2015 F-150: Ford Reveals Two Powertrains

Ford_DavisDam_4 II

By Aaron Bragman

We've been hearing about new all-aluminum 2015 Ford F-150 since the beginning of the year when it was revealed at the 2014 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, but details on the truck's engines have been kept under wraps. Ford is now slowly beginning to peel back the layers of secrecy surrounding two of the F-150's powertrains, releasing some (but not all) specifications for the standard 3.5-liter V-6 engine and the brand-new turbocharged 2.7-liter EcoBoost motor.

The new standard V-6 will provide 283 horsepower and 255 pounds-feet of torque, enabling the base 2015 F-150 to tow 7,600 pounds and carry a payload of 1,910 pounds. This is a best-in-class tow rating for V-6 light-duty pickups, according to Ford. But the more interesting power option comes in the form of the new turbocharged 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6, which is rated at 325 hp and 375 pounds-feet of torque. It's as powerful as most other truckmakers' midrange V-8 engines and enables an F-150 equipped with the 2.7-liter engine to pull 8,500 pounds and haul a payload of up to 2,250 pounds. The company believes that this is likely to be its volume engine, comprising fully half of its expected engine mix. It makes sense, Ford said, given that 85 percent of F-150 buyers tow less than 8,500 pounds and carry a payload less than 2,000 pounds.

Ford demonstrated the efficacy of the new 2.7-liter motor through a comparison with three competitors: the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado with its midrange 5.3-liter V-8, the 2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel with its 3.0-liter turbo-diesel V-6 and the 2015 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 (an unusual choice) featuring a 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine.

The company showed a video at a special news conference at the company's headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., that showed the 2.7-liter-equipped 2015 F-150 out-performing the Ram EcoDiesel up the Davis Dam run in northern Arizona, and besting the Chevy in two out of three runs up the same steep grade while towing a 7,000-pound enclosed trailer. The Toyota was included as a demonstration of what the an engine of comparable displacement can achieve — the 2.7-liter EcoBoost produces 166 more hp and 195 pounds-feet more torque than the big four-cylinder in the Toyota.

Sadly, no fuel economy numbers were made available by Ford; those are likely being reserved for yet another press conference in the near future. Ford did, however, demonstrate something that the public has been asking to see for months — a direct weight comparison between the outgoing truck and the new one. Ford had two F-150 Lariat models on display, one a 2014 crew cab with the 5.0-liter V-8, and the other a comparably equipped 2015 model with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6. Both trucks were rolled onto electric scales, with the 2014 model weighing in at 5,674 pounds, while the new 2015 model totaled just 4,942 pounds, a difference of 732 pounds. Ford spokesman Mike Levine said that even if the 2015 had been equipped with a comparable 5.0-liter V-8, the difference would have been just 25 pounds less.

Stay tuned for more F-150 news and specs (hopefully including some fuel economy ratings) as the year progresses.

To see the video and the press release, click here.

Images from manufacturer


F150Forum_5018_HR II

15F150-2.7L-EcoBoost_02_HR (1) II



Ford has a winner. And this is from someone who has happily owned numerous Chevy's and Tundras.

Man, the more I see these new F-150's, the more they grow on me. It pains me to say it being that I'm a Chevy guy!! I may test the Ford waters next yr when I'm shoppin for a new truck.





RAM ECO DIESEL $6850 option according to MOTOR TREND...$2850 option ...the kicker you have to pay for a $4000 PREMIUM PACKAGE UPGRADE.... THEN PAY FOR DIESEL FUEL WHICH IS HIGHER THEN GAS

ECO BOOST $1350 option.... oh you just saved $5500 and can SPANK any RAM ECO DIESEL IN A TOWING TEST.... CAN YOU IMAGINE EMPTY? FORD BEATS RAM BY ONE HOUR!



Dear lord man, give it a rest^. This coming from a Ford man

This is a game changer. The other companies will be playing catch up for the next 4-5 years.

Really excited to see the 2.7 in action. I hope the MPG numbers are as impressive as the performance.

If the 2.7 can achieve ~5mpg better than the 5.3 Chevy and wash on performance, they will not be able to build them quick enough.

People purchasing a new truck should honestly exclude Toyota's Tundra completely. Their 4x4 CrewMax with the 4.6=14/18 mpg and 5.7=13/17mpg.

Interesting, but Ford is saddled with a legacy 6 speed automatic for two years.
Ford also updated specs, no more 3.73 axle ratio for 3.5 ecoboost.
and no E85 compatibility with the 5.0 V8.

Also Ford plays fast/loose with detail. They 'recommend' regular fuel for the turbocharged engines in the Lincoln mkC, yet there is an asterisk saying rated power achieved with 93 octane fuel.
So we don't know if the 375ft-lbs is only achieved in an overboost condition, and with 93AKI fuel

The only thing that they have is the weight reduction.

3.73 is available for all engines, and F-150 is rated with regular gas only.

The video was interesting. The only race it lost was in the cool evening air. That flies in the face of the naysayers who keep saying that the EB engine line will overheat and power down in hot weather. The cooler dense air helped the normally aspirated V8's.

255 pounds feet of torque to tow 7600lbs. I'm no engineer but, there is now way this will work. I drove a 2013 ram quad cab V6 with the shitty gears (3.21,) and it wouldn't maintain 75mph in top gear with a cross wind. I think the pentastar has about 35 more pounds feet of torque.

I have to admit, the numbers for the 2.7 Ecoboost sound impressive. It will be interesting when we find out the numbers for all of the powertrain options.

One thing that I think remains to be seen is what Ford's strategy will be in placing these engines against the competition. What I mean by that is what engines is the 2.7l supposed to compete against? What I mean by that is that I don't think that either GM's 5.3 or Ram's Ecodiesel are necessarily engines that F150 buyers might consider if they were cross shopping.

Fords base 3.5 can compete against Ram's 3.6 and GM's 4.3, but I would expect Ford's 3.5 Ecoboost ir 5.0 to compete against the Hemi or 5.3l. So that is why I'm wondering what they're expecting the 2.7 to compete against.

It's ok but now We need a v8 eco boost with the 5.0 engine for the f 150 xlt :-)

The one thing I am wondering though is the tow ratings. If the 2.7L EB was able to get up that hill almost a minute quicker than the Ram 3.0L ED, then why is the Ram ED rated to tow slightly more? If the Chevy is just about an even draw towing up that hill, then why is it rated to tow over 2,500lbs more? I don't get it?

@HEMI MONSTER - I have to agree.

I do think that the 3.5 base V6 will be there to keep fleets happy.

The EB 2.7 will be the base engine for the rest of the world.

The 5.0 exists for those who will only drive a V8 and want to "catback" their exhaust.
Nothing sounds more lame than a V6 with aftermarket exhaust. I've encountered a few EB3.5's and even Pentastar Rams with aftermarket exhaust and they sound lame.

This engine is amazing. It has more power than the Ford 5.4 with 310 hp and 365lbft torque but is exactly 1/2 the displacement


I doubt we will see this engine around as long as the 5.4.

@Hemi Monster

I only disagree with you one one part. I see the 2.7L EB comparing to Fords own 5.0L, GM 5.3L, and a Ram's Ecodiesel as the mid-weight haulers of the brands. GM's 5.3L is about equal to the Fords 5.0L and if that 2.7L EB was able to beat that 5.3L in 2 out of the 3 races up Davis Dam then that should be a good indicator that it can compete with those two. The Ecodiesel is kind off in it's own little world in the mid-weight hailing engines. While it doesn't have as much speed as the others in that segment, it more than makes up for in FE. The 3.5L EB is more inline with the Hemi 5.7L, I-Force 5.7L, and GM 6.2L as the heavy hauler engines of the brands.

I wonder if they can underrate their trucks while still following the SAE standards? I bet they probably will. I'm pretty sure they have in the past. That is really probably what the "magic spring dust" is all about. It would be to their advantage to underrate the trucks as long as they are above the competition. It gives them more wiggle room to improve numbers down the road.

@Hemi Monster
As someone who is pretty open-minded about trucks and looking to buy one in the next year, I can say I am just about considering all options including the ecodiesel, the 5.7 ram, the 5.3 chevy, the 2.7 ford, the 5.0 ford, the 3.5 NA ford, and the 3.5 ecoboost. I've thrown the rams out of the equation only because I don't trust reliability, but if I did trust reliability I'd consider both of those engines. I will likely buy the 2.7 if I trust it to be reliable because I suspect it will get quite a bit better MPG and have just enough power to tow what I need it to. I still just don't know if I trust the reliability of the 3.5 ecoboost, but if I decide I do and I decide it is worth the extra cost and fuel usage I will buy it. If I don't trust the ecoboost I'll get the 5.0. So I for one am cross-shopping many of the engine choices and could end up with any one. The new na 3.5 probably just doesn't have the power I want. Probably can't even get it in a 4x4 crew cab. Really just about all of the engines meet the needs of most buyers, the big questions for me are reliability and fuel savings.

The low RPM knee in the EB torque curve isn't friendly at wide open throttle. Neither is the fuel economy and that's why Ford isn't talking.

This new Ford F 150 looks good. I doubt that the new 2.7L engine tow rated at 8,500lb can beat Rams 3.0L 9,200lb tow rated MPG. Not so sure I trust Ford video's. Would like to see a more neutral party testing these trucks. I would say I am impressed by the performance of this little 2.7L engine.

Nobody seems to get it.
The volume of the engine has to match the weight of the vehicle being pulled around.
Too small of an engine in a heavy vehicle would mean you'll be running that engine to its maximum ability, screaming it, flooring it! That's NOT efficient !
Also running too small of an engine to its limit means that engine will wear out quicker.
Engine deactivation like Chevy and Ram uses is a better alternative. The power of a big volume V8 is there when you need it.
Ford isn't releasing their MPG numbers cause they are not getting the numbers they want cause you can't expect good mileage out of a small engine pulling around a heavy pickup.

It took Ford a long time to solve the problems on the 5.4 V8
spark plugs blowing out
exhaust manifold bolts breaking off
injectors blowing a hole thru the pistons.
So you guys trust the new 2.7 EB to be problem free?
I don't
I say you guys that buy one are taking a big risk just like the 2013-2014 Subaru owners engines using oil where the piston rings have failed, how would you like it owning a new vehicle and they tear the engine down under warranty to replace the piston rings? Do you trust the mechanic rebuilding your new engine?

IF independent automotive press tests/comparisons/reviews/reports verify this level of performance of the new F150 and and the new little EB its game changing to say the least. Aluminum will be the standard not some exotic experiment.

This is revolutionary. A 4x4 full size double cab half ton that weighs less than 5K lbs. With pretend full sizes dipping well over 4K (my old taco was almost 4200 and it wasnt a double cab) a full size under 5K is amazing. Not only will the acceleration be better but so will braking, cornering, and make the allowance of the smaller engines that will get better mileage (even at the sacrifice of some capablity compared to a V8).

Ram will continue to be relevant with its modern engines, tranny, rear suspension, and award winning interriors. The only real mystery being if it can weather Fiatler's issues (poor sales in Eurpoe, and lackluster small car sales in the US). These issues make it vulnerable to at worst a 2nd default to possible take over by another company like VW or the temptation to redirect profits made by the Ram to other projects thus causing it to fall behind. Time will tell.

GM is again the big looser. The latest design failing to dethrone the slighly older but much better done Ram 1500 redesign or make real inroads into the market share of the end of its lifecycle/long in the tooth current F150. Or show any serious innovation or class leadership (quitest cab, led bedlights just dont cut it). I have to think GM has got to have something comming to at least salvage this generation of truck but whatever it is it will be things that Ford and Ram will have years of devlopment implimentation refinement over them on (aluminum, diesel half ton, trubos, V6s, DOHC, 8+ speed trannys) all things that have/are already being done.

How did they fall so far behind?

Those that can afford it will buy the new cutting edge F150. Those that are warry or cant afford it will buy the Ram.
GM will get the rest of the sales at expense of its market share which will fall. Maybe not below Ram BUT then again no one at GM ever thought bankruptcy, socialism and government money would become part of their history either.

Its highly unlikely that the 2.7EB will be trouble free.

Its also highly unlikely that the all allumunim structure of the F150 will be trouble free.

Nor was the Ram 9spd, nor will the Ford/GM 8/9/10/whatever speed the new auto tranny coming will be.

I wouldnt shove my way to the front of the line to buy anything anyone makes in its first year or so. But there are lots of other people that do. ESPECIALLY if it really is cool and badass. Seems like theres no shortage of paying beta testers for trucks/cars.

I used to subscribe to the whole big engines dont work as hard to move a big vehcile and hence are more "efficient". While they do make more power more efficiently the truth is that a smaller engine working harder to make "enough" power to move the vehicle, the load, will burn far less fuel even if it is working "harder". Its kind of like the argument that you would save fuel if your drove faster and thus ran the engine for less time to save fuel. A large engine when compared to a smaller one burns more fuel at start up, while ideling, while accelerating, while maintaining, while decellerating even if its pulling fewer RPMs doing it. So UNLESS you need the power/torque of the large engine on a REGULAR/CONSTANT basis there is no FE advantage to it over the smaller engine. The next phase of that aregument is well the larger engine will last longer since it does fewer RPMs. That sounds logical/good but the truth is any engine that doesnt go at least 200K without major issues is a POS and small engines even ones working hard do it all the time.

While the new EcoBoost 2.7 may be an impressive little engine, it is most definitely not as capable as a V-8. The 5.3L Silverado used in the Ford video is capable of towing 10,900 pounds, far more than the F-150. Also looks like Ford cherry-picked a 3-mile section of the Davis Dam run that favored their truck. It would be interesting to see a longer drag race, or one on a different section of the hill.

Too small of an engine in a heavy vehicle would mean you'll be running that engine to its maximum ability, screaming it, flooring it! That's NOT efficient


You should read what you write before you hit the magic button Tom. Using a small & flexible V6 is the very definition of efficiency. What were you thinking?

If you mean FE (me being charitable again), then you'll have to wait if you want to know how the FE pans out. Too soon to tell.

Personally I like the very tiny V6 because when you trash one of 'em you can invite your wimpy brother in law over to help you swap it out.

They just don't weigh that much--unlike my brother in law.

People who run out to buy a new half ton simply in the hopes of getting better highway mileage, need to do the same capacity utilization eval that you do if you're discussing the diesel option: Will it save me money in the long run, and how long till I hit the break-even?

@Clint re your thesis about small engines being more efficient than big ones... Go tell that to all the 3.5 ecoboost owners who got worse city mileage than the 5.0 and worse towing mileage than the 6.2!

I want to see the mileage of this 2.7l wunderengine before any judgement gets passed. My guess is it is nothing impressive, especially under load.

don't get excited about tow numbers, the 7-8500lbs towing is with weight distribution, if you tow a boat that weighs 5k pounds your over weight not only by your hitch on the truck but by what the manufacture recommends for towing without weight distribution, such is the reason why you goto a HD if you want to actually tow something

Holy Cow how fast people drink the Ford-Aid Kool Aid. Is common sense common anymore? you will be in the boost constantly to move this much truck, the mpgs will be dismal. I bet the turbo doesn't last 40K miles, which Ford will love since you'll be in service spending thousands replacing the turbo and what else burns up under the nuclear turbo hood. I questions the durability of the aluminum in areas that are under constant pressure, twisting etc. Aluminum doesnt give much warning when it fails. STEEL IS REAL and extremely flexible and resilient. Duh, that is why its been used in trucks for over a century. DOnt want to rain on the ford boy's parade but have to keep it REAL. go to fuelly.com and see the real mpgs of actual owners and most you post are honest and trying to get the most mpgs. That Davis dam test is so rigged, with the 3.5 eco bust the test was stopped short once the hemi started catching up. And notice those tests are always done in the winter, never in summer when the temps in that area are triple digits, WHY because that turbo in a little engine under load would burn up or go into fail safe mode. NO FURD KOOL AID FOR ME

Why does Ford's marketing always compare things in a different world a gas turbo engine against a diesel turbo engine,different ECM program's.They will act differently and they know that,they at least admit,they may not have the best fuel mileage truck for 2015. If I was looking at these 2 different power trains it would come down to fuel mileage and would the diesel get better fuel mileage than the Ford V6,turbo.Also Ford's V6 is not "Best in class" in towing the 2015 Ram 1500 V6 3.0L EcoDiesel,with a 3:92 is set at 8750 lbs of towing.Ford is comparing a 3:73 F150 to a 3:55 Ram 1500,they did the same with Ford comparing a F-450 to a Ram 3500 rear ring gear is 4:10 to a 4:30.Ford does this all the time. This is why Ram truck division,is always setting the facts straight after Ford's press announcement.Know if you select a 3:92 axle in a Ram 1500 3.0L Ecodiesel you increase towing to 8750 J2807 standard.So why handicap the Ram with a 3:55 axle gotta love Ford Media,always the smoke and mirror show shrouded in smoke,and mirror's.

@ Clint
"GM is again the big looser. The latest design failing to dethrone the slighly older but much better done Ram 1500 redesign or make real inroads into the market share of the end of its lifecycle/long in the tooth current F150."

You do now that GM sells more 1/2 tons than Ford and they also sell more 1/2 tons than Ram by a wide margin. Ram's gains that should cause GM to be concerned are only in the HD market and that's because they have a Cummins.

@ALL1 - You ask why the 2.7L isn't rated higher if it pull so much stronger than the others?

It's because there is more involved in the rating than engine power. It must be able to control the load and stop it too. Ford must have skimped in some other areas of the Chassis and/or brakes to keep the weight down, resulting in the lower rating.

Or, the 2.7L is at it's safe limit and why push the ratings when you have bigger motors to offer?

I think Ford will have a clear winner on its hands with this 2.7 EB. Attempting to compare it to the RAM Ecodiesel will be interesting- tow ratings are close, and both engines are/will be the respective fuel economy leaders in their line-ups. On the highway (actual highway driving, not necessarily EPA Highway rating) and with a trailer in tow, I would still expect the diesel to be more economical. In unloaded mixed driving and on shorter trips, I would bet the F150 with the small Ecoboost will beat the Ram for fuel consumption, while also being a lot more snappy. Since the Diesel option on the Ram costs a lot more to begin with, it will only be a select few who can actually eek out an economic advantage with that truck.
Comparing with the GM 5.3, it's really no contest.

I still think the 5.0 V8 is the engine to have if you want to tow.
Why? 8 quarts of oil, and 8 pistons/5 liters of overrun braking on downhills. (and you can get the 36 gallon fuel tank in most configurations)
No 3.73 listed anymore for the 3.5 ecoboost. (nor the previous hush-hush 4.1 special towing axle ratio-that is the one you were supposed to get if you wanted to tow)
Fleets need to protect themselves in case someone accidentally fills the tank with E70-E85 fuel. That is what the 3.5 V6 is for. (no fun axle ratios shorter than 3.55/3.73)

So the 2.7 V6 is for 'normal' people. It has an integral exhaust manifold, so the air:fuel ratio doesn't have to be rich to keep exhaust temperature down. It has auto stop/start for city traffic.

It's also how and when the engine is generating it's power.

High diesel torque at low rpms will give you an advantage the 2.7 EcoBoost just can't provide in efficiency.

It's interesting how this aluminium F-150 is becoming more "midsize" like in it's capability. Higher payload and moderate towing ability. Hmmm??

Maybe towing isn't as common as most would like to think.

Four questionable statements from down under:

1. It's also how and when the engine is generating it's power.

2. High diesel torque at low rpms will give you an advantage the 2.7 EcoBoost just can't provide in efficiency.

3. It's interesting how this aluminium F-150 is becoming more "midsize" like in it's capability. Higher payload and moderate towing ability. Hmmm??

4. Maybe towing isn't as common as most would like to think.

@Big Al

1 The engine is totally binary! It's always making power when it's on--making none when it's off

2 Any supposed advantage has as much to do with specifics than fuel type. A big GM V8 gasser will out perform a little four cylinder diesel in almost all categories

3 Midsize? Actually half ton trucks keep getting bigger Al. Due to advances in technology they ARE getting lighter however.

4 Towing? Actually towing is more common than it was when I was a boy. In those days more goods move by rail. Today guys with pickups can move a real load of freight with greater ease than ever before.

Glad that I could clear that up


Carbon build up problems with ecoboost?

@ Toy Crusher

I know there is more involved in towing. From what I have been reading (and from what ford has done in past trucks), the 2.7L will share everything the same as the higher the rated vehicles. This means the only thing that is different is a lighter engine while brakes, frame, axle, and other parts essential to towing will remain as it is with the higher tow rated trucks. I think your second guess is right because that would be encroaching on the 5.0L and tall geared 3.5L EB area.

@Hemi V8

The 9,200lbs the Ecodiesel is rated for is ONLY in a regular cab with an 8ft bed configuration and the ratings go down from there. According to Ram's own tow chart, a Ram 1500 SLT/Outdoorsman/Big Horn Ecodiesel Crew Cab 4x4 short bed 3.92 like the one in the video is rated for 8,650lbs and 1,310lbs payload. I don't know where Ford got the numbers they had for that Ecodiesel because not even a regular cab has those payload ratings per 2014 Rams tow chart. The F150 XLT 2.7L EB Crew Cab 4x4 short bed 3.73 in the video was rated at 8,400lbs towing and and unknown payload capacity. They say the max payload is 2,250lbs for the 2.7L, but I can guarantee that is just in a regular cab long-bed. I would bet the payload for the truck in that video would be between 1500-1900lbs. It would be a toss up of what you need more between those two, a few hundred pounds in towing or 200 to 600 in payload. Payload is not that big of a factor for those that will never tow close to the trucks maximum weight, but it will be for those that do along with others that load down their trucks for work.

You guys are forgetting all the lessons taught and learned in the past year.

Ecoboost is all about fuel economy with power when you need it.

The ecoboost motors are built to withstand abuse for 150k with little or no breakage. So durability is not a major issue.

The new 2.7 liter makes use of a very tough block material and can handle crazy levels of boost without fear of damage.

The manufacturers are also now calculating how much power output is acceptable based on 0-60 times. If 8 seconds is what is perceived as acceptable they are going to tune/gear for maximum fuel economy while maintaining an 8 second 0-60. That said the SAE tow standards have a acceleration component. The tow rating can't be too low, but the whole 0-60, tow rating and fuel economy love triangle needs to be considered.

Lastly I FULLY expect the 2.7 liter Ecoboost engine to get 12-14MPG while towing near max load. You can't beat the laws of physics folks.

Also of note the 6.2 liter does not yet have direct injection. The expectation is that once DI is added and other small changes have been made that the motor will output 400+ HP and approx 440lbs of torque. After which I'd expect Ford to start replacing the 6.8 liter V10. But Ford may wait for their new 10 Speed transmission to be released before reveling the new improved 6.2 liter

Four questionable statements from down under:

1. It's also how and when the engine is generating it's power.

2. High diesel torque at low rpms will give you an advantage the 2.7 EcoBoost just can't provide in efficiency.

3. It's interesting how this aluminium F-150 is becoming more "midsize" like in it's capability. Higher payload and moderate towing ability. Hmmm??

4. Maybe towing isn't as common as most would like to think.


1 The engine is somewhat binary ! It's making power when it's on--making less when it's off boost (off boost is under 1700 RPM)

2 Diesel has more BTUs of power per oz of fuel, but are more expensive to manufacture. The concept of Eco-boost is 90% of the gain with 30% of the increased cost.

3 Midsize? Are you nuts? Actually half ton trucks keep getting physically bigger/wider!
The bed volume is bigger but the weight carrying ability has remaining somewhat stable for the past 10 years. A 1/2 ton truck these days is almost as capable as a 3/4 ton truck 20 years ago.
Due to advances in technology trucks ARE starting to get lighter.

4 Towing? Actually towing is more common than it was when I was a boy. Today guys with pickups can move a real load of freight with greater ease than ever before. But the price for a truck has also gone up as well.

We should test the new 2.7 when it got 50K miles.
I bet 40% less HP & Torque than any other competitor

@papa jim
You sound so much like DiM. Did DiM lose all credibility on this site.

As for your response is totally baseless and made with very little knowledge.

1. The Eco Boost is designed to "appease" CAFE FE requirements. That is for any gas engine to develop all of those hp's it will need copious quantities of fuel. Drive it around like a 2.7 litre Taco and you will get better FE, but nowhere's near as good as a turbo diesel.

Binary?? WTF??

2. A big V8 gasser will outperform a 4 cylinder diesel in all categories?? In FE?? The diesel will generally perform as well as the V8 up to around 3 000rpm (learn about hp and torque). Yes in a drag race a V8 will win. But why do you want to drag race?? Are you BTR from TTAC. If you want a great performance V8 buy a Chev SS or even a WRX. All US pickups are speed limited.

3. Towing was more common as a kid now, I don't dispute that. But really how many people tow more than 3 - 4 000lbs??

You seem to have 'little tockley' syndrome. Size?? I'm talking capability. Supersize me!! That's such a 1960s American paradigm.....size matters, for what?? To compensate?? What's your BMI??

papa jim, rather than writing complete and utter $hit for a bite, try growing up for a change.

You can always tell when you've gotten under Big Al's hide. He get's that bitchy OZ thing going.

@Big Al

"It's also how and when the engine is generating it's power."

You are correct there, and gas engines provide a broad rpm range most diesel cannot. If you look at the factory dyno for the Ecodiesel, it gets its power very early, but it doesn't hold it for long unlike more other towing diesels. It really takes a nose dive after 3,000 rpm to where it is below the 2.7L max torque of 375lb-ft by around 3,200 rpm. If the 2.7L EB torque curve is like the 3.5L EB version then that would mean it would be generating more power past 3,200 rpm. Also the Ecodiesel will be forced upshift to a taller gear loosing torque multiplication while the 2.7L EB will would have another almost 3,000 rpm to play with in a shorter gear with more torque multiplication. All this culminates to the 2.7L EB having the edge in WOT(Wide Open Throttle) situations that generally keep you past 3,000 rpm. The Ecodiesel will have the advantage before 3,000rpm which is why you see it get the bigger jump off the line, but it looses the advantage after that.

However, in part throttle situations keeping your rpms lower than 3,000, this would be have a different ending.

"High diesel torque at low rpms will give you an advantage the 2.7 EcoBoost just can't provide in efficiency."

True, but as you sated yourself, most don't tow that often so getting less FE those very few times you tow would not be a deal breaker. If this 2.7L gets 24 or 25 mpg highway, then the 26-28mpg on the highway for the Ecodiesel would be a moot point since the higher diesel fuel cost for most of the US and Canada will nullify any mpg savings.

"It's interesting how this aluminium F-150 is becoming more "midsize" like in it's capability. Higher payload and moderate towing ability. Hmmm??"

No, it is doing what I said it would which is stay a full size, but get lighter and more fuel efficient. Having a lighter truck automatically allows for higher payloads if all axles, brakes, and powertain stays the same. This is the same as if you made the truck heavier by adding a diesel as an example, then it's payload would drop going by US standards.

"Maybe towing isn't as common as most would like to think."

This maybe true, but there are those that do. For those that don't tow at all or don't tow very often then having great fuel economy when towing is a moot point. It all depends on ones needs and what they are comfortable with in fuel mileage. As you know it is a give and take on power over fuel mileage. Generally if you have more power then you have less fuel economy and vice versa. If one is comfortable with the fuel economy that the more powerful option gets then he will pick that one. If one does not mind sacrificing power for more fuel economy then he pick the more fuel efficient option. You can't say everyone will pick the most fuel efficiant option just as I can't say everyone will pick the most powerful option because everyone needs/wants and what FE they are comfortable with are different.

Lastly, since you are back, can you finally answer my question --> as to where I was "partially wrong" like you stated in this article? --> http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/07/chrysler-gives-cummins-a-big-thank-you/comments/page/2/#comments

Did Ford solve the carbon problem on the EcoBoost?

What about engine/transmission temperatures towing uphill over a long duration (mountain pass)?

What about engine braking?

What about ride comfort (suspension)?

What about cabin noise?

"Ford said, given that 85 percent of F-150 buyers tow less than 8,500 pounds and carry a payload less than 2,000 pounds."

BINGO, that's why a lot of people are starting to buy Rams, who needs the towing/payload capacity anyways.

Evidently this test was run on the slope where SAE does it's J2807 testing. That doesn't sound like cherry picking to me.

Contrary to popular belief, the 2.7 will not be operating near it's redline to move the truck down the road. EcoBoost engines are known for strong low end torque and a horsepower plateau that extends for 2,000 rpm or so. They do this by using tiny turbos, probably Borg Warner KP39 size with a boost peak around 4,000 rpm and then it tapers down toward the redline.

When driving down the road, it will be under boost but maybe 6-7 psi which is the equivalent of a 4l NA engine at the same rpm. When it's coasting, boost will go to zero and when it stops, the whole engine stops. Of course if you have a lead foot and blast around all day like I do, you'll frown a little at the gas pump but smile much more while you are driving.

Ford has figured out how to down size an engine for fuel economy and give it enough low end and mid range grunt to feel like a big engine with a CGI block, piston squirters, piston inserts and low friction coatings to give it the durability to survive the torture of heavy towing.

Look at where Ford is aiming this, probably a small upgrade over the 3.5, maybe right around the price of the 5.0. It's for people who want a truck with more power than the 3.5 but economy for when they aren't towing.

Lots of people are going to try it and say this feels like it will get the job done.

Hell, I do more with a 4 cylinder Ford Ranger than most people do with an F-150, it's incredible to think about how capable the F-150 is going to be even when most owners never scratch the surface of what they are capable of.

That's what this truck is about, a combination of capability, value and economy that Fiat and GM can't match.

Oh, the carbon problems in DI engines were mostly due to crummy PCV systems that let too much oil in to the intake with no fuel to wash it off the valves. Ford has seriously upgraded the PCV, almost no carbon forms.

Imagine a 2.7L Lightning / Tremor edition. How much will that weigh?

@Big Al

Here is what I was talking about on the Ecodiesel dyno. This is a merging that I did of the Ecodiesel, 3.5L Ecoboost, and new GM 5.3L that I have posted on here before. It looses it's torque shortly after reaching peak torque and does not hold it like most towing diesels do. This makes sense since the engine was designed for a car application. If the 2.7L EBs orque curve is anything like the 3.5L in this chart, then it would surpass the Ecodiesel at 3,200-3,300 rpm giving it an advantage at WOT. Partial throttle, not so much.


Wow, 325hp 375 tq is perfectly acceptable for most 1/2 ton use. And 700+lbs of weight reduction is amazing. If this combo has great economy numbers (25-30 mpg) this truck will be a massive homerun.

Nice to see the vocal "MORE POWER!!!!!!!" minority isn't drowning out the silent majority who value a combination of capability and efficiency. Fuel is too expensive these days and likely to get more so. The old ways of thinking are changing.

A 2.7L EcoBoost will get single digit MPGs while towing...considering that the current EcoBoost has been reported to get around 9MPGs under load.

Compare that to the Ram EcoDiesel which will get mid-teens while towing at max capacity.

Who's the winner again?

For trucks...Ram. Ford is obviously interested in building car engines. Why would you tout a 700 lb. savings in weight by going to aluminum...and then turn around and put small displacement engines in those same trucks that drink fuel like it's going out of style when loaded and/or hauling? What are we trying to accomplish here? Fuel economy or building trucks?

Ram does both...fuel economy AND the best truck. Which is why EcoDiesel wins.

The comments to this entry are closed.