Before jumping into this, I must admit to not having taken any pictures of this pickup. It was just placed into service in the fleet where I work and the door decals would have been distracting and not very pertinent. What is pertinent is how the engine in this truck is already starting to change mindsets.
Not that long ago, having a 2.7 liter engine in a half-ton pickup would have been greeted with snide remarks and belly-laughs. At 2.7 liters, it is exactly half the displacement of the 5.4 liter that was the de facto V8 in Ford pickups for a very long time. However, this 2.7 liter V6 pumps out more horsepower than many versions of the 5.4 ever thought about.
This particular pickup had all of 420 miles on the odometer. The supervisor at the location, a serial pickup owner named Darren, was highly skeptical about this pickup when it was being ordered. He had been assigned a 2006 Chevrolet Silverado extended cab with a 5.3 liter and was wanting to have a similar replacement. Upon second thought, “highly skeptical” is understating things.
Let’s face it; many pickup owners in the United States are accustomed to and want V8 power. Darren is no exception. It’s reliable power, the engines are easy to work on, and you know what to expect. There is comfort and familiarity in all three of those traits.
When I went to Darren’s location earlier this week, the new F-150 was sitting out front. He had been away from work for an extended period and was just laying eyes on it for the first time that day. My standing offer was I would trade him my ’07 Silverado for his new F-150 if he didn’t like it. Of course, I was saying all sorts of things to dissuade him from liking it, such as telling him the all aluminum body was created from all his old beer cans.
After attending our meeting, we went and drove the F-150.
Remember this is a two-wheel drive fleet grade pickup. Vinyl seats, roll down windows, manual locks, and a radio, not a sound system. It was a very basic crew cab pickup. Looking in the glove compartment I found the window sticker. While it read $35,000 I knew my employer had paid nowhere near that amount.
The first thing that struck me about the 2.7 liter F-150 is how quiet it is. You hit the starter and the entire pickup reminds one of the smoothness of a sewing machine – little to no engine noise and no burble from the exhaust. While the air conditioner sounded like a jet preparing for takeoff, the only engine noise one hears is under moderate to heavy throttle. Getting onto the highway Darren took off gingerly; he soon had to stop for a turning car, which prompted him to nail the throttle.
Upshifting at 5,000 rpm, I could see the ice slowly starting to crack. I asked him if he had ever had a pickup that revved so freely. “No; the little bastard has pretty good get-up-and-go.”
He and I both appreciated the indicator on the dash that shows what gear the six speed automatic is in. I’ve seen similar on late-model F-250’s, but not on an F-150 until now. It is a welcome touch.
A few miles down the road, Darren stopped and we swapped places. Adjusting the seat, I find my only nit is the steering wheel is a little too high for my tastes, even when adjusted all the way down. While far from a deal breaker, it could be annoying during extended drives. It is likely the higher trim level versions will have power seats that can be adjusted to negate this phenomenon.
Getting on the highway, I found the 2.7 to be quite eager in power delivery. While the power was ample but not to the point of overwhelming a person, it was confident and belied its diminutive displacement. After slowing down for turning traffic, the transmission often downshifted from fifth gear to second or third – it did what it needed to do without any bogging down and this engine loves to rev. Even at 70 mph on a two-lane road, this engine still seems like it’s loafing.
With the all aluminum body of these new F-150’s, Ford has been advertising curb weights as being up to 700 pounds less than similar body styles of the previous generation and according to Ford’s website the curb weight for a two-wheel drive F-150 Super Crew starts at 4,471 pounds. This pickup is undoubtedly very close to this weight, which is only 150 pounds more than a Ford Taurus SHO and within one pound of a new Honda Odyssey EX. Having less weight to tote around undoubtedly helps the 2.7 liter accomplish its mission.
The fuel mileage on the instrument cluster stated the pickup had achieved 22 mpg to date. How that varies over time, driving type, and load remains to be seen. In this application, Darren’s F-150 will cover many miles in a day, but these miles will be accumulated by an abundance of three to ten mile trips, have highly variable loads, with the miles supplied by various drivers.
I encouraged Darren to attach a trailer and see how it did. So far, he has reported no dissatisfaction, even going so far as to state more of these F-150’s needed to be purchased as time goes on.
If Ford has been able to win the attentions of a die-hard V8 user, it shows they have developed a very good engine.
For squeezing 325 horsepower out of this engine, all with an EPA rating of 19 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, I would say Ford has nothing to worry about.
Note: All pictures liberated from Ford’s “Build Your Own” section of their website.
The big question of course will be longevity of the engine. That small engine is working pretty hard to move that heavy truck.
I have a 2009 F-150 with the 5.4 and get about 15-16 in all around driving. Some say that is awful, but it is about double that of the old 1969 F-250 I used to drive that had a 390.
I’m still not used to the styling on the new F-150, and mine is not nearly worn out, so I think I will just wait and watch to see how this all works out before committing to one.
It will be quite a while before I can afford a new truck. We should know about the engine longevity by then. Doubt they will last as long as there should be far more stress in a small turbo engine. I particularly liked the best example of an unstressed engine, my 300 six.
We will see.
I like the 300six also, however…
Semi trucks run turbos at very high boost levels and they have been known to last a million miles without a rebuild. There is no reason why a turbo charged engine cannot be designed to last a very long time. I do not know what the maximum boost is on these Ford Ecoboost engines is, but I seriously doubt they are running their turbos as high as a typical class 8 semi truck engine.
Not comparable. First, you’re talking about industrial grade diesels with cast iron blocks. Second, they see more stringent maintenance than most consumer vehicles do, including chemical analysis of the fluids, to ensure that they will last a long time.
That’s not to say that a small turbocharged gasoline engine replacing a larger V8 in a mostly consumer application couldn’t be designed to last as long. The question is, was it? Only time will tell.
Of course, this is probably a great engine for pickups that are mostly used for commuting and occasionally for hauling/towing, as it won’t be worked hard day-to-day.
You’re giving a lot of semi-truck fleets way more credit for maintenance than they deserve. Many of the larger long haul fleets turn the equipment on a 3-5 yr cycle, typically under factory warranty. They do just enough to make sure the warranty is honored if something breaks.
Now if you’re talking about fleets that plan on keeping the equipment for 10-15+ yrs its a bit of a different story.
The oil analysis thing is mostly done by O/O to have a heads up to potential issues. You are much better off having your shop of choice do work that being at the mercy of someone at random 1000mi from home when you are under a load.
I do agree that for how most people use 1/2ton PUs most of the time a smaller turbo engine will work fine. Now when you start to use 50-75%+ of the towing capacity fuel consumption can be the same as or worse than the traditional V8.
Just got back to my computer. Guess I might have helped initiate a fecal event expressing doubt about the new engine’s longevity. I won’t be buying a new car or truck for a spell, possibly ever. However, having said that and registering the comments about rotary phones etc I feel compelled to say:
I have operated several types of engines and vehicles over the years. I normally found that the best type of engine for a truck is one with high torque and low rpm. My personal favorites were the 300 six or any chev small block including the 4.3.
Hiring people and putting them behind the wheel argues for one that can laugh at lack of maintenance and abuse. I feel that the higher cost of fuel is negligible compared to the repairs on high strung engines and/or an overly complicated one. I have never owned a turbo but have driven a small engined supercharged car. It worked great but I don’t want it in a work truck. You may argue the point but a forced induction engine will always give more stress to the engine internals than one with atmospheric induction. We can only guess that the internals were engineered for that stress and they probably were.
However, I feel it is only intelligent to develop a wait and see attitude. Saturn certainly proved to me that manufacturers will use us as beta testers. I am optimistic about them but think I will let them prove out before I spend my money.
The 2.7 is a new engine, but the 3.5 has been around for 6 years now. It has developed a very good reputation, better than that of the 3v 5.4. Ford seems to have learned from their issues with the 3v, not to mention the 6.0 and 6.4 diesels, that they had to really nail this concept to make it work. I wouldn’t say mission accomplished yet, but they seem to be well on the way to success.
What’s the stress? 2.7 liters with two turbos to move 4500 pounds of truck with occasional cargo. My old Audi S4/S6’s used a 2.2 five cylinder with one turbo to move 3800 pounds, plenty of units still around with well over 200k miles on them. Saab 9-3 used a 1.9 4cyl with one turbo to move over 3000lbs. Turbo failures are not a major problem area. Subaru uses turbos on lots of cars, again, the turbo is not a major failure point. Same with Volvos, old and new. I could go on and on. What’s everyone so scared about? It’s not like most people are going to be diving under the hood of a modern naturally aspirated truck anytime soon either.
A bigger issue will probably be people vastly overloading the truck and then putting some real stress on it. A story of people not using the proper tool for the job and then blaming the tool for the failure.. I’m assuming Jason’s employer looked at the purpose of the truck in this case and that its mission would stay well within it’s designed performance envelope.
When turbos had a brief run of popularity during the 1980s, they were noted for their lag times and many were noted for being unreliable and expensive to repair. Frequently attached to buzzy 4 cylinder engines, they seemed a compromise.
I was in my teens at the time, and not buying new cars. Gas was mostly cheap, and my older V-8 mobiles seemed to be a much better deal than the turbos.
Things like that stick in one’s mine and make a person very skeptical about the word “turbo.”
Pretty much the same thing as when people say Diesel and everyone remembers GM’s early 80’s “efforts” but assume that nothing has changed in the 30 years since.
Rotary phones on the other hand actually worked pretty well back then but I am glad there has been progress on that front as well.
Point taken, but when faced with a decision in a dealership to spend $1,500 more on technology that you were raised on as being questionable, that is the kind of leap of faith that many won’t take, especially when sticking with the established technology really isn’t a compromise – I thoroughly enjoy my 5.0 and it has served me very well. I’ve also weathed three “sky is falling” gas “crisis” events, only to find very affordable fuel after the event. The small gas mileage penalty has been a non-issue. A vehicle purchase is a decade long commitment for me.
On the other hand, upgrading to a smart phone costs very little, and it can be disposed of quite readily if need be.
The 2.7 is $800 less than the 5.0.
3.5 Ecoboost was a $1.500 upgrade in 2012 over the 5.0 – the model year I purchased.
I don’t know what Ford’s break in suggestions are, but my CTS was not to be run over 4000 RPM’s in the first 1500 miles I think. I kept it below that until I had about 2000 miles on it. Winding it to 5000 with less than 500 miles on the engine probably did not hurt anything but was not a good idea either.
You said it for me.
Turbo and engine technology have come a long way since the 1980s.
Small turbo diesels are the norm in trucks all over the globe. This is the US (gas) version.
In the previous Ranger series Ford ditched the 4.0 V6 from our lineup as it didnt compared in real power favourably to the Turbo diesel.
Longevity with these turbo engines will largely be dictated by owner service/maintenance schedules. Folks that are running 87 octane gas and changing oil and filters the same as there old slower revving V8 engines will probably see shorter engine/turbo life, especially DI units. These newer engines require a bit more attention and care to get higher mileage from what we have seen at our repair shop. I also have personally witnessed a good half dozen Ecoboost 3.5 engine failures that required entire engine replacement in F-150 trucks and some of them weren’t paying good attention to service intervals supporting my above theory.
Ford also has an excellent (and powerful) 1.0 liter 3 cylinder turbo gasoline engine for quite some time now. It’s in the Fiesta, but also in a Focus wagon for example. It works flawlessly, never heard or read about any issues. And Toyota has just introduced a 1.2 liter turbo (gasoline) engine -picture below- to replace the naturally aspirated 1.6 liter.
Really, a turbo charger is old school technology. As you say, nothing to get scared or worried about. They are as common on gasoline engines now as they are on diesel engines.
Next step is the E-charger.
“The big question of course will be longevity of the engine. That small engine is working pretty hard to move that heavy truck.”
it’s built rather “diesel-like,” with a compacted-graphite iron cylinder block, and with an also diesel-like 22 psi of peak boost. Nobody seems to question how hard we’re cranking on diesels these days; as long as you stay away from detonation there shouldn’t be any questions on this engine’s longevity.
I really love the idea of a full size pickup with better performance than my 5.4 and with minivan gas mileage. This engine is why I feel the new Colorado/Canyon have failed. They are almost as large on the outside with about the same mileage but a lot less usable space and capability.
The price and questions about the long term viability of such a small high power direct injected twin turbo would be my main concerns with this truck. Not a big fan of the styling either, not after the last two major redesigns which were cutting edge and complete departures from previous models. This one is easily mistaken for its successor. I suppose they thought the aluminum was enough risk by itself.
Oh, and I think you are understating the performance. 4×4 Supercab Lariats, which weigh a good amount more than this one, clock in at 6.5 seconds 0-60. That’s pretty fast by any measure.
regarding the Colorado and Canyon failing I have no idea what you are talking about. While they are not super duper common out here in Sacramento they haven’t really been on sale that long yet. A quick google news search shows titles like
“General Motors said strong truck sales boosted its May results to the Detroit … to 27 percent, while the all-new Chevrolet Colorado controlled one-quarter of the retail market for … Chevrolet vehicle sales”
and
“Pickup sales soar, thanks largely to GM
Automotive News-Jun 7, 2015
Automakers enjoyed a spectacular run in May as sales totaled … And now that they are back in the picture, the Chevy Colorado had its best ”
now if by “failed” you meant “not fit Phil L of curbside classics expectations of a pickup” than yes but by sales numbers the truck has been nothing short of a success.
Don’t get me wrong because I think the best trucks are simple rugged and small like the old Toyota pickup and Nissan hardbody. Give me a manual transmission 4 wheel drive sub 4k curb weight and call it a day. In fact I would love to see a truck maybe around Dakota size using Fords aluminum construction and a direct injection 6. Would probably be around 3500 pounds and with around 300ish hp it would get around just fine.
Yes, sorry, I meant a failure in my eyes because I was interested in one until the specs were released. They are simply too large and too thirsty for a small truck, yet too small inside and in the box to comfortably substitute for a full size, at least for a family of 5 like mine. My hunch is their sales success is based mostly on looks and price. Which is fine, that matters too of course, but it’s certainly not the revival of the compact market it was heralded as.
the “large” part is an illusion. I’ve commonly thought that the global Ford Ranger and the new Colorado/Canyon were “big” compared to my 2011 (north American) Ranger, but they’re really not. The Colorado is within a couple of inches of the old ranger in wheelbase, overall width, and overall height. the overall length is 7″ longer but I think the Colorado has a bit longer pickup box.
I parked my truck next to a Colorado and figured out what it was that made the Colorado look so big. It’s because the Colorado/Canyon have followed the styling trends of cars, and the side glass is shorter (“gun slits”) and the bed sides have grown taller to match. It’s really not a significantly bigger truck than the old ones.
It is bigger If you look at the #s it’s about the size of a gmt 400 truck from the 90’s. Mind you it’s about right for a midsize (2nd gen Dakota first gen Tundra) but I was really hoping for something 1st gen Tacoma sized.
It’s no illusion. As I point out below the long box is longer than my ’06 F150 and just 4 inches narrower. Yet the interior and box are considerably smaller.
Those EPA figures closely match those of our 2004 3.3L Sienna, so comparison to a minivan is apt.
That tiresome, hackneyed “beer can” allusion (formerly a smear against “Jap Crap”) shows the psychological hurdle Ford et al. must overcome to get American truck buyers out of their Archie Bunker “bigger & heavier is better” fetish.
BTW, the humble beer can has impressive engineering behind it, as Henry Petroski has shown. We should applaud Ford for being innovative.
Neil. I agree about the beer can. I used it on Darren I a selfish effort to get this pickup.
What scares me is how it might’ve worked! Ford is taking a big risk here.
BTW good review, thanks!
An autobody shop owner that I know is getting his shop certified by Ford to repair their aluminum-bodied vehicles. He thinks there’s going to be big money in it.
I’m sure engine rebuilders got excited about aluminum engines as well. FWIW, I heard the F-150 has thicker bed walls.
There will be plenty of money in repairing F150s… once the shop recuperates it’s investment in special tools and the time it takes for trained technicians to become familiar with new processes. The Ford repair manual is specific. Many joints are rivet bonded. Each panel may used several sizes and types of rivets. Some seams require two different types of bonding sealant, one on top of the other. The shop is required to have a dedicated work station with dedicated tools for working on aluminum (Insurance companies don’t want to be liable for repair failures caused by galvanic corrosion). Done properly, it won’t be a problem. I would be real skeptical of buying an aluminum-bodied vehicle that has been in an accident.
I (and many others) are highly skeptical of ANY vehicle that has been involved in an accident. The Aluminum factor doesn’t really make that any more so. There is plenty of shoddy and substandard work out there with good old steel as it is. At least the body won’t be rusting.
Here in CT the insurance companies pay almost double the hourly rate for aluminum Audi repairs so there will be money in it but I’m sure there will be some push back from the insurance cos or severe rate hikes.
Perhaps but the Audi A8 is ALL aluminum, not just the body. It’s the whole car. Range Rovers have had aluminum body panels over a steel frame forever. Many cars have some aluminum body panel components. Yes it takes some specialist tools and training but with the volumes that an F150 sells in, I think we’ll see increased competition and a quick decline in rates.
Actually owners in the F-150 forums are reporting lower insurance premiums than the last generation. Collision repair is evidently more than offset by increased safety features.
Sounds like Jason is an employee of FoMoCo, directly or indirectly?
I also share Fratzog’s longevity concerns.
Has Ford contracted out their styling department to Tonka Toys?
An employee of Ford? No. One who realizes the positives of thinking outside the box? Yes.
Trying new stuff isn’t hard at all. I’d be pretty bored with only vanilla ice cream.
Seems Ford is doing something right. The F-150 is the biggest selling car in the world by far. The profit on each unit is considerable.
And, no, I would never buy one, since I have no use for a truck. Nor do I work for Ford, although whenever I get a Ford rental, the cars drive very nicely.
Mark: To accuse or suggest that a writer is an employee of the firm whose product they are reviewing is a very serious accusation. We do not allow comments that attack/disparage writers or other commenters. This is a warning; don’t let it happen again.
THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS for the retail sticker price of a “fleet truck”????
!
Ford’s website lists the basic F-150 @ $26000, so this one must have been loaded with options.
Well SuperCrew adds $6500, 2.7 adds $795, so that puts you at $33K right there. These things loaded are $60+.
Looking at the inventory at my local Ford dealer, the cheapest F-150 is about $40,000. The SuperCrew’s make my CTS look cheap.
Locally there’s a $6-7,000 price cut on the new Ford F150s, $10-14,000 on Dodges and GMs. Once production gets up to speed, I would expect Ford discounts to creep up.
The looks ain’t doing it for me….
Do you get out much, Mark?
Nahhhhhh. I spend most of my time surfing the internet, epically this website.
🙂
Where’s the engine pic?! Thanks for your thoughts on this, nice to see someone who actually drove it before pronouncing judgment. Offhand I don’t see the issue behind a 2.7liter V6 with two smallish turbos that many others do. Assuming it’s engineered correctly to handle the stock boost level it should do fine.
Re: the engine pic I am curious what amount of space there actually is around the turbos and how they are integrated into the exhaust. I’ve had 7 or 8 turbocharged cars now over a total of a few hundred thousand driven miles on them by me and only replaced one turbo and that was by choice (not due to failure) to a larger unit (the ’93 Audi S4). In that case the actual replacement of the turbo was easy, it’s basically a bolt on between the manifold and the downpipe, nothing complex or tricky about it.
Under hood room is quite ample. The turbos are next to the engine on either side. It doesn’t appear to be too intimidating a job for removing either turbo.
In reality as long as the oil get changed the turbos will out last the engine.
After giving it some thought, to be fair, the 5.4 in my ’06 doesn’t exactly have a great reputation either. Nor does GM’s 5.3. The power they put out was considered a lot for their size 10 years ago. Ford’s 3.5 Ecoboost has also had serious issues, but was overall reliability worse than the 5.4? I don’t know. I do think that often times when something sells so well problems get overstated and modern engines are generally all pretty dang good, just awfully expensive to fix.
I’m curious as to the serious issues you’ve heard/read about. I ask because I recently swapped a 2005 5.4 for a new 2014 ecoboost. I started out very skeptical on the ecoboost, especially after having dealt with a cracked exhaust manifold and ticking cam phasers on my 5.4. However, after researching them heavily, the only problem I could find regarding the 3.5 was an issue caused by condensation in the intercooler in some conditions causing the computer to go into limp mode temporarily.
Well it can be serious, as in causing hydrolock or stalling in traffic. Looks like they have it fixed now though, which is more than I can say about the 5.4, which they evidently just decided to ride out.
Here’s how it looks under the hood. Looks like there’s plenty of room.
Yeah, that doesn’t look bad at all. It seems plenty accessible, especially if you also look at a pic of it outside of the truck.
There ought to be, considering all the space under the hood with my 5.4.
I can tell you though that looks can be deceiving as far as accessibility goes. Note that like my 5.4, this engine appears to be tucked under the cowl.
In other parts of the world, this class of vehicle would have a 2.7 liter turbo diesel 4 and no one would think that’s unusual. Seriously, this does seem like a good motor for most North American pickup use. But I don’t agree with the argument that the mid-size (formerly compact) trucks like Tacoma or Colorado/Canyon) don’t make sens anymore. In an urban area, or on a tight 4wd trail, the big trucks are significantly wider/taller/worse visibility. And, when I’ve done the build-and-price exercises, the big trucks are significantly higher priced. At least list price; I don’t know about street pricing.
I compared the Colorado Crew long bed to my ’06 F-150 Crew and found it exactly the same 224″ and just 4″ narrower. Then I realized Chevy states their length without bumpers for some reason, so it is actually longer and the short bed would still be within inches of my F-150.
That’s just too big for a “small” truck IMO.
As an owner of a Tacoma I completely agree that a “mid-size” makes far more sense than the full size beasts that dominate the roads. Of course “mid-sizers” are pretty much the size of 80’s and 90’s domestic trucks. I spend a lot of time on back-country roads and anything bigger than a Tacoma just can’t get to the same places.
My truck also has a 2.7 (but a 4), and well it’s noticeably lacking in the performance department, it does everything that could be asked of a truck in moderate use. I don’t need to tow anything beyond 3500 lbs and it’s geared to make the most of it’s 159 hp. A diesel mill making about the same hp would be ideal but sadly it seems everyone in North America would rather have their V8s. Hopefully these Ecoboost motors start changing this mindset.
Impressive. As it breaks in the mpg should get a little better. I used to drive an ’01 F150 4.0 V6 4 speed auto single cab work truck with about 120k miles on it, and it got 15 mpg in mixed driving. Best I got on my 5.6 V8 Titan was 20 mpg on 87 octane 10% ethanol at 65 mph driving from Vancouver Wa to Boise. There were mountain passes to cross, but also a lot of flat areas. It’s a king cab stripper 2wd, I weighed it at the dump and it comes in at 4600 lbs with 1/2 tank of gas subtracting my 200 lb weight. Do these engines require 91 octane? The sticker price on my ’04 was 23.5k. I paid 18k. In the short trip driving around town I get 14-15. Quite an improvement.
The EPA Fuel Economy website indicates that it runs on regular or 87 octane. My 2 liter turbo 4 in the ATS would also run on regular but premium was recommended. I used 91 octane in it and on long trips seemed to get about 30 MPG. I now have a CTS with the 3.6 that runs on 87. My long trip average is about 27 to 28 @70 MPH and about 30 MPG @ 60 MPH. My long trips in the ATS were @70 MPH. I plan to experiment with 10% ethanol vs pure gasoline.
My Rio has 11:1 compression and direct injection, so I tried a tank of 94 octane instead of the recommend 87. There was no improvement in fuel consumption with 94. There seemed to be a little more mid-range power right where ping would happen, but the consumption was actually a little worse, 7.9 L/100 km on 94 and 7.7 on 87. The improvement may have to do with the motor loosening up. The conditions were the same, ie wretched.
As an owner of a 2012 F-150 5.0 V-8 Super Crew, a few comments, observations:
The trip odometer likely has Trip A and B modes. The B trip on mine has not been reset since about 10 miles. My 5.0 averages right at 15 mpg over just short of 30,000 miles.
The 2012 also has the 6 speed gear indicator on the dash. Strangely, you can shut this feature on and off on mine if you hit the upshift button on the manual shift when it is in Park or Drive (full automatic). The feature was on when I bought it, and disappeared one day. The damndest thing until I figured it out.
The argument against the 3.6 Ecoboost has been that you don’t get better real world gas mileage than the 5.0 V-8, just better stated towing capacity. If the 2.7 can pull 22 mpg over a lifetime (compared to the 8’s 15) and serve its owner well, that is truly a technology achievement.
I’ve not heard of the 3.6 Ecoboost being a problem area yet, but in the CC effect I guess, I was passed by a last gen F-150 in a parking lot this last weekend. It was making some pretty awful wooshing noise – and it had an Ecoboost badge on the side. My thought was, there it goes – the first turbo crash I’ve heard of.
My dealer even told me in early 2013 that the jury is still out on the Ecoboost F-150. This was the guy responsible for ordering inventory for over 20 years, not some wet behind the ears sales kid.
I hope for Ford that the jury comes back with a positive verdict.
If these engines end up being as good as is claimed for MPG and turn out to be durable, there probably won’t be anything BUT direct injected turbocharged engines in ten years.
Agreed. It would be awesome to expect low 20’s gas mileage everyday from a full-size pick-up / SUV.
It is very annoying when some feature happens that you did not know about. My ATS (and the CTS) will display an analog clock on the screen if you accidently touch the digital time displayed in the upper right corner. I did not know how I did that for a while. This is not documented in the owners manual either. But I finally figured it out, and this screen also allows one to set the time and date. Basically a short cut to the clock setting screen.
Agreed. My owners manual, if I recall correctly, is approaching 300 pages in 8 point type. Unbelievable what is in there, and not in there for that matter.
My Ford CUV with rear AC is overly complex. I showed my kids what “luxury climate control” looked like in the late 1960’s (GM’s Comfortron) and they marveled at the lack of buttons and options. It was set it and forget it convenience of the first order – if it worked! My 1995 Chrysler Concorde automatic climate control was the best I’ve had – fairly simple, and very accurately controlled.
Don’t get me started on Ford and Sync. Even my kids can’t get their current I phones to work wirelessly for music.
I too own a 2012 f 150, super cab max tow w/3.5 ecoboost, trip meter a has never been reset and shows 16.8 over The last 35 k miles, truck rarely ever sees Rpms over three thousand and then it’s only to merge to make a hole in traffic. I tow a 7500 lb travel trailer, this truck runs circles around my old 2006 f150 w/5.4 supercab which averaged around 13.5 mpg, so happy camper!
Owning an F-150 is like joining a club, I can’t get over the number of conversations I’ve had with other owners. Most Ecoboost owners have loved their trucks – the only issue that remains unknown is high mileage and / or long term reliability. Good to hear you are getting, I think, a worthwhile increase in gas milage. I’m at 14.8 mpg over 30,000 miles, about 5,000 of those towing about 5,000 lbs. In mixed driving, I seem to get about 11 mpg when towing, that has probabaly kept my lifetime average just below 15. I’m at 15.8 mpg over the last 2,500 miles since resetting my Trip A odometer in March at the beginning of a family Spring Break vacation. Have not towed yet this season.
The biggest problem Ford’s going to have will be the internet auto blogger.
You know, the guy who demands:
1. Mid-60’s six cylinder simplicity.
2. Torque of a 7 liter or bigger V-8.
3. His idea of reliability is absolutely no maintenance other than oil changes for the first 300k, and very little maintenance for the next 200k.
4. Minivan gas mileage at minimum.
5. 9000 lb towing capacity.
6. Turbo-like power without any turbos under the hood, because of course “everybody” knows they’re not reliable and never will be.
And,
7. The depreciation of a brand new AMG Mercedes.
Because you know there’s no way he’s buying one until it’s a couple of years old. Let some other idiot take the brunt of new truck depreciation.
And he’ll pound the keyboard long and loud to ensure these expectations are never sullied with reality.
Seems completely reasonable to me! Pound, pound, pound! 😉
And “It should have a 25 year old MSRP too!” “Those auto companies make too much $!”
Hes the guy who should be buying a turbo diesel simple rugged and reliable with good fuel mileage.
Today’s small turbo diesels are anything but simple and reliable, thanks to the EPA.
you mean thanks to all of us wanting to breathe clean air.
The air is already clean.
The air is already clean because of the EPA, go figure.
Exactly John. They did a lot of good but are now desperate to justify their payroll.
Skye
If you can live with 4 city, 7 hwy a pre 2007 emissions heavy truck meets all you criteria except 4 and 6.
400hp/1200lb-ft, 60k lbs+ towing cap, and 40-60% depreication in the 1st 3-5yrs; more if you have an ugly duckling set of spec’s like a 2 axle short wheelbase daycab.
One of the reasons I suspect that many journalists claim that the EcoBoost engines don’t see an improvement over MPG vs the V8 is because of the old saying: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. In other words the increased power of the 3.5 EcoBoost encouraged them to be more likely to use all of that power every chance they got. The V8 not so much.
Yes when you tow a big load the MPG is going to drop, it requires a certain amount of energy to move a certain load. The EcoBoost engines are set up so in everyday unloaded driving they act like the small 6cyl that they are However when called upon to make max power they act like a much larger engine because the turbo is stuffing way more air in the cylinder and that more air requires more fuel. So yeah the EcoBoost sees a bigger drop in MPG when loaded up than the V8.
You really need to consider a turbocharged engine as a form of variable displacement. At zero boost/vacuum it acts like the advertized displacement but at high boost it consumes air and the resultant fuel like a much larger engine.
Yes it will take a couple of more years before these are fully vetted, fact is that it is likely that a turbo engine will not handle changing the oil at 20k-30k and have a extremely long life. The old school modular motors could handle that and still keep on going. Google million mile van to see just how long some of his oil change intervals were but the engine still went for just under 1.3 million miles.
Since most people don’t keep their vehicles that long, nor drive them that many miles I suspect that in general the average person will give up on what will become the beat up body and generally outdated vehicle before the engine lets go.
True but if you look at Fuelly and average the numbers the 5.0 and the ecoboost 3.5 are very close in real world MPG the 2.7 seems better but still well under the EPA figures. If I was looking for a 150 I think I would still take the 5.0
I’ll second this. My 2013 F150 4wd 5.0 is at 17-18 mpg, on par with the 2011 f150 5.0 fleet it replaced. I’ve not heard any better figures from my Ecoboost-driving friends. I have heard of significantly worse mileage after turbo replacement.
Let me chime in a little here as well – proud owner of a 2012 SuperCrew (4 wheel drive) that does have the 3.5 EcoBoost.
Just under 34000 miles.
I’ve also left the one trip odometer (I actually used A) intact since I took possession at 41 miles. It currently reads 16.7. Of the 34k miles, I would estimate about 6k of those was spent towing (approx 2000lb boat and a loaded and unloaded 18ft car trailer). As far as problems, the ONLY issue I’ve ever had was the battery went south 6 months into ownership.
“I’ve not heard of the 3.6 Ecoboost being a problem area yet, but in the CC effect I guess, I was passed by a last gen F-150 in a parking lot this last weekend. It was making some pretty awful wooshing noise – and it had an Ecoboost badge on the side. My thought was, there it goes – the first turbo crash I’ve heard of.”
your “thought” is probably wrong. The F-150’s intake system lets you hear a lot more turbo noise than the other EB 3.5 vehicles.
“Of course, I was saying all sorts of things to dissuade him from liking it, such as telling him the all aluminum body was created from all his old beer cans.”
you’re probably not that far off from the mark; reclaiming/recycling aluminum is lucrative; it’s a lot less energy intensive and more environmentally friendly than refining virgin aluminum from ore. once it’s re-melted you can turn scrap into whatever alloy grade you need regardless of the starting point.
Good review, and dead on from my brief experience driving one of these. I just purchased a new 2015 F150, Crew Cab, 4×4, Lariat trim with the 5.0L V8 about 6 weeks ago. Test drove every engine in a crew cab 4×4, each with a 3.55 rear end, except a naturally aspirated 3.5 V6 (not available with the Lariat trim). I had 2.7L V6 Ecoboost crew cab 4×4 to test drive for 24 hours. I put about 200 miles on it the day I had it, and I was utterly impressed. Wow, what a motor! Zero, and I mean zero turbo lag. Auto stop/start which works quite well and can be disabled if you prefer. Great power from off-idle all the way to redline…had to pass two tanker semis in a row on a 2 lane highway, and that 2.7L EB powered around and passed so quickly I couldn’t believe it…started passing at about 55 mph, speedo at 90+ and accelerating once I’d passed the lead semi. The 6 speed trans has 3 shift modes: normal, tow/haul and sport. Sport mode really makes it drive like a sports car, and a damned fast one at that. I think Ford underrates this engine…it feels more like 350 HP or more to me. I don’t see why you’d order the larger and costlier 3.5 Ecoboost instead, other than it offers the highest tow and load rating. Anyway, I ultimately went with the 5.0 V8 in my truck (a great engine itself), but was very conflicted and even now wonder if I “shoulda had a 2.7L V6 Ecoboost” instead of the V8. If you’re in the market for a new pickup, you owe it to yourself to test drive one. Impressive, indeed.
Had a rep from Ford here last Friday with a ’16 MKX powered by the 2.7L Ecoboost. Our new car sales manager took it for a drive and said it absolutely SCOOTS! He called it a new Hot Rod Lincoln and I doubt he was exaggerating.
$35 thousand seems a lot to me. But I’d rather have a ’92 Flareside with a 300 six. Those could run all day with two gas tanks and 22 mpg thanks to the OD.
22 MPG with a 300!? I own a 1995 Flareside with the 300 and the M5OD. I get about 15 on the highway- maybe 16.5 on a good day. Does your Flareside have a large sail in the back? 😉
Ah yes, “Internet Humor” can often be a chance-y, hit-or-miss thing to behold and appreciate.
My apologies to both Jason and Paul if my pre-coffee, edgy, semi-sarcastic, curmudgeon-like posting offended thee.
Jason’s article did read (to me) like one of those glossy, several page long advertisements various car manufactures print in the center of the car magazines I subscribe to.
No personal attack, disparagement or slander was intended.
(Note To Self: NEVER post on this site until I have consumed AT LEAST two cups of strong, dark roast coffee.)
Ford, please start making new expedition based on the current alloy bodied F150? My check book is ready.
Last I read, your SUV will be ready for 2016.
My FIL the Ford sales guy is very enthused about these, and has been telling me about them for about a year. They had to get their body shop certified for the aluminum / adhesive aspects of the body construction.
MSRP looks about the same on Ford Canada website. Can’t say I’m too enthused, since:
A – I’ve never bough a new vehicle (much to the disappointment of my FIL the Ford sales guy)
B – My favorite Ford pickup is Paul’s 66 F100
Lovely front end. If the body is made of recycled beer cans the entire nose appears to be made out of the rubber souls from recycled gym shoes.
Aluminum (recycling’s OK with me; the atom’s the same whether it’s from beer cans or not) doesn’t bother me, but black plastic ages poorly, esp. under the sun. And overdone fake chrome on upmarket models makes ’50s cars look modest by comparison.
I like the styling of these trucks, but with some of the styling cues on modern pickups, I believe that we’re rapidly approaching 1959 Cadillac territory. Full-size trucks are in danger of becoming a parody of themselves.
No doubt some people believe that we have already reached that point.
We’ve reached it, and heck, I own a truck as car – but certainly not the most over-the-top.
We’ve definitely reached it. For years the auto press used to grumble about high liftover heights on the trunks of most cars, despite the fact that most trunks never saw anything heavier than groceries. Now we have trucks with absolutely stupid bed heights and bed rails to high to reach over. The styling that used to be trim and athletic is now fat and ugly, especially on the Tundra but they’re all too fat. I get it that things change but these new trucks are mommy mobiles for mommies that don’t like minivans. Bring back the strippo work Truck, 1985 style. Updated sensibly of course.
+1 with your comments.
How do Land Rovers hold up? I understand they use aluminum body.
As for the black plastic grille and front bumper, I think it’s ugly. I remember when the base trucks used to have silver argent/gray painted grille and bumper. What’s wrong with silver argent/gray? Then there’s the overdone faux chrome grille design as you pointed out. Reminds me of my old Tonka Toy trucks. Is that what auto designers nowadays strive for? To design their cars/trucks to look like toys?
Work vehicles are not known to win styling competitions, when they get nicked and dented all their life. Why put a fancy-schmany chrome bumper and trim on it just to get ruined?
Save the styling critiques for sports, luxury and vintage collector cars, IMHO.
I didn’t say anything about the styling,(if I did I’d say it’s way overstyled), my comment rests with finishes which are rubbermaid black encompassing the entire front end, which doesn’t age or take abuse well. And from my experience the front end isn’t the only part of a truck that takes abuse, in fact I’d say it takes the least of it.
By far most of the old Econolines I see rolling around have much less presentable bodies than they do front ends, which are usually surprisingly intact. The rubbermade black nose 08+ versions won’t age any better, only you have that ugly pug nose to look at in traffic.
Well this is of the fleet spec vehicle so yeah it has the cheapest grille/bumper combo that Ford could come up with to keep the price down. Not only because the fleet buyer wants cheap but to be able to offer the lowest possible base MSRP and give a reason for the retail buyer to pad their profit margin with a higher trim level truck. Fact is that is the norm in the full size market. I do however think that it would be nice to have something available between the all black and wall of chrome.
The last time I checked I’m not looking at the front end of my vehicle when sitting in traffic. I’m not too concerned about what the other guy’s vehicle looks like.
If the bed can be aluminum now, then why not the grille?
Remember when fleet models had painted steel grilles instead of chrome? I’m OK with that too.
Cost is probably the biggest reason, I’m certain it is much cheaper to injection mold a plastic grille vs stamping one out of any metal let alone aluminum. The plastic is also probably lighter.
And the vinyl seats made from old copies of “Rubber Soul,”at least in the work truck versions!
Thanks for the review. I’m intrigued by the new direct injected turbocharged power plants becoming common.
I suspect I work for a similar organization so we’ll probably get some of these one day if they ever decide to buy any new vehicles – the maintenance shop is hemmoraging money trying to keep ours on the road. I’d love to see these mythical F150’s, Siverados, and Suburabans that get 120k + miles without expensive repairs. Maybe if you get the miles quick – once these turds get 10 years / 120k + miles old something is always wrong.
I think you are correct on vocational direction.
This particular pickup will likely be seeing around 20,000 to 24,000 miles per year. Average fleet usage for pickups is 16,500 miles; anything having usage of 50% or less of this annually are classified as underutilized and reassigned.
Generally this organization has had good luck with both Ford and Chevrolet, though Ford’s love ball joints and Chevrolet’s have swallowed a few valves prematurely on the 5.3 liter engines. Dodge / Ram has simply priced themselves out of consideration in many instances but a few are starting to reappear depending upon cab style, power train, and various options for the intended assignment.
When Ford switched from the pushrod 302 to the OHC 4.6L, there was the usual “these things won’t last” and all. Same with switch from ‘real carburators’ to EFI.
And it was not long ago, when the 1997 F pickups were new, there was the teeth chomping of “they don’t look like real trucks! Gimme a ’78”
On the thread about the Maverick, the complaint is that Ford served up the same old mechanicals wrapped up in a new skin.
On this thread, Ford gets criticized for making a serious technological update to the formula used by pickups for decades.
On the internet, there is always someone who is unhappy.
I still say that about the 1997s!
And the truck mod motors do have that little spark plug blowout issue…
That’s on the 5.4. First with plugs that blew out, then they fixed that on the next generation with plugs that wouldn’t come out at all.
And no console Jason!
Good point! I knew there was another reason this pickup was refreshing.
Welllllll, every F-150 “bench seat” since the 2004 Heritage has actually been a 40/20/40 flip-down console/bench. But IMO, that’s more practical anyway–3- or 6-passenger seating when you need it, a console when you don’t.
Very correct, plus the flip-down bench doesn’t invade the floor. In that regard I have trouble classifying these as a console as it is more of a glorified arm rest.
I like GM’s execution the best, where they have additional storage under the middle seat cushion.
I don’t understand why anybody would want a console shifter. All it does is take up space, it serves no practical purpose. People like to pretend they are driving a manual I guess. Or maybe they just like clutter.
My question there though–and I know I’ll probably get a little bit of flak for this — does the flip-down console have decent depth cupholders? I know, I know, put down the drink and drive, but I like to bring my morning coffee with me going to work, and I like to have a cold soda/tea/water available on a long trip. And a shallow cupholder is just as bad as no cupholder at all. Like the one on my ’97 Crown Vic – it’s fine for cans, but tall travel mugs/cups a)block the HVAC controls and b)are very tippy and try to fall out on sharp turns. No bueno.
Other than that issue, I agree that column shifters are far superior to consoles, except for the “grandpa car” image which probably isn’t a problem on a truck.
Chris, I have a very bad habit of drinking 32 oz containers of tea from either McDonald’s or Wendy’s. The cup holder in my ’07 F-150, the ’07 Silverado I drive at work, and the ’15 F-150 I have reported about all have terrific cupholders for a 32 oz plastic or styrofoam drink container. The only thing one could likely not get to fit very well would be the glass containers juice comes in.
The majority of these comments are about the engine size/turbo durability/power….not much consideration of the six speed automatic/rear end ratios, etc.
Those two things add a lot to the durability of the package. I really think Ford has done a bang up job on this ‘type’ of truck (and the turbo Fiesta) – Ford certainly hasn’t got the karma that GM keeps producing !! Chances of staying on top of the truck charts are outstanding here !! Very interesting truck !!!
Don’t quite understand the fetish for more cylinders. More cylinders = more weight + more friction + more complexity + lousier weight distribution. Of course with progress comes risk, however, if ain’t broke, don’t fix…. we all should still be using IBM AT.
I do not doubt that a turbo engine can last a long time. Having owned several turbocharged cars, however, I’d say that the durability of the engine is in religious sticking with oil change intervals – and they should be nowhere near 10-15K intervals advertised today. If the engine is of direct injection variety, then there is additional potential for sludge.
MPG – I would not expect much miracle here. Energy conversion, simple. You still have to burn certain amount of fuel to have sufficient energy produced to move around this shed. Lesser losses in transmissions, higher efficiency et all contribute of course, but there is a limit to this.
Repairability of cars goes down with each new generation. Like when was the last time you could only replace a ball joint instead of the complete arm assembly? Same trends under the hood or in the cabin.
And the last aspect – the amount of electronics on anything but the bottom spec trucks.
Soooo… I’ll play a luddite and just stick with my ’04 Ram for as long as I can.
Aerodynamic drag is a remaining problem with any truck or utility vehicle?; while I don’t know what a typical Cd figure is for vehicles in this class, it can’t be good since I don’t see it advertised. Cd doesn’t account for total cross-sectional area, so you’ll get more drag from the larger of two vehicles with the same Cd.
Oil change intervals really depend on what type of oil you are using. Pure synthetic (Mobil 1) will allow for a longer interval, conventional oil the shortest. A synthetic blend is somewhere in between. My CTS uses the blend (Dexos) and the monitor gives me about 7500 miles on a long trip. My SRX used Mobil 1 and it would go 15,000 (I changed at 12,000). Conventional oil in my Aurora would go 4000 on long trips. Now conventional oils are better I think.
Mobil-1 nomenclature these days only has one truly synthetic oil, 0W-40. Everything else is synt-blend.
If that’s true then their web site and retailers are telling a bald-faced lie. Their core Mobil 1 product is billed as “advanced full synthetic” regardless of weight.
Repairability of cars goes down with each new generation. Like when was the last time you could only replace a ball joint instead of the complete arm assembly?
I’ve noticed this too, cars and trucks are rapidly becoming like throwaway electronics. Similarly there was a period where you could actually take a device somewhere or even DIY fix a circuit board with a $15 soldering iron and change popped capacitors and such successfully, or going back even further replace tubes. Then SMD boards came about and basically made electronic devices throwaways when they broke.
Planned obsolescence is often talked about with old cars but the reality was with the exception of corrosion that was a primarily psychological plan by automakers by way of regular styling changes, not physically built in obsolescence. In many more cases than today older cars with shared components were quite common, and were of such a relatively basic design a more common retrofit could be substituted if necessary. Designs now are so much more specialized to their dedicated purposes, whether a composite headlight or a ball joint integrated into a control arm, that you’re going to have a much more difficult time keeping something roadworthy, even if the engineering necessitating that specialization of parts like that is superior(in the case of the aforementioned examples, better lighting, less unsprung weight) to the more utilitarian old stuff.
I’m rather indifferent to the auto industry today due in no small part because of this. Sure I’m not exactly fond of a lot of modern styling, and I do have a firm preference on drive wheels, transmission type and number of cylinders that aren’t long for this world, but if I’m buying a new car I want to know I can keep it forever if I were so inclined, which I often am. When I find something that works I stick with it, I’m not one who is going to buy something because it’s the latest and greatest because it’s 5% better than what I already have, and if what I already have loses OEM support for those specialized critical wear items, forcing a big decision, I’m not going to be a happy camper. I’ve been going through this with a 1990s car for the last few years and when I think of fitting replacements for it my mind points me towards something even older rather than new.
+1
Last year I sold a ’60s era car of mine that sat unused in an unheated barn for nearly 20 years. All I did was change the plug wires, change half the spark plugs, spray some lube in the cylinders, put in a new battery, let it sit 24 hours for the lube to soak in, then crank it awhile with the spark plugs out, then put the plugs in, and prime the carb, and it fired right up. It did run horrible but at least it fired up. The carb was in serious need of attention.
How many cars made today do you think could sit unused for 20 years and fire up with a few hours of very simple work?
How’d you decide to only change half of the spark plugs? One car does not mean it is true for all. But I think if you put this truck in a barn it probably would fire up in 20 years. And you wouldn’t need to mess with the carb.
I doubt it. Nowdays cars cannot sit without battery power for very long. Also, any minor issue with an electrical connection will cause computer faults.
I changed only the plugs that were rusty.
Nice review. Has me scratching my head and wondering about some things too. However….
325 hp out of a 2.7 liter (164 cubic inch) V-6 is pretty impressive. About 2 hp/cubic inch. Had to look up all the spec ratings. 325 hp @ 5750 rpm. 375 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm. Attainable through double overhead cam, twin turbochargers @ 31 psi and compression ratio of 10:1. At least it takes regular unleaded gas.
These figures impresses me as a highly stressed engine and I’m not fully convinced of its durability and longetivity as compared to the old Ford 300 inline 6. But Ford says the engine block is made of compacted graphite iron-aluminum and is stronger than cast-iron and the engine is designed to run at high rpms and high compression.
But I supposed that is the magic formula to get high mpg (requiring a small engine) and using a direct injection turbocharging to get high horsepower and torque only when needed (revving to high rpm where the turbocharger is happiest). That’s how they get 2 hp/cubic inches. Also, the average truck owner don’t keep their trucks longer than 4 yrs/50k miles so the manufacturerer doesn’t overengineer/build them like they used to.
We’ll see how these ecoboost engines holds up. But someone on this website(?) or another forum stated that a turbocharged engine should hold up IF PROPERLY driven within its design parameters, i.e., driven EASY when around town/bed empty and pressed ONLY when necessary with the transmission in the towing/hauling mode and the rpms up high to engage the intercoolers and turbos to get the needed horsepower/torque.
Truck engine have come a long way where large cubic inches and high torque at low rpms were the norm. Now with “truck” engines putting out their max horspower and torque at high rpms assisted with turbocharging, it reminds me of a racehorse on steroids that works hard to pull a Budweiser wagon whereas the big Clysdale did it with ease without breaking a sweat.
Not sure if you are considering a couple of things…
A 1996 F150 weighed about 4000lbs minimum. The subject truck is about 4500. That’s with two more doors and a lot more space.
The 300 engine put out 150hp at 3400 rpm and 260lb-ft at 2000rpm in 1996.
The 2.7 ecoboost puts out 325hp@5750 and 375lb-ft at 3000rpm. Ford has not published the graphs (or I have not been able to find them) but I would suppose that the 2.7 puts out a lot more than 150hp at 3400rpms.
Any way you slice it the new engine has a lot more power to move a little more weight. It does not NEED to spin at the peak speeds to outperform the old engine.
A modern 2.7 V6 spinning at 5750 rpms is not highly stressed. That’s a fairly light and small piston, certainly as compared to the 4.9 that everyone loves that is based on 40year old tech. It’s no wonder that engine had lower engine speeds.
Also, in turbo engines, peak torque is not nearly as important as the torque curve. Apparently the 2.7 has a nearly flat curve between around 1600 and 3000 rpms, i.e. almost from the get go it is producing max torque. Most modern turbo engines are this way.
I encourage you to drive it. I have not but am convinced it will be good. I would guess you do not have to have your foot very far in it at all most of the time. More likely than not in the average situation the old 300 was probably more stressed than the modern engine would be.
Are engines as overbuilt as some used to be? Probably not. However on average most newer engines are vastly more powerful and reliable than most older engines.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say the 300 was still around. Would people really buy a new F150 with 150hp? I doubt it. Even if you adjusted for weight and gave it 12.5% more power, wow, 170hp, not very impressive for a 4.9 liter anything. The reason it’s not around any more is that it is simply inefficient compared to modern powerplants.
Your analysis of the 300six is not logical. If ford had decided to keep that engine around it would have been gradually upgraded to keep up with modern HP expectations. It would’ve had displacement increased, probably by a lot, and improvements made to the head and the fuel injection.
Class 8 semi truck engines are something like 9 liters with somewhere around 300 horsepower. Ball park numbers…I’m not going to look them up for this discussion. By your reasoning, those are the dumbest engines ever made. But you would be very wrong.
“It would’ve had displacement increased, probably by a lot, and improvements made to the head and the fuel injection.”
With your statement, you have convinced me why the 300 is an inferior engine to the 2.7. Ford found over twice the power from just over half the displacement all while increasing fuel economy. Where’s the downside?
Well, in 1973 (the first year of the net ratings), the 300 six was rated at 101hp and 223lb ft. In 1975 the highest output version of the engine was 120hp, same 223 lb ft. This lasted until 1987 when it became 145hp and 265lb ft. Biggest change: Modern technology in the form of Fuel Injection along with a compression ratio bump – the same type of thing that some will probably say makes the engine “more stressed”. Then in 1994 the hp became 150 but the torque went DOWN to 260 and stayed this way to the end in 1996.
Note that in those 23 years there was NO increase in displacement whatsoever. The hp increased by 49% from 101 to 150 (mainly due to the new technology that I believe you are deriding above (the 20year barn car)) and torque only went from 223 to 260. But in any case if there was a SIGNIFICANT increase in displacement that would effectively mean a new engine anyway, as merely increasing the bore or stroke a little bit wouldn’t make it that much larger and probably would result in more “stress” on what is remaining of the block.
I’m guessing Ford realized they were done with development paths for this engine and that it would be more cost-effective to start over.
I get it though, I’m sure the 300 six was a fantastic engine for its time. Fords current base engine for the F150 has way more power than most real-world drivers will actually need. It is very likely that a large 4-cylinder or a small 4-cylinder turbo, especially in diesel form, would, while relatively slow, be perfectly capable of propelling this truck just fine. Most of our country’s buyers won’t accept this though.
john: The 300 could not have had its displacement increased; it was a stroker version of the 240, and that block was maxed out.
The 300 DID get changes to the head and fuel injection. But it was an old design, and not really well suited for future upgrades. The 240/300 were designed in the early 60s; nobody is still building engines designed that long ago.
The 300 was a good engine in its time, but ran out of development potential, which is why it was canned. You seem to bestow it with mythical qualities. It was just a typical ohv six from that era.
Time moves on, but apparently you’re not ready to 🙂
Apparently you do not know the 300six is still in production.
In what application(s) is the 300 still being used? Wood chippers, forklifts, industrial pumps? It would be well suited to those applications, but it is no longer well suited for use in light duty pickups.
john: apparently you do not know it’s still in production
You’re right; I don’t know that. How could I, when it went out of production at Ford in 1996? I like to stick to the facts.
Still in production as a stationary engine in various industrial applications. Chew on those facts Paul.
I’m aware of its use in industrial settings, and there is at least one company re-manufacturing them for that: rhttp://www.industrialengines.ca/remanufactured.htm
But all-new production? Links to sources/proof? I’m always happy to be corrected.
Sorry, but your assessment is not accurate. This engine is not highly stressed. The 31 psi you cite includes atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi at sea level); the actual amount of boost is about 16-17 psi, very much in the normal range of boost pressure for a factory turbocharged engine.
Read an article about the engineering behind this engine…it’s impressive and evident that Ford engineers really thought things through with longevity and durability in mind. Exhibit “A” is the carbon graphite iron engine block typically used in turbo diesel applications. Full forged rotating assembly. integral-cast exhaust manifolds… the list goes on. It’s high specific power output of about 120 HP per liter, and high fuel efficiency (as long as you’re not too deep in the boost for too long) is evidence of the solid design and engineering that went into this engine.
As for power, this is not a high-RPM screamer. Look at the torque curve…some 90% of peak torque is available below 2500 RPM. This engine produces serious low- and mid-range grunt, just where you want it in a truck. And that torque curve is broad and flat all the way to redline.
I’ve driven one of these and can attest to its prodigious power all through the rev range. It’s truly impressive….go drive one and you’ll see. Get one with a 3.73 axle ratio, in a lighter single or super cab configuration, and these things are real hotrods.
my cousin flips his truck every two years and has it as a work commute vehicle and to tow his fishing boat. starting with a 2000 f250 4×4 diesel, he has had probably every ford combo going up to his new 3.5 ecoboost f150 4×4.
last time we talked it had about 3500 miles on it and he hadn’t towed with it yet. took me for a drive and the power was astonishing. he said it has more power than the 5.4 he had and even with the low mileage the best economy ever( as long as he keeps his foot out of it!)
even he admitted tho if he wasn’t flipping every couple year he probably would have bought another v-8 as even he questions the reliability of the ecoboost.
I have no use for a pickup, but I still dream about owning a new Bright Blue F-150 Crew Cab with a 6 or 8 foot bed, crank windows, vinyl interior, and no frills. A Bull Bar and auxiliary lights would also be sweet. Mr. Shafer, does this F-150 of your company’s have Cruise Control? I ask because on FoMoCo’s website you cannot have Cruise Control or Skid Plates or the FX4 Offroad Package with Crank Windows. Does the 2015 F-150 still have pole pockets in the bed and I saw my first new F-150 with a cap today. Compared to the new Silverado the F-150’s rear bench is sooo comfy and spacious, it reminded me of those times I spent 100s of miles back there.
This pickup is in XL trim; it does have cruise, I believe.
Every pickup will/should continue to have stake pockets, even if the last farmer to build stock racks for his pickup dies of old age.
These trucks are becoming a common sight. Got cut off by one yesterday, for instance. Besides that, I thought the styling was a little too over the top and slightly “concept” looking, but now the more I see them, the more I see their charm. They kind of remind of an old 1955ish F-100 with that heavy frowning front end look. Elsewhere, the rear looks a little more squat. I always thought the last generation box looked a little too deep and the tailgate really tall. Minor details. Never driven the later generations, but I’m sure they’re lovely.
As for the small motors, I don’t know what to say. I’ll just brainstorm: In relative terms, a typical semi has 80,000 lbs. : 14L engine which is just over 5700 pounds : engine L. A 10,000 pound overloaded Ford : 2.7L is approx 3700 pounds : engine L. So if semis with multiple ratios can do it reliably over the long-haul (yes pun) at nearly double the weight per litre than a half-ton pickup in this quickly conjured example, then roughly speaking, I can’t see why the F-150 couldn’t replicate longevity results with a 6 speed automatic. Of course, everything being equal, though, I suspect that 6 speed (which would add virtual weight to the motor increasing it from 3700 mark, double to around the 5700 semi mark) would narrow the gap of the double weight : engine ratio of the semi to the pickup assuming the big rig in this example had the likely 10 or 13 speed; so in my mind, they’d both come out to be the same in terms of size of vehicle to size of engine. It kind of makes sense. Also, both engines in this example have 6 cylinders – in different arrangements, granted – which have inherent torque advantages due to the firing characteristics. I wonder why this kind of thing hasn’t been done sooner.
This is a great review, Jason. Since Chevy introduced the 2016 Camaro and its engine lineup, I’ve wondered if Ford will use this engine as a mid-tier option in the Mustang anytime soon. It seems like it would be a great step up from a base turbo four.
Car and Driver summed up their instrumented testing of the 2.7 liter F150 thusly:
“Unfortunately, the 2.7 EcoBoost’s EPA fuel-economy ratings of 18 mpg city and 23 mpg highway don’t translate to the real world. We averaged 16 mpg over more than 1000 miles of mixed winter driving, and we didn’t load the bed with car parts, tow a trailer, or disable the overly aggressive stop-start engine function.”
I wouldn’t trust Ford’s trip computer without actual verification via fill ups and GPS distance measurement. They’re making massive changes to the 3.5 Ecoboost’s injection system in an attempt to minimize the maintenance issues caused by carbon buildup in the first few hundred thousand sold to the public. Fortunately for Ford, there are lots of people that will never learn.
While I have no doubt that this new 2.7 liter turbo will achieve better fuel economy than your average V8 pickup trunk I’m also having serious doubts that this 4500 LB high off the ground brick can get it’s window sticker ratings of 19/26. That is just too good to be true and goes counter to any write up done on it to date.
I know aluminum body panels aren’t exactly a new thing–Audi, Land Rover, etc–but I do wonder how they’ll hold up to the rigors of work/job site use. Resistance to dents, dings, scrapes, and crunches, for example? I also think the expense of repairing the panels will mean we’ll see a lot more of these with unrepaired body damage as time goes on, and it becomes un-economical to repair the damage, but not worth scrapping the truck as corrosion shouldn’t be an issue.