Any opinions on the 2.7L v6 ecoboost engine that are going in the F-150s now adays

[Buford_Dawg]

I have read really good reviews on them, but have always drove the 5.0L v8 Coyote engines which IMO are outstanding. So, trying to decide if I pull the trigger on one in the next few months to go with the 2.7 or find one with the 5.0 (which are much tougher to find).

 

[jbird1]

BD...@transfixer could probably give you a good read on it.

 

[John Cooper]

Unless Ford has fixed their turbo problems (I am a Ford person too) expect to replace a turbo around 100,000 miles or so. Also I don't remember which ecoboost it was but one had a problem with moisture building up in the intercooler.

 

[Eudora]

I was in Vegas for the AAPEX and SEMA shows. AAPEX is where the auto parts manufacturers meet with the different auto parts parts distributors. There were a LOT of manufacturers adding turbos to their offerings because this is going to be a HUGE replacement item going forward, and they are not cheap. My opinion on this is, if you maintain your vehicle and change the oil with the correct viscosity and grade and also properly warm up the engine and also allow for proper cool down before shutting it off, you should have few turbo issues. The top selling turbos now are in the small GM vehicles such as the 2012 to 2016 Cruze and Encore's. One can assume many of those vehicles were not properly maintained or maybe bought as used vehicles and they were not aware of the extra "care" needed for a turbo? My wife had a RDX turbo until it was totaled. Bought another RDX and I insisted on a non-turbo (and also not all wheel drive) which took a little searching to find. I know proper oil changes in ANY car will make them last longer, but I sure do sleep better at night knowing all my vehicles are normally aspirated.

 

[bullfrog79]

Unless Ford has fixed their turbo problems (I am a Ford person too) expect to replace a turbo around 100,000 miles or so. Also I don't remember which ecoboost it was but one had a problem with moisture building up in the intercooler.

Earlier 3.5’s did that

 

[DAVE]

Manufacturers are putting turbos on smaller engines to meet EPA requirements, not to make a better engine. Why buy a small engine with turbo and all the potential problems and expense, instead of a bigger engine with as much power or more and without the extra problems? People raving about their eco-boost are in love with spooling up the turbo and have not experience the down side yet. Bottom line is buy what makes you happy because when it breaks you want feel so bad if you really like it and they all break sooner or later.

 

[rmp]

I know numerous people with 3.5L ranging from 2012 to a recently acquired 2021. One just traded in his 2015 with 185k+ miles. Anyway…Not one has had a turbo fail including my own 2012 with excess of 160k miles.
I can’t speak with much experience on the 2.7L. We traded my wife’s 5.0 for a 2.7L but it only has 50k on it so far. We much prefer the forced induction engines living and towing at altitude. I’ll take the torque over a peak horsepower number any day. Your requirements could be very different. Best of luck in your decision.

Edited to add, my thoughts on the matter are based on personal experience. Not theory or what rumor I heard. Close friends and family just confirm what I’ve found to be true. Message me anytime if you’d like details.

 

[transfixer]

I haven't had any experience with those engines as of yet, manufacturers are getting crazy torque numbers out of small engines these days, doing some very interesting things with timing in order to do so, just went to a training class last week about diagnosing some of the newer vehicles, crazy stuff that would never have been thought of years ago,

Keep in mind that the manufacturer has one thing in mind when designing a new powertrain, well, two things actually,, the absolute best mileage they can get possible, and it has to pass federal emissions,,, durability and longevity are not on their concern list, other than it making it out of factory warranty.

Smaller engines will have to work harder to do the same work as a bigger engine, no way around that . I wouldn't be afraid of a smaller engines for a truck used for light duty, one that seldom towed anything over 2000lbs, but if you are going to tow stuff on a regular basis up in the 3500-5000 lb range you're going to be working those smaller engines very hard.

Do NOT believe the factory towing specs, can it physically tow what they say ? of course ! but if you try it on a regular basis you will wear the motor and trans out before its time, those towing numbers are grossly exaggerated for selling purposes .

 

[Buford_Dawg]

Appreciate all the responses, based on my Web Research and feedback from a couple of guys who I know are running 2018 or newer, I may pull the trigger. Here is a small sample of information I have reviewed. Many articles out there, but the 2nd gen 2.7 engines really get rave reviews.

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2021-ford-f-150-2-7l-ecoboost-4x4-first-test-review/

https://tuningpro.co/the-4-most-common-ford-2-7-ecoboost-engine-problems/

 

[rmp]

Good post but...

Smaller engines will have to work harder to do the same work as a bigger engine, no way around that .

Not to pick nits but following that logic, a 6.7 Cummins works harder than a 7.3 gasser doing the same work. If you were talking apples to apples, then yes. The topic was about naturally aspirated 5.0L vs a 2.7L forced induction engine.
Pull 5k-8k pounds up through some 8% grade with a 5.0L and a 3.5L TT with all else being the same. (reared gearing etc) You'll quickly see which engine is working harder and it's definitely not the 3.5L. Been there, done that. Sounds like the 5.0 will grenade!
Unless you consider running lower RPM at higher compression means work harder. The 5.0L is constantly downshifting and getting much, much higher RPM and still won't maintain the speed of a 3.5L. I could be completely wrong in my assessment and am always open to be corrected.

In the way if towing, mine is on the hook a few times a month and never as light a 2000 lbs. 5k-6k was pretty regular with an occasional 10k. The wifes 2.7L pulled 3500 lbs over 2200 miles and was outstanding. If I was closer to the 10k on the regular, i'd be driving a 3/4 ton.

While I don't believe the 2.7L is the most incredible engine to bless the consumer, I'd take one over a 5.0L any day of the week. However, to each their own.

 

[transfixer]

Good post but...



Not to pick nits but following that logic, a 6.7 Cummins works harder than a 7.3 gasser doing the same work. If you were talking apples to apples, then yes. The topic was about naturally aspirated 5.0L vs a 2.7L forced induction engine.
Pull 5k-8k pounds up through some 8% grade with a 5.0L and a 3.5L TT with all else being the same. (reared gearing etc) You'll quickly see which engine is working harder and it's definitely not the 3.5L. Been there, done that. Sounds like the 5.0 will grenade!
Unless you consider running lower RPM at higher compression means work harder. The 5.0L is constantly downshifting and getting much, much higher RPM and still won't maintain the speed of a 3.5L. I could be completely wrong in my assessment and am always open to be corrected.

In the way if towing, mine is on the hook a few times a month and never as light a 2000 lbs. 5k-6k was pretty regular with an occasional 10k. The wifes 2.7L pulled 3500 lbs over 2200 miles and was outstanding. If I was closer to the 10k on the regular, i'd be driving a 3/4 ton.

While I don't believe the 2.7L is the most incredible engine to bless the consumer, I'd take one over a 5.0L any day of the week. However, to each their own.

My opinion is based on over 35yrs of repairing vehicles,, as I stated I know virtually nothing about the 2.7, the closest engine to that is the 3.5 ecoboost, I have seen numerous trucks with those engines that have needed turbos replaced, timing chains and guides replaced, not to mention transmssions replaced because of constant shifting to keep the engine in its power range.

I'm speaking in generalities when I say a smaller engine has to work harder and will wear out faster than a larger motor, and you can't compare diesel engines to gas motors as the principal and torque generated by diesels is totally different .

All I know about the newer designs are what I am told in training by engineers , some of who work for, or with the manufacturers,,, how long some of the powertrains will last is unknown, but some of them have inherent problems will and have led to early failures,,

Again ,, the manufacturers are NOT building powertrains for durability and longevity,,,, their main concern is fuel mileage and passing federal emissions, getting more power from a smaller lighter more efficient engine is their way of doing that,,, if that principal worked for durability and longevity we'd see small turbo charged engines in long haul rigs and other large vehicles that daily haul heavy weights

 

[rmp]

not to mention transmssions replaced because of constant shifting to keep the engine in its power range.

This is actually backwards from real life. As stated, drive both 5.0 or any TT F-150 engine with any type of load and you'll see which one is constantly shifting. You should to see for yourself.

you can't compare diesel engines to gas motors as the principal and torque generated by diesels is totally different .

That's exactly my point. An engine size in and of itself is meaningless.

if that principal worked for durability and longevity we'd see small turbo charged engines in long haul rigs and other large vehicles that daily haul heavy weights

True but vehicles 8500 lbs GVWR and over are not subject to regulation. There's no need to invest R&D for fuel savings nor adding complexity when all that's required is an engine to do work. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just stating there's no need.

 

[rmp]

Old but nonetheless less factual. Pre-2.7L days.

 

[transfixer]

This is actually backwards from real life. As stated, drive both 5.0 or any TT F-150 engine with any type of load and you'll see which one is constantly shifting. You should to see for yourself.

Haven't driven the 2.7 as I mentioned, but I know which transmissions we rebuild the most in our shop,,, and we see the 6R80's behind the 3.5 at least two times more often than we do the same trans behind the 5.0

 

[transfixer]

[QUOTE="rmp, post: 13152025, member: 10632"
True but vehicles 8500 lbs GVWR and over are not subject to regulation. There's no need to invest R&D for fuel savings nor adding complexity when all that's required is an engine to do work. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just stating there's no need.[/QUOTE]

Fuel costs and efficiency are paramount in businesses using large vehicles to haul freight and pull loads,, but so are maintenance costs and durability, if the smaller engines were viable on a cost to benefit ratio they would be using them in those vehicles,,

For the average consumer a 2.7 eco motor will likely be fine, especially considering most consumers do not keep a vehicle much past 140-150k miles,, and most do not haul a significant weight very often,, if at all, for a normal 1/2 ton pickup that will likely only haul what will fit in the bed, I would suspect the 2.7 to give good service for the time the consumer will own it,, I doubt very seriously we'll see customers keep those vehicles over 200k miles anyway,, I would not expect them to still be running the same at 200k,250k, or longer though,, that just isn't realistic

 

[jiminbogart]

Pull 5k-8k pounds up through some 8% grade with a 5.0L and a 3.5L TT with all else being the same.

In the way if towing, mine is on the hook a few times a month and never as light a 2000 lbs. 5k-6k was pretty regular with an occasional 10k. The wifes 2.7L pulled 3500 lbs over 2200 miles and was outstanding. If I was closer to the 10k on the regular, i'd be driving a 3/4 ton.

If you tow 8-10k with an F150 you've already lost. I had a 2013 5.0 F150. I know that of which I speak.

About 8.5k total load.



The correct tools for the job(BTW, the F350 is getting a Cummins and a 4x4 conversion. You couldn't get a 4x4 F350 Dually pick up truck in '97.):

 

[rmp]

Haven't driven the 2.7 as I mentioned, but I know which transmissions we rebuild the most in our shop,,, and we see the 6R80's behind the 3.5 at least two times more often than we do the same trans behind the 5.0

Take at look at production numbers on both those engines and you’ll understand why.

 

[rmp]

If you tow 8-10k with an F150 you've already lost. I had a 2013 5.0 F150. I know that of which I speak.

About 8.5k total load.

View attachment 1121119

The correct tools for the job(BTW, the F350 is getting a Cummins and a 4x4 conversion. You couldn't get a 4x4 F350 Dually pick up truck in '97.):


View attachment 1121120View attachment 1121121

Nice Kubota. I pulled mine all over albeit a bit smaller tractor. Also a Kubota mini-ex at times. My truck has the max tow package and has never squatted quite that bad. Yikes.

 

[Eudora]

Agree with Transfixer, to meet overall CAFE fuel mileage standards, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan ...... all of them are jettisoning weight to get that "out of factory" MPG rating. Plastic or composite lower control arms, oil pans and intake manifolds are pretty common. So instead of "Quality is Job One" or "Like a Rock", the motto now is "3 years and a Day" which is when the warranty expires.

 

[jiminbogart]

Nice Kubota. I pulled mine all over albeit a bit smaller tractor. Also a Kubota mini-ex at times. My truck has the max tow package and has never squatted quite that bad. Yikes.

Actually had too much weight on the pin. It was either that or load it backwards and have too little weight on the pin.

I ordered that truck and ordered the tow package. I was unaware there was a max tow package until I asked where my towing mirrors were.