No Replacement?

Is There NO Replacement For Displacement?
Ford 2.7L EcoBoost V-6
Fullsize Segment's Smallest Engine Puts Predecessors Output to Shame

Quote :

We've all heard the phrase: There's no replacement for displacement. Some of the devotees of big-inch V-8s still live by it. The claim is that no amount of technical wizardry, manifold pressure or anything else can compare to the relaxed, plentiful power and torque produced by a naturally-aspirated V-8. Certainly, considering the peaky, unreliable performance of turbocharged engines from decades past, the skeptics are probably justified in their mistrust of small-displacement, highly-boosted engines filling in for where V-8s used to reside.

But Ford is looking to challenge that notion for the second time in less than a half-decade with its 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6. Dearborn already shattered the perception that a relatively small-displacement turbocharged V-6 couldn't do the job of a V-8 with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 that debuted for the 2011 model year, and quickly went on to become the single-most popular engine option in the F-150, comprising more than 40 percent of consumer sales. Yes, there have been some minor issues with condensation buildup in the intercooler system, and some transmission calibration issues, but by and large, there have been no major recalls or massive, widespread catastrophic failures of the engine, as some had predicted. The 3.5-liter EcoBoost has fallen slightly short of some customers' expectations of fuel economy, but almost nobody that we know of has complained about the amount of power.

Confident it has its bases covered on the higher-end of the 2015 F-150's powertrain range with the 3.5L EcoBoost and 5.0-liter V-8, Ford is looking to turn the segment on its ear once again, not only with the truck's revolutionary aluminum body, but with the segment's smallest-displacement engine in easily the last three decades, possibly ever. Ford has not yet released official output figures or fuel economy for its new pint-sized powerhouse, but we personally witnessed dyno readouts of more than 340 lb-ft of torque. Considering the engine's displacement of approximately 165 cubic inches, that's a mighty impressive number and roughly the same amount of torque produced by Ford's own two-valve Triton 5.4-liter V-8 from the 1997-2003 F-150, the biggest, most powerful engine offered in a mainstream F-150 at the time.

Horsepower figures for the 2.7-liter EcoBoost are still unknown, but count on close to, if not more than, 300 hp. That healthy level of power output, combined with what's likely to be class-leading gasoline fuel efficiency, and you've got a formidable package. Based on the social media feedback we've received from our readers on this engine, it seems evenly split between the traditionalists that are distrustful of Ford's high-tech approach to power production, and those that think Dearborn's got the right idea and that the rest of the industry is falling behind or playing catch-up. One thing's for sure: Ford isn't letting the grass grow between its toes with its truck development and continues to push the technological envelope. If nothing else, it's keeping the segment competitive and prompting both Chrysler and GM to stay on top of their games. Ultimately, that can only lead to better products from everyone.

Truck Trend

I hope it's a success. Good fuel economy with a reasonable price.

I've had the 3.5EB, it is quite powerful, quiet but it doesn't get any better fuel economy than my current HEMI. Towing, loaded or unloaded.

The torque curve was superior, I'll give it that. It rocks in the mountains too. But once you get your foot in those turbos, it uses gas just like a V8.

If people are expecting better mileage out of one, that simply isn't there.

Exactly, not optimal fuel economy. Depending on how they wind it up (program it) it will still be a compromise between performance and fuel economy.

pup wrote:

I've had the 3.5EB, it is quite powerful, quiet but it doesn't get any better fuel economy than my current HEMI. Towing, loaded or unloaded.

The torque curve was superior, I'll give it that. It rocks in the mountains too. But once you get your foot in those turbos, it uses gas just like a V8.

If people are expecting better mileage out of one, that simply isn't there.

and more importantly,

it doesn't rumble when you fire it up   

Diseasel wrote:

Exactly, not optimal fuel economy. Depending on how they wind it up (program it) it will still be a compromise between performance and fuel economy.

Exactly what the HEMI is. One is perceived to be a gas guzzler, the other is perceived to be a fuel sipper. Ford is winning the perception war. Just like the Prius has for Toyota.

People see little engine, little gas use. Just like they see V8, big gas use. Reality be damned.

Breathing Borla wrote:

and more importantly,

it doesn't rumble when you fire it up   

The V8's don't whistle when you get on them and gush when you get out of it.   

There are some crazy people who no matter what like the noise their application generates, diesel clatter, V8 rumble, turbo whistle.  Getting two of the three in one package is icing on the cake.

pup wrote:

Diseasel wrote:

Exactly, not optimal fuel economy. Depending on how they wind it up (program it) it will still be a compromise between performance and fuel economy.

Exactly what the HEMI is. One is perceived to be a gas guzzler, the other is perceived to be a fuel sipper. Ford is winning the perception war. Just like the Prius has for Toyota.

People see little engine, little gas use. Just like they see V8, big gas use. Reality be damned.

There are some areas that the EB really does well. With 3.15 or 3.31 gears it does really good FE wise. With 3.73's it runs into a aero dynamic and RPM brick wall at 65'ish along with 2k rpms that defeat much of any benefit. One thing it can deliver is power, does really well here.

BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption basically as it that to support X amount of horsepower, X amount of fuel is required. There are some very small differences with volumetric efficiency of a forced induction application and other small technical tweaks here or there. But your not going to see anything close to a +/- 20% fuel consumption difference if the engine is supporting 350 HP using four, six, or eight cylinders with NA or FE. They will all be extremely close in consumption when supporting load.

I still like the idea around AFM like GM uses in the GenV V8's. Is the Hemi still using this technology? I know in the 6.0 G8 GT I had I could get 24 MPG easy on the highway. This is a 4k lb sedan with four people inside. Pretty respectable IMHO.

The Hemi still uses cylinder deactivation. ECO will display on the info center when activated.

I can hear it too, the exhaust note changes slightly.

pup wrote:

The Hemi still uses cylinder deactivation. ECO will display on the info center when activated.

I can hear it too, the exhaust note changes slightly.

I lock mine off most of the time, just set the trans to max gear of 8 and it won't come on. It's fine on the highway but around town at slower speeds it kinda annoys me.

then again you can hear it more on the sport model as it has a louder exhaust stock.

fyi,

the eco light on or off doesn't co-inside with the MDS being on or off according to all the info on ramforumz.

I know on my G8, the V4 mode was just slightly describable if you knew what to listen for.  People with aftermarket exhaust would experience a considerable less than desirable change in tone while in V4 mode.  Seems the OEM did a good job with tuning out the resonation frequencies for both V8 and V4 modes, something the aftermarket companies haven't fully supported.

In V4 mode if you guys are trying to hypermile at say 65 mph flat grade no wind what kind of instant mileage can you squeak out?

For Ford to succeed with the 2.7 EB they need to make the responsiveness better. Qualifying responsiveness. Not turbo lag, but lack of the electronics and PCM decision making. Simply takes too long with the EB. Had to go to the aftermarket to address about 80% of what Ford didn't do initially. Much of this may be for the EPA certification. Who knows. Simply put, the commanded input of the driver needs to be the result delivered, not after considerable deliberation and consulting with the transmission, VCT, yada yada decide to do make changes then engage. Quicker, faster decisions to result in a linear result with commanded driver input. If Ford does that. Seems to be potential for success to be had.

joemac wrote:

In V4 mode if you guys are trying to hypermile at say 65 mph flat grade no wind what kind of instant mileage can you squeak out?

Easing down I45 south of Dallas through all the little towns that exist only to write tickets, I get 22.5 to 23mpgs running 63/64 mph on the readout. I have the 6-Speed with 3.55's and 20" wheels.


I also had the same complaint with the EB as you, the electronic nannies are just too slow in stock form.

you boys don't have winter blend fuel down there right?

We do in the DFW Metro area, from what I understand.

pup wrote:

Easing down I45 south of Dallas through all the little towns that exist only to write tickets, I get 22.5 to 23mpgs running 63/64 mph on the readout. I have the 6-Speed with 3.55's and 20" wheels.

That's really good. Really close to where my G8 was. For a truck with a larger aero footprint and heavier the V4 mode does the trick. Best of both worlds. With the 3.5 EB, 3.73's, 20" alloy wheels, towing mirrors 6.5 bed, and 4x4OR it's heavy. Base config weight on a 4x4 6.5 bed is 5731. I can squeak out 20/21 on the highway in perfect conditions. Most of the time its around 17.5 to 19.

Quote :

I also had the same complaint with the EB as you, the electronic nannies are just too slow in stock form.

Yea big time. It drives really nice is 80% of situations, but when things get tense it seems to have difficulty deciding on what to do. I was really spoiled with the Duramax. The mild HP with transmission tune from Diablo was fantastic. Never ever had a second guess on the decision the truck made. With the EB I'm actually on my second custom tuner. First guy didn't give a crap. Second guy is very helpful and has made the truck considerably better from where the OEM left it.

With Ford removing another .7 liters the programming and responsiveness becomes that much more critical. If they don't provide a greater emphasis on standard driveability, success may be up in the air for the taking.