Another EcoBoost

Quote :

Rumour has it that the all-new 2015 F-150 may not be worthy of being revolutionary, but is nevertheless supposed to be a substantial evolutionary improvement over the current model as well as competitive offerings. And one of the changes rumored to make the next-gen F-150, which will used the Atlas concept as inspiration, substantially more advanced than today’s model is the focus on improved fuel economy. In turn, this has resulted in heavy speculation about a new six-cylinder turbocharged (ahem, EcoBoost) engine smaller than 3 liters in displacement. As it stands, the web is rampant about a new 2.7-liter V6 EcoBoost engine that will be offered alongside the base 3.7-liter Duratec V6.

The NHTSA as well as the EPA are requiring that all automakers achieve an average of 34.1 MPG across their lineups by 2016, thereby putting an indirect requirement on trucks to average 28.8 MPG. For its part, Ford is expecting to gain 3 MPG with the next-gen F-150, according to Automotive News. Facilitating this advance and associated regulatory requirements is a reported (and quite astounding) 700-pound weight reduction through the utilization of aluminum, along with a highly fuel-efficient model. It’s this model that is expected to cradle the new 2.7-liter V6 that’s part of Ford’s new six-cylinder engine range codenamed “Nano”. Think of it as the equivalent of the new 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-banger for the 2015 Mustang to be sold alongside the base 3.7-liter V6. Sure, both engines might have similar outputs, with the boosted four having a slight power advantage, but one will be more economical.

When it’s announced, the new purported 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 could make a rumored 320 horsepower and 375 lb.-ft. of torque, therefore slotting above the base 3.7 liter V6 that makes roughly 300 horses and 280 lb.-ft. of torque. Meanwhile, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 will remain the flagship engine offering, slotting above the slightly less powerful and less fuel-efficient 5.0 liter Coyote V8 — which we expect to get the same upgrades as the revised unit for the 2015 Stang.

To note, past PickupTrucks.com owner/editor and now Ford Truck Communications Manager Mike Levine posted on the popular website in 2011 that Ford was working on prototypes of the six-cylinder engines. He added that the engines carried the “Nano” code name and displaced “approximately 2.6 or 2.7 liters and 3.0 liters”, with plans to be used in the 2015 Mustang and F-150. Unlike the twin-snail 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, the Nano line would make use of a two-stage (twin-scroll) turbo setup where the smaller turbo would work at low speeds, thereby contributing towards fuel economy, and the larger one would deliver additional power.

Ford Authority

Ford needs something more fuel efficient for sure. One of these days I'll have to test drive a 3.5L ecoboost to experience that so-called appliance sound for myself. It will be interesting to see how well these lighter materials hold up.

Surely there's a point of diminishing returns for how small the displacement can go without lessening capability. Taking the article for what it states with the rumored "nano" of 2.7 liters and 320HP/375TQ they may have already reached that point if this turns out to be even 90% accurate.

I've heard of weight savings in the 500 to 700 range. Significant. I'm curious to learn at what cost.

Obviously lugging around less weight in the structure allows for a lower output powertrain to perform equivalent to a heavier more powerful powertrain.

The OEM Ford tune (engine and transmission) on the existing 3.5 EB powertrain has considerable area for improvement. Improvement being making it feel and the owner perceive that they've lost none of the driveability characteristics to the V8's owners have been accustomed. Without a doubt this gets more difficult in losing .8 additional liters in displacement.

Ford will have to double down on the 2.7 EB tune for the market to perceive benefit, and not a reduction in capability.

Engine options would be 3.7/NA, 2.7/EB, 5.0/NA, 3.5EB, 6.2/NA ? Article doesn't mention dropping any engine options. Five engine options?

Yea, 5 seems like too many engine options. That's more cost to build, train employees, maintain parts... Maybe the 6.2 goes away with the new high mpg push?