https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/ca...-pickup-trucks/
The cylinder deactivation on a 4 banger surprises me.
The cylinder deactivation on a 4 banger surprises me.
GM new 2.7 turbo pick up motor
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
As we talked here about it a few weeks ago that is one I will test drive just to see how it goes.
I for some reason find it very interesting.
I hope it finds its way as a loss leader lease vehicle.
If it comes up as a $269. a month deal I just may get one for hauling mowers.
In this situation a lease works for me.
I for some reason find it very interesting.
I hope it finds its way as a loss leader lease vehicle.
If it comes up as a $269. a month deal I just may get one for hauling mowers.
In this situation a lease works for me.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
LOL- but very true. Ford has turbo'd us to death...
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
LOL- but very true. Ford has turbo'd us to death...
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
I think it has to do with the perception that turbos are unreliable due to their complexity. I see this with people older people who remember how fragile oil cooled turbos were 30-40 years ago. You can see it on this board too, older members want cars without direct injection or turbos. Baby boomers are becoming an increasingly smaller market share and we can finally join the rest of the world with small turbocharged engines in trucks.
I will wager that it also improved the truck market overall, you no longer have to choose between a powerful engine and fuel economy. How many trucks did Ford sell over GM because of the availability of a four or six cylinder engine that had similar power levels to GM V8s while getting much better fuel economy? Now apply that to a fleet of work trucks.
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
I think it has to do with the perception that turbos are unreliable due to their complexity. I see this with people older people who remember how fragile oil cooled turbos were 30-40 years ago. You can see it on this board too, older members want cars without direct injection or turbos. Baby boomers are becoming an increasingly smaller market share and we can finally join the rest of the world with small turbocharged engines in trucks.
I will wager that it also improved the truck market overall, you no longer have to choose between a powerful engine and fuel economy. How many trucks did Ford sell over GM because of the availability of a four or six cylinder engine that had similar power levels to GM V8s while getting much better fuel economy? Now apply that to a fleet of work trucks.
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
I will wager that it also improved the truck market overall, you no longer have to choose between a powerful engine and fuel economy. How many trucks did Ford sell over GM because of the availability of a four or six cylinder engine that had similar power levels to GM V8s while getting much better fuel economy?
Fuelly.com would indicate otherwise.
3.5L Ford Ecoboost returns similar fuel economy to the Chevrolet 6.2L at 16-17 MPG in real world use.
I see the Ford ecoboost as an EPA play in that lighter throttle work for EPA numbers vs real world MPG improvement where heavier throttle application is used by drivers.
I will wager that it also improved the truck market overall, you no longer have to choose between a powerful engine and fuel economy. How many trucks did Ford sell over GM because of the availability of a four or six cylinder engine that had similar power levels to GM V8s while getting much better fuel economy?
Fuelly.com would indicate otherwise.
3.5L Ford Ecoboost returns similar fuel economy to the Chevrolet 6.2L at 16-17 MPG in real world use.
I see the Ford ecoboost as an EPA play in that lighter throttle work for EPA numbers vs real world MPG improvement where heavier throttle application is used by drivers.
100% driven by tree huggers.
.......
I will take a V8 over these glorified 4 bangers any day
when a REAL truck is needed.
.......
I will take a V8 over these glorified 4 bangers any day
when a REAL truck is needed.
Think they'll couple a CVT to that 2.7L turbo truck engine?
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
I thought Ford had been leading in sales for a longer period of time than the existence of the Ecoboost?
Say what you will, but GM's steadfast commitment to the ancient pushrod would be a negative--if it was a boat anchor. It isn't. It's managed to keep up in terms of power output, and I suspect it's smaller & lighter than any DOHC, with less parts. I actually admire their motors. For a given power output, simpler is better in my book.
I still like the idea of getting a RAM with the 3.6, but I suspect I'd miss the V8 burble.
Originally Posted By: Danno
Fuelly.com would indicate otherwise.
3.5L Ford Ecoboost returns similar fuel economy to the Chevrolet 6.2L at 16-17 MPG in real world use.
Not sure I'm surprised. With six plus speed transmissions, the rear end ratio matters a lot less. Now it becomes a question of wind drag and weight. Since they're all pretty similar, the engines are doing about the same amount of work, and thus using about the same amount of gasoline. A horsepower does not care if it was made in a small NA engine wound out to 6k, a large NA motor at 2k, or a turbo motor at 1.5k. It takes some amount of gasoline combusted to make each hp. At full tilt I've long thought these engines may (may!) run rich to control temperatures, but at anything less I have a hard time seeing OEM's leaving fuel economy on the table--I have a hard time seeing how one maker can somehow eek out a lower amount of gasoline required to make each horsepower without the others copying it.
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
I thought Ford had been leading in sales for a longer period of time than the existence of the Ecoboost?
Say what you will, but GM's steadfast commitment to the ancient pushrod would be a negative--if it was a boat anchor. It isn't. It's managed to keep up in terms of power output, and I suspect it's smaller & lighter than any DOHC, with less parts. I actually admire their motors. For a given power output, simpler is better in my book.
I still like the idea of getting a RAM with the 3.6, but I suspect I'd miss the V8 burble.
Originally Posted By: Danno
Fuelly.com would indicate otherwise.
3.5L Ford Ecoboost returns similar fuel economy to the Chevrolet 6.2L at 16-17 MPG in real world use.
Not sure I'm surprised. With six plus speed transmissions, the rear end ratio matters a lot less. Now it becomes a question of wind drag and weight. Since they're all pretty similar, the engines are doing about the same amount of work, and thus using about the same amount of gasoline. A horsepower does not care if it was made in a small NA engine wound out to 6k, a large NA motor at 2k, or a turbo motor at 1.5k. It takes some amount of gasoline combusted to make each hp. At full tilt I've long thought these engines may (may!) run rich to control temperatures, but at anything less I have a hard time seeing OEM's leaving fuel economy on the table--I have a hard time seeing how one maker can somehow eek out a lower amount of gasoline required to make each horsepower without the others copying it.
Originally Posted By: ENGINEER60
100% driven by tree huggers.
.......
I will take a V8 over these glorified 4 bangers any day
when a REAL truck is needed.
Why the cut down? Nothing wrong with better mpg and less pollution in vehicles epecially if they can still do the job. Most owners of pick ups don't use them for heavy haulers. They are daily drivers.
100% driven by tree huggers.
.......
I will take a V8 over these glorified 4 bangers any day
when a REAL truck is needed.
Why the cut down? Nothing wrong with better mpg and less pollution in vehicles epecially if they can still do the job. Most owners of pick ups don't use them for heavy haulers. They are daily drivers.
Originally Posted By: JTK
Think they'll couple a CVT to that 2.7L turbo truck engine?
:lol:
Well, maybe if they went the other way, and use a normally aspirated gas motor that could spin past 8k. No torque but that can be fixed by gearing.
Heck, they already use torque management to kill engine power in the first few gears. How much of that is driveline weakness vs traction limitations I don't know. But full power is really only "needed" when under way, at speed and climbing a hill under load. [Desired the rest of the time!]
Maybe they can make a dual path transmission. CVT for light loading, 3 or 4 speed conventional for when under (heavy) load. No idea if actually plausible/cost effective, but it's an idea.
Think they'll couple a CVT to that 2.7L turbo truck engine?
:lol:
Well, maybe if they went the other way, and use a normally aspirated gas motor that could spin past 8k. No torque but that can be fixed by gearing.
Heck, they already use torque management to kill engine power in the first few gears. How much of that is driveline weakness vs traction limitations I don't know. But full power is really only "needed" when under way, at speed and climbing a hill under load. [Desired the rest of the time!]
Maybe they can make a dual path transmission. CVT for light loading, 3 or 4 speed conventional for when under (heavy) load. No idea if actually plausible/cost effective, but it's an idea.
My 07 Ram 5.7 Hemi quad cab gets within 2 mpg of my 2.9v6 Ranger. Both trucks have a 26 gallon fuel tank Both go near 400 mi before I stop for gas. The Hemi is way more comfy on a trip.
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
I thought Ford had been leading in sales for a longer period of time than the existence of the Ecoboost?
Say what you will, but GM's steadfast commitment to the ancient pushrod would be a negative--if it was a boat anchor. It isn't. It's managed to keep up in terms of power output, and I suspect it's smaller & lighter than any DOHC, with less parts. I actually admire their motors. For a given power output, simpler is better in my book.
I still like the idea of getting a RAM with the 3.6, but I suspect I'd miss the V8 burble.
Originally Posted By: Danno
Fuelly.com would indicate otherwise.
3.5L Ford Ecoboost returns similar fuel economy to the Chevrolet 6.2L at 16-17 MPG in real world use.
Not sure I'm surprised. With six plus speed transmissions, the rear end ratio matters a lot less. Now it becomes a question of wind drag and weight. Since they're all pretty similar, the engines are doing about the same amount of work, and thus using about the same amount of gasoline. A horsepower does not care if it was made in a small NA engine wound out to 6k, a large NA motor at 2k, or a turbo motor at 1.5k. It takes some amount of gasoline combusted to make each hp. At full tilt I've long thought these engines may (may!) run rich to control temperatures, but at anything less I have a hard time seeing OEM's leaving fuel economy on the table--I have a hard time seeing how one maker can somehow eek out a lower amount of gasoline required to make each horsepower without the others copying it.
Supton, remember I want to buy your Tundra when you are ready to move on! Lol. The new 3.6 with E-Torque is actually promising. That system is actually something similar to an idea I had. I would suspect that the Ram with the E-Torque system will achieve better real world mileage.
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
I thought Ford had been leading in sales for a longer period of time than the existence of the Ecoboost?
Say what you will, but GM's steadfast commitment to the ancient pushrod would be a negative--if it was a boat anchor. It isn't. It's managed to keep up in terms of power output, and I suspect it's smaller & lighter than any DOHC, with less parts. I actually admire their motors. For a given power output, simpler is better in my book.
I still like the idea of getting a RAM with the 3.6, but I suspect I'd miss the V8 burble.
Originally Posted By: Danno
Fuelly.com would indicate otherwise.
3.5L Ford Ecoboost returns similar fuel economy to the Chevrolet 6.2L at 16-17 MPG in real world use.
Not sure I'm surprised. With six plus speed transmissions, the rear end ratio matters a lot less. Now it becomes a question of wind drag and weight. Since they're all pretty similar, the engines are doing about the same amount of work, and thus using about the same amount of gasoline. A horsepower does not care if it was made in a small NA engine wound out to 6k, a large NA motor at 2k, or a turbo motor at 1.5k. It takes some amount of gasoline combusted to make each hp. At full tilt I've long thought these engines may (may!) run rich to control temperatures, but at anything less I have a hard time seeing OEM's leaving fuel economy on the table--I have a hard time seeing how one maker can somehow eek out a lower amount of gasoline required to make each horsepower without the others copying it.
Supton, remember I want to buy your Tundra when you are ready to move on! Lol. The new 3.6 with E-Torque is actually promising. That system is actually something similar to an idea I had. I would suspect that the Ram with the E-Torque system will achieve better real world mileage.
General Motors is making a big move into small engines, yeah right... 2.7 is not small engine, ok maby in us
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
I think it has to do with the perception that turbos are unreliable due to their complexity. I see this with people older people who remember how fragile oil cooled turbos were 30-40 years ago. You can see it on this board too, older members want cars without direct injection or turbos. Baby boomers are becoming an increasingly smaller market share and we can finally join the rest of the world with small turbocharged engines in trucks.
I will wager that it also improved the truck market overall, you no longer have to choose between a powerful engine and fuel economy. How many trucks did Ford sell over GM because of the availability of a four or six cylinder engine that had similar power levels to GM V8s while getting much better fuel economy? Now apply that to a fleet of work trucks.
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
I'm still not sure why people are so scared of turbos.
The turbo'd European unreliable money pit (as it's been called here) in my signature has been extremely hassle free. No turbo related issues whatsoever aside from it's complex PCV system needing replaced, which IMO partially stems from PO neglect.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"So far we’ve yet to see many turbos in gas-powered pickups, but clearly that’s about to change."
Interesting.
Were they living under a rock for the past 7 years? Ford has been selling boatloads and boatloads of Ecoboost 3.5 and 2.7 in the F150 since 2011. Started out at about 40% take rate in 2011 and has been the most popular engines for a few years now.
Given the sales volumes of the F150 that certainly qualifies as many turbos....
This turbo 2.7 looks very interesting and should be an interesting addition.
I think it has to do with the perception that turbos are unreliable due to their complexity. I see this with people older people who remember how fragile oil cooled turbos were 30-40 years ago. You can see it on this board too, older members want cars without direct injection or turbos. Baby boomers are becoming an increasingly smaller market share and we can finally join the rest of the world with small turbocharged engines in trucks.
I will wager that it also improved the truck market overall, you no longer have to choose between a powerful engine and fuel economy. How many trucks did Ford sell over GM because of the availability of a four or six cylinder engine that had similar power levels to GM V8s while getting much better fuel economy? Now apply that to a fleet of work trucks.
Ford left GM and Mopar in the dust technologically this decade. V8s are not the future, no matter how many cylinders you deactivate. Ford is selling the most trucks because they realized this first, and put in the engineering resources to produce high tech engines that are rugged enough for a work truck.
I'm still not sure why people are so scared of turbos.
The turbo'd European unreliable money pit (as it's been called here) in my signature has been extremely hassle free. No turbo related issues whatsoever aside from it's complex PCV system needing replaced, which IMO partially stems from PO neglect.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: JTK
Think they'll couple a CVT to that 2.7L turbo truck engine?
:lol:
Well, maybe if they went the other way, and use a normally aspirated gas motor that could spin past 8k. No torque but that can be fixed by gearing.
Heck, they already use torque management to kill engine power in the first few gears. How much of that is driveline weakness vs traction limitations I don't know. But full power is really only "needed" when under way, at speed and climbing a hill under load. [Desired the rest of the time!]
Maybe they can make a dual path transmission. CVT for light loading, 3 or 4 speed conventional for when under (heavy) load. No idea if actually plausible/cost effective, but it's an idea.
The new Toyota Corolla hatchback has a "starting gear" for 1st grear before CVT kicks in.
Originally Posted By: JTK
Think they'll couple a CVT to that 2.7L turbo truck engine?
:lol:
Well, maybe if they went the other way, and use a normally aspirated gas motor that could spin past 8k. No torque but that can be fixed by gearing.
Heck, they already use torque management to kill engine power in the first few gears. How much of that is driveline weakness vs traction limitations I don't know. But full power is really only "needed" when under way, at speed and climbing a hill under load. [Desired the rest of the time!]
Maybe they can make a dual path transmission. CVT for light loading, 3 or 4 speed conventional for when under (heavy) load. No idea if actually plausible/cost effective, but it's an idea.
The new Toyota Corolla hatchback has a "starting gear" for 1st grear before CVT kicks in.
- Status
