Ford's 2.7 Liter Twin Turbo V6 ... Wow !!

[LoneRanger]

I've spent close to a month now with the new F-150 and I am just impressed with the engine and transmission combo and how it performs in this 5000 lb truck. First off, it's efficient. The avg mpg readout, if it's to be trusted, won't drop below 20 mpg for around town stop and go driving. And the engine just loves to pull. The 10-speed transmission's initial clunkiness has gone away with adaptive learning. Shifts both up and down, light throttle and firm, are nice. It's eager enough in normal mode but with the shifter in sport mod, look out. It goes. All this on 87 regular. They got it right with this combo.

I am so glad I chose to expand my truck search beyond the mid size's, Colorado/Canyon, New Ranger, Nissan Frontier, Toyota Tacoma. F-150 is better in every way.

 

[OVERKILL]

Great to hear!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Yup, I did like the 2.7 turbo in the Fusion Sport I test drove a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, it was mated to the old 6-speed auto which wasn't particularly sporty - downshifts/upshifts were rather slow. Using paddle shifters was more of a "please change gear when you get around to it" request instead of "do it now!" order.

 

[atikovi]

Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.

 

[CT8]

I have the pokey 2015 2.7 ! I enjoy the engine and have been with my driving getting 22 to 23 MPGs and a bit higher driving sanely. When my wife drives it the pedal it is always to the metal.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.

The 3.5s are getting over 200,000 miles and there are many 2.7 reaching 100,000 miles.

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.



Valid concern. One thing the 2.7 has going for it is the upper block is made of compacted graphite iron, a tougher form of cast iron in every way, while being slightly lighter than conventional iron. Cummins is using compacted graphite iron for the block in it's new 6.7 liter six cylinder that is rated at up to 1000 lb-ft torque, so the stuff is tough. The turbos themselves are integrated into the liquid cooled exhaust manifolds. The oil pan, however, is made of composite (high tech plastic), as is the drain plug. We'll see how that goes, I guess. There's been some problems reported with seepage at the pan-to-block seal. The truck comes with a huge diaper attached at bottom of pan and around it, so one would seem to wonder if Ford feels seepage in that location is a "feature." Haven't checked mine yet. Suppose I will see at oil change time.

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.
Found the old man! Rust or a smoked trans will probably take out 90% of them before engine damage.

 

[wemay]

They've been out long enough, done enough towing, many living their whole life in very dusty and hot construction sites. The jury's been out for quite some time, i think.

 

[MParr]

You would have to post about your new truck. I'm thinking about trading in my Escape for a pickup. The F-150 with the 2.7 would be a possibility. The new Ram with a 3.6 Pentastar would be another choice. I haven't looked at the Ranger. It's to early in the production run and it's cost would be near the Ram and F-150. Ford does have some good prices on the XL/SXT package and the XLT/Sport package.

 

[double vanos]

As a side note the new, 11 month old, ‘18 F150 I bought recently has been getting around 22 mpg in mixed mountain driving at altitude. It has the dual fuel injection system. According to what I've read, the engine uses port inj in low stress driving including idling. Only when the extra power is needed (ie the throttle get matted) does the direct inj kick in. Well, I don't trust the web in a lot of cases but I think it's true here. Whereas my ‘11 FX4 EB would soot the tail pipe right away always, the pipe on the new one still looks new after 2500 miles. That makes me think it's not been in direct inj very much. I don't think port inj soots the pipe black like DI. I'm not babying the truck either; problem is, when you open it all the way up you're at go to jail speeds in a very short time. It has cruised 70-75 for hours at a time without shooting the pipe so I'm thinking the only time the DI gets involved is full throttle or towing.

 

[CT8]

I would suggest premium gas and try the sport mode for lots of fun. !

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.

LOL. 5,000lbs is nothing now.
By the way, European mfrs had small engines in heavier SUV's. Audi Q7 3.6 VR6 and 3.0T were packing close to 5,500lbs (1st gen). Yet, I never heard of faild VR6 and it seems 3.0T is holding really good. BMW had 3 litre in X5, and X5 with that engine packs 5,000lbs. In Europe they use even 4cyl in newer X5's.
This 2.7T is what rest of the world did long before. Due to CAFE, mfrs do not have any more options but to introduce more sophisticated and complex technology. But longevity wise, it will be fine.

 

[atikovi]

Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.
Found the old man! Rust or a smoked trans will probably take out 90% of them before engine damage.


Pulling and replacing a transmission is pretty doable for an advanced diy'er for probably under $2K. The engine on the other hand is much more complicated and imagine would cost at least twice as much. Speaking of the transmission. 10 speeds are relatively new as well so same concern applies here.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.


We already know. People pile on the miles on work trucks, and there are more than a few with very high miles. There are a few 2.7L F150's over 200K miles without trouble and a good number of 3.5L ecoboosts with near 400K miles. The common theme seems to be good maintenance.

 

[Dave9]

^
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.


We already know. People pile on the miles on work trucks, and there are more than a few with very high miles. There are a few 2.7L F150's over 200K miles without trouble and a good number of 3.5L ecoboosts with near 400K miles. The common theme seems to be good maintenance expensive repairs


Fixed that for you.

There are examples of many different vehicles including those known to average low miles before major problems, achieving high miles with good maintenance. Better designs don't need "good" maintenance beyond 8K oil changes to achieve high mileage. Okay maybe refill the wiper fluid when it is empty too.

Let's not pretend the 3.5L with its internal water pump is a long lasting design from the two facts that practically nobody checks their oil for coolant contamination before every drive, and nobody wants to shell out over $1K to do a mere water pump if they're lucky enough to catch it when it fails rather than engine damage symptoms cropping up.

The trend continues, it has never been more expensive to maintain and repair vehicles. Granted it's not just the engine. It all adds up including dual injection which mitigates one problem only to create another in higher repair cost later.

I don't dismiss the fuel savings for those who drive high miles, that could make these designs a wise choice, but to pretend they're some how magically as reliable because a few have hit 100's thousands miles, is overlooking real world rising repair costs given the same criteria for yearly mileage averages or at least close enough.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Beautiful truck; it is the only one I would consider right now.
You bought well.
I understand Toyota is following suit with its new Tundra; high torque turbo 6.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Beautiful truck; it is the only one I would consider right now.
You bought well.
I understand Toyota is following suit with its new Tundra; high torque turbo 6.




I know it's been argued here but the new 2.5 and this engine of Toyota are very common with the Mazda SkyActiv architecture. That was part of the deal these two made.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Dave9
^
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.


We already know. People pile on the miles on work trucks, and there are more than a few with very high miles. There are a few 2.7L F150's over 200K miles without trouble and a good number of 3.5L ecoboosts with near 400K miles. The common theme seems to be good maintenance expensive repairs


Fixed that for you.

There are examples of many different vehicles including those known to average low miles before major problems, achieving high miles with good maintenance. Better designs don't need "good" maintenance beyond 8K oil changes to achieve high mileage. Okay maybe refill the wiper fluid when it is empty too.

Let's not pretend the 3.5L with its internal water pump is a long lasting design from the two facts that practically nobody checks their oil for coolant contamination before every drive, and nobody wants to shell out over $1K to do a mere water pump if they're lucky enough to catch it when it fails rather than engine damage symptoms cropping up.

The trend continues, it has never been more expensive to maintain and repair vehicles. Granted it's not just the engine. It all adds up including dual injection which mitigates one problem only to create another in higher repair cost later.

I don't dismiss the fuel savings for those who drive high miles, that could make these designs a wise choice, but to pretend they're some how magically as reliable because a few have hit 100's thousands miles, is overlooking real world rising repair costs given the same criteria for yearly mileage averages or at least close enough.

HEMI costs around $800-900 to do the water pump on. It's only a few hundred more for an "internal" one?

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted by Dave9
^
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by atikovi
Only time will tell how these small displacement high output engines do in a heavy vehicle. Seems highly stressed but I'm no engineer so don't know how beefed up the internals are.


We already know. People pile on the miles on work trucks, and there are more than a few with very high miles. There are a few 2.7L F150's over 200K miles without trouble and a good number of 3.5L ecoboosts with near 400K miles. The common theme seems to be good maintenance expensive repairs


Fixed that for you.

There are examples of many different vehicles including those known to average low miles before major problems, achieving high miles with good maintenance. Better designs don't need "good" maintenance beyond 8K oil changes to achieve high mileage. Okay maybe refill the wiper fluid when it is empty too.

Let's not pretend the 3.5L with its internal water pump is a long lasting design from the two facts that practically nobody checks their oil for coolant contamination before every drive, and nobody wants to shell out over $1K to do a mere water pump if they're lucky enough to catch it when it fails rather than engine damage symptoms cropping up.

The trend continues, it has never been more expensive to maintain and repair vehicles. Granted it's not just the engine. It all adds up including dual injection which mitigates one problem only to create another in higher repair cost later.

I don't dismiss the fuel savings for those who drive high miles, that could make these designs a wise choice, but to pretend they're some how magically as reliable because a few have hit 100's thousands miles, is overlooking real world rising repair costs given the same criteria for yearly mileage averages or at least close enough.


I think what cujet was pointing to that apparently triggered you to author the above diatribe, was simply that owners should adhere to the published maintenance schedule on these trucks. Not particularly a difficult thing to do, and no more expensive to maintain in that manner than any truck of the same class from competing brands.