts (and the small diesels) really shine is applications with lots of low speed / low load use or idle time. Under those conditions, they'll burn a good bit less fuel, even though they deliver similar fuel economy when you're working them hard and asking for the full power output.

 

[mrsilv04]

Yep... I'd sure hope that an overweight and bloated pickup truck that loses 700 pounds, would be faster and get better fuel economy...

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
And just when it seemed impossible for the world's ugliest pickup truck to get any uglier... Ford proves me wrong.
I thought I was the only one who felt that way...

I bet those headlight housings are $500 to replace if one gets damaged.


Not the only one.

Aluminum and an I4 diesel in a full size body would be awesome, but many cant wrap their minds around practical needs versus a vehicle that they can hang novelty nuts off of

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: Cujet


Downsized, turbocharged, high output engines have been around for over 30 years. I drove 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, with 2.3L engine. . . .


But they weren't installed in half-ton trucks to be used in heavy duty applications, such as towing, running sustained boost all day long. And these aren't cooler-running larger displacement turbo diesels.

Again, time will tell as they develop a clearer field history.

For now, I think the EB Kool Aid may be a little too strong.

 

[meep]

Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Yep... I'd sure hope that an overweight and bloated pickup truck that loses 700 pounds, would be faster and get better fuel economy...


if you compare the weight of a reduced weight half ton pickup to your typical family hauler, you might be surprised to find they aren't as far apart as they look. I think I read that the ~712lb weight reduction brings the F150 (not sure which cab?) to something like 4600-4800 lbs. That's within 200 lbs of my old V6 grand cherokee, empty at 4600lbs.

While my tundra looks like a big mo-honkin vehicle (even though it IS smaller than the domestics), it actually weighs LESS than my 08 grand cherokee did at 4400 lbs empty.

so--- if they can get the half tons down into that territory, it opens up two angles:

1. that's awesome for fuel savings, and safety for other vehicles on the road.

2. that stinks for folks that tow, as a lighter vehicle gives the trailer an unhealthy advantage, even if the truck has the power to pull it. Yet I guarantee you the tow rating will go up. It'll be interesting to watch.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

Direct injection significantly reduces detonation, as there is no fuel in the combustion chamber to ignite early. Thereby effectively eliminating the one, damaging thing boosted engines suffer.


And the other thing that DI engines suffer is poor part throttle cylinder fueling, which Toyota and others correct with another injector or two in the intake.

And don't forget valve deposits, diesel-like noise from high pressure injectors and fuel pumps, fuel dilution of the oil, etc.

There is no question that Ford has a winner here. This pickup, albeit with a 3.5 Egobooster, is in line for our consideration this year or early next when we get a new Truck for my wife.

Ford needs to step up their warranty. 60k miles is hurting them in our household when the competition offers 100k miles including roadside assistance and 4 free servicings...

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead

But they weren't installed in half-ton trucks to be used in heavy duty applications, such as towing, running sustained boost all day long. And these aren't cooler-running larger displacement turbo diesels.


How is an engine with a larger displacement running a higher BTU fuel cooler running? As long as the cooling system can remove the heat and there is no issue.

If it's designed correctly it makes no difference. There is no indication Ford messed up in any Eoboost design.


Quote:
Again, time will tell as they develop a clearer field history.

For now, I think the EB Kool Aid may be a little too strong.


the EB 3.5 has been out since Summer, 2009. I'd say it's proving itself based on lack of issues reported.