2.7 eco boost gets 18.5 mpg average according to Motor Trend

Mich,

What is the premium for the 2.7? It looks like the 2.0 eco boost on the Escape is about a 1500 dollar option. Now if your not paying cash then there is the added interest. After the warranty there is going to be a much higher repair cost if you are planning to keep it for a while. Of course I say that because of the complexity of a turbo engine.

Also when used under hard driving the 3.5 is recommended to use premium fuel. I would suspect the same will be true for the 2.7.

Taking all that into consideration why not take the more capable and just as efficient 3.5 eco boost? It has about the same premium at purchase.

buddyIam wrote:
I paid 2.99 per gallon yesterday. 3 mpg is going to be a real hard sell.

I drive 15-20k per year. So that is $500-$700 per year savings. That would almost cover the auto insurance policy for the year.

how long do you think it will be $2.99? A year, two maybe?
Who buys a vehicle on a fuel price 'snapshot'?

I paid 2.99 per gallon yesterday. 3 mpg is going to be a real hard sell.

I know I started out with the 5.3 in my topic title. But the article goes on to talk about a number of engines.

A steel body 3.5 is just 1 mpg behind the aluminum body 2.7. If the aluminum body does indeed save the mpg claimed. Comparing the numbers, it looks as if the 2.7 is not as good a value as the 3.5.

buddyIam wrote:
Comparing by percentages can be a bit confusing. And still be 100% correct. For instance. 2 mpg is 100% better than 1 mpg. And 1 mpg is 50% of 2mpg. But neither is a great MPG number.

2.7 eco boost is 16.6/21.5/18.5
5.3 is 13/19/15.2 This is a steel bodied truck
3.5 Eco is 15/21/17 I believe this is a steel body figure.
3.7 ford gas is 16/21/18 I believe this and 3.5 eco numbers are with steel body last years model.

Ram Eco diesel is 18.6/25.8/21.2

It seems to me that the comfort and drivability of the V8 would make it a much more desirable vehicle than the 2.7.

It seems that the 3.5 eco boost might be the sweet spot for Power vs. economy. It takes a precise amount of fuel to make HP. It may be that at 3.5 liter you start to find much smaller gain by reducing cubic inches. When both engines are in the same truck at the same weight.

Your numbers aren't quite apples to apples, as I read the test. The numbers for the 2.7, 5.3, and Ecodiesel are their own as-tested numbers. The economy for the 3.5 Eco and 3.7 they quote are the EPA numbers, and not Motortrend's 'real world' result. In comparison, if I recall, Motortrend had an overall average of 14.7 mpg for their year-long test of a 2011 Ecoboost 3.5.

So under apparently the same conditions, the 2.7 did 25% better than the 5.3, while putting out similar power numbers. Seems like a win-win to me, especially where the 2.7's power is at lower rpm than the naturally aspirated 5.3, and therefore somewhat more 'accessible.'

I know, an improvement of 'only' 3 mpg doesn't jump out at you, but 25% is 25%, whether it is 15 to 18 or 30 to 40.

My own 'real world' view of the EB -- I get right on the epa numbers so far, with highway tanks in the 21 mpg range and my usual combined commuting tank between 17 and 18. My lifetime over 7k miles thus far, including about 1100 miles of towing, is 17.4.

If you are not towing and the regular 3.7 numbers are with a steel body. City driving is better MPG with the 3.7. And the 2.7 comes at a premium at initial purchase.

I hope there are a great many vehicles available for delivery or running around that provide greater than 16.6 mpg in the city.

buddyIam wrote:
It sounds like a good review. But I am not impressed by the MPG. If the 3.5 eco numbers are indeed steel body numbers. It should just about equal the 2.7 when outfitted in the aluminum body.
The comfort and drivability I am speaking of is that with more horse power and torque I would expect an engine such as the 3.5 eco or even the 5.3 would pull with a lot less RPM.

That is fair. I don't think the 2.7 will be marketed to the towing crowd. The city mpg is much greater (almost 30%) than the v8. That is where the gain will be. Does not fit what I need a truck for but most of my driving is city so there can be considerable fuel cost savings if you were not pulling every weekend.

It sounds like a good review. But I am not impressed by the MPG. If the 3.5 eco numbers are indeed steel body numbers. It should just about equal the 2.7 when outfitted in the aluminum body.
The comfort and drivability I am speaking of is that with more horse power and torque I would expect an engine such as the 3.5 eco or even the 5.3 would pull with a lot less RPM.

I'm not sure why you think those are not good gains. The article seems to indicate that the truck performed well. Did you read that they did not like the comfort and drivability of the 2.7? It sounded like a good review to me.