Smaller EcoBoost Packs a Punch Few V-8s Can Match

IMG_0363 II

After spending a lot of time with almost a dozen light-duty pickup trucks between our 2015 Light-Duty V-8 Challenge and 2015 Annual Physical during December 2014, we found there are a few things that deserve more attention.

It's worth calling out how impressive Ford's all-new 2.7-liter V-6 EcoBoost engine performed against full-size V-8 engines (although each of the V-8 crew-cab 4x4s that were in our V-8 Challenge were at least 500 pounds to 1,100 pounds heavier than the pickups in the Annual Physical). In full-out drag racing with empty beds, the little EcoBoost performed very close to the V-8s in both zero-to-60-mph and quarter-mile times. However, the benefits of the twin-turbos were really seen when it was running at wide-open throttle with a full payload of 1,240 pounds — it handily beat the Ram, Ford and Toyota V-8s.

Ford-chart-1

Ford-chart-2

It's also interesting to see how the Annual Physical's Ford Platinum F-150 with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 and upgraded six-speed transmission compared with the V-8s in the Light-Duty Challenge, especially the dominant Chevrolet Silverado 1500 6.2-liter V-8 and GMC Sierra 1500 6.2-liter V-8, both of which had the all-new eight-speed transmission.

We are presenting the basic data here in separate charts, each comparing powertrains and weights. We've got a few more tests planned for both Ford's big and small EcoBoost engines as well as the all-new naturally aspirated base V-6.

Cars.com images by Evan Sears

Ford-chart-3

Ford-chart-4

 

 

Comments

Turbo engines are not consistent. Pass after pass back to back they slide in performance. Because the create more heat than a naturally aspirated engine. Head to head tests show this. Having to wait for the engine to cool before another run.

It will be engines like this sophisticated small engines with all the hardware and twin turbos that will hurt Fords resale value and quality......turbos on gas engines ..start and stop....will cause realiabity issues.....there is a big diffence between diesel turbos on class 7 and 8 trucks ..than in a 1/2 ton truck..here all they are doing is dressing these engines up .for EPA reasons.....Ecoboost in real world is not better on fuel than the V8....infact...Wards didn't include it ..in 10 best engines...loved the design...but said the 2.7 .in testing was hardly any better on fuel than the 5.0 coyote v8.....the 5.0 v8 has enough hp for me....and with out all the complicated problems with the Ecoboost engines.....got my daughter a turbo Jetta....replacing turbo because a sensor went out..$1,200 bucks....I rather have the two extra cylinders than two extra turbos.....really like the pushrod v8 stregetity of Chrysler and Gm.....but a Ford guy at heart....

On top of that the 2.7 block has been made from the same stuff they make diesel engine blocks from, if I recall correctly.

I just saw a dyno graph relevant to this article, as we all know from the factory the 5.3L from GM is rated higher than the 2.7 liter EcoBoost, BUT, put them on a dyno and you get this:

http://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

Its hilarious how the Bow Tie Brigade come to the test with a 6.2 and still whine aver weight savings and Eco Boost engines. Facts are real...the Eco boost is a screaming success known to blow the doors off any GM, Ram or Toyo bag of garbage. The F150 is the most advanced set of wheels in the truck business, its a winner in so many ways. I had all those engines cept for the 2.7EB. The Coyote beats the Hemi and 5.3 hands down and gives the 6.2 a run for its money...5.0 can be modified much better. The EB3.5 can be beat by none PERIOD!!!!

So much bow tie butt hurt going on here. If you think steel is better by all means buy GM. Until they make the switch



The comments to this entry are closed.