Just got my 1st look at the 2.7 ecoboost...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by jeff kushner, May 15, 2017.


  1. jeff kushner

    jeff kushner Full Access Members

    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Location:
    Maryland
    A buddy of mine that I've known for 30 years who works at the same firm just bought himself a F250 with the 6.2 gas engine. I didn't realize that the 6.2 was available as a gas or diesel engine. He bought the gas version but was driving a F150 today while they finish prepping his new 250.

    He asked me if my eco shut off at red lights.....I told him of course not...that's when he told me that his '17 loaner F150 does! I looked under the hood and it has a 2.7 V6 ecoboost engine and in the bay of a F150, there's ALL kinds or room around the engine! Geez, you could hide two, maybe three mexicans in there with all that room! Those of us who have tried working on our 5.4's will appreciate all that room around the 2.7...it's a snap to reach anything including the twin turbos! To me, it's seems a little under powered for a 1/2 ton pickup but each to his/her own I suppose but it's a nice little engine.

    jeff
     
  2. JExpedition07

    JExpedition07 Elite Member

    Posts:
    272
    Likes Received:
    70
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Location:
    Western New York
    6.2 is gas for super duties then there is the 6.7 powerstroke diesel. Yea that caught me off guard on those small engines in the 150s that they start/stop. I drive super duties a lot when working both the 6.2 gas and 6.7 diesels are workhorse boss machines. You have a lot of power under your foot with either of those power plants and they are easy to maintain and last a long time.
     
  3. jeff kushner

    jeff kushner Full Access Members

    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Location:
    Maryland
    Thanks for posting that J....I'll let my buddy know...I'm sure that he spent a good piece of change on his 250! I know that he has one of those 30 something ft Scarab type boats with dual inboards so it has to weigh in the 12-15K range. I questioned his choosing the 6.2 gas over the diesel and he said the gas engine didn't require the maintenance of the diesel nor the DEF when fueling....I suggested that his mileage is going to suck and he said "yes, but it won't change if I'm towing the boat or not"....he probably has a good point there!

    jeff
     
  4. jeff kushner

    jeff kushner Full Access Members

    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Location:
    Maryland
    I just got a good look at his F250....for those coming in at the end...My buddy here at work just bought a F250. I don't know if it's a club or crew cab but it's got lots of room in the 2nd row....but damn, that thing is huge! Even at 6 feet tall, I'd need a stepladder to deploy UNDER the foot bar!

    It's a nice truck though...make no mistake that it's a work-first truck...but it is nice.

    Here's the part that really surprises me:

    He got the 6.2 gas engine and I was surprised that it only has 20 more HP than the 3.5 and it has to spin at nearly 6 grand to get it(750 RPM higher than a 3.5)...and it only has 10 lbs more torque and it has to spin at 1500 rpm higher to get it! The engine builder (bike engines) in me is telling me that they lightened the crank & flywheel to get better mileage and they couldn't get it back with valve timing since they had to reduce the overlap also for mileage!

    What's the point of a huge(by today's standards) V8 if you have to spin it to the moon to get the power? I always thought the advantage of the big engine was that it didn't have to work as hard as a smaller one to get the same power.....not in this case it sure doesn't!

    jeff
     
  5. JExpedition07

    JExpedition07 Elite Member

    Posts:
    272
    Likes Received:
    70
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Location:
    Western New York
    I'd say reliability, no way a 3.5 can do the work and have the duration the 6.2 can for as long as it can. That's like saying the moon is purple. My fathers 16' F250 gets 15 MPG so the reverse could be argued why have a small engine when the 6.2 can do almost as good on gas in those pigs as the 3.5 would do. The SD is all about its longevity, people want 300k miles out of a gasser and the 6.2 will do it no problem. Not to discount the 3.5, but for example the owner of marina we keep bots at hauls boats weighing 15,000 pounds plus on a gasser all day everyday I just don't think a 3.5 would have it in it to take that kind of abuse but for our trucks it makes more sense because we don't pound them that hard so why sacrifice efficiency.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
  6. jeff kushner

    jeff kushner Full Access Members

    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Location:
    Maryland
    I'd say reliability, no way a 3.5 can do the work and have the duration the 6.2 can for as long as it can.

    I would normally absolutely agree with that statement because for years and years, it was true. While a smaller engine would or could be "beaten into the ground" rather easily, that big block V8 would withstand all kinds of abuse and still come back for more.

    I'm not suggesting that a 3.5 can do the work of the 6.2, not at all. My comments simply expressed surprise that the 6.2 had to work so hard to get to it's peak numbers.

    Large V8's in trucks of old, the pushers, would typically plateau their torque at lower rpm. I know that ohc engines can safely spin much faster than the push-rod engines of old but THAT is still the part that surprises me.

    jeff
     
    JExpedition07 likes this.
  7. JExpedition07

    JExpedition07 Elite Member

    Posts:
    272
    Likes Received:
    70
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Location:
    Western New York
    Oh I gotcha, yea the 6.2 does indeed have to spin a little harder to squeeze the torque out, I believe it maxes out torque around 4,000 rpm or a little above. If you ever get in one with someone hauling a lot it doesn't seem like the engine screams that much it manages pretty easily. Ford really changed the game in 2011 when they coupled the new 6.2 with the six speed, they made a gas truck that could really haul and do it almost as good as a diesel.
     
  8. Hayes Riviere

    Hayes Riviere Full Access Members

    Age:
    20
    Posts:
    88
    Likes Received:
    25
    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I looked the engine up, and I found out a lot about it. It's got 325 horsepower, 275 lb-ft of torque, a max payload of 2,250 lbs, and a max tow weight of 8500 lbs. It's not the best, but it's a lot better than I expected. Furthermore, it outperforms Ford's 3.5L F150 engine. I'm impressed, to say the least. I'm still sticking with my V8, though.
     
  9. JExpedition07

    JExpedition07 Elite Member

    Posts:
    272
    Likes Received:
    70
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Location:
    Western New York
    Off the top of my head it has 385 horses and 405 pft idk where you found those specs lol. Payload and towing is based on a truck by truck basis on chassis.
     
  10. Hayes Riviere

    Hayes Riviere Full Access Members

    Age:
    20
    Posts:
    88
    Likes Received:
    25
    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    http://www.f150hub.com/specs/2.7-ecoboost.html
     

Share This Page