Chevy 4cyl Turbo

[GWolfe]

Chevy 4cyl turbo.

I hesitated to post this here because of the 1/2 ton is worthless 6700 lbs ain't nothing crowd here but for some people this may be all you need.

I bet this thing pulls better than my 2011 5.3l.

[patperry2766]

I stand corrected. It is the 3.5L ecoboost that has an internal water pump in the FWD cars, not the trucks.

[FishOnOne]

patperry2766 wrote:
I had a 2.7 Crew 4x4 loaner when my truck with a 5.0 was in for service one time. I was really suprised at the performance that the engine could muster. I had to pop the hood to see which engine was in the truck. I thought maybe a 5.0 or the 3.5. I felt it compared almost head up with the 5.0.

If I was needing to replace my current truck and didn't plan on needing more capacity in the future, I'd look long and hard at the 2.7.

However, I'd probably still end up going with the 5.0. The reason for me is that the 3.5 & 2.7 have an internal water pump housed behind the timing chain cover. If the water pump ever starts leaking, all the fluids will go into the oilpan leading to a potentially destroyed engine. Just like the 3.0 diesel that has a timing belt instead of a timing chain that has a 100K mile replacement, it's just something that I wouldn't want to take that risk.

To others, it might not be that big of a deal to them.

The 2.7 and 3.5 used in the F150's have external water pumps

[jaycocamprs]

AlmostAnOldGuy wrote:

jaycocamprs wrote:

Have a 18 SCREW company truck, 12k since new running 23.5-24 over that 12K miles. That compares to the 11 reg cab F150 with a 5.0 that it replaced got 19 MPG over the 40K I drove it. I run a lot of highway miles with no load.

How do you like the 2.7 compared to the 5.0 re: rpms, holding gears, general impressions?

Take it easy,
Stu

For what I use the truck for it's fine. Holds gears well, and gear spacing is very close. RPM stays pretty low, often don't notice the 10-9 down shift. Always seems to be in the right gear, none of the this gear is to low and the next to high. Runs about 1900 rpm @ 75 mph. Never towed with either truck, that's what the DuraMax is for. It does shift more than the 5.0/6 speed, but not badly. I would likely spring for the 5.0 if I was going to tow, the 2.7 does not hold back well at all. Lot's of go, just no whoa. And I don't like the engine stop start on the turbos either.

I find the 18 Ford cab harder to get into than the 11 ford or my 18 Chevy. My knee hits the light switch and the steering wheel doesn't go up enough, fine once in but...

For hauling me and my suitcase around it does good. The increased mileage of the 18 plus a bigger fuel tank than the 11 is good thing

[ksss]

patperry2766 wrote:
I had a 2.7 Crew 4x4 loaner when my truck with a 5.0 was in for service one time. I was really suprised at the performance that the engine could muster. I had to pop the hood to see which engine was in the truck. I thought maybe a 5.0 or the 3.5. I felt it compared almost head up with the 5.0.

If I was needing to replace my current truck and didn't plan on needing more capacity in the future, I'd look long and hard at the 2.7.

However, I'd probably still end up going with the 5.0. The reason for me is that the 3.5 & 2.7 have an internal water pump housed behind the timing chain cover. If the water pump ever starts leaking, all the fluids will go into the oilpan leading to a potentially destroyed engine. Just like the 3.0 diesel that has a timing belt instead of a timing chain that has a 100K mile replacement, it's just something that I wouldn't want to take that risk.

To others, it might not be that big of a deal to them.

I just had to replace the water pump on an 08 Duramax 160K on it. First significant repair of its life, but I found there was a weep hole in the pump that if the seal failed it would leak out instead of into the internals. Are you sure that Ford doesnt do that as well, I had no idea it was there on the Dmax either until the problem developed and it was explained to me.

[AlmostAnOldGuy]

Delete

[patperry2766]

I had a 2.7 Crew 4x4 loaner when my truck with a 5.0 was in for service one time. I was really suprised at the performance that the engine could muster. I had to pop the hood to see which engine was in the truck. I thought maybe a 5.0 or the 3.5. I felt it compared almost head up with the 5.0.

If I was needing to replace my current truck and didn't plan on needing more capacity in the future, I'd look long and hard at the 2.7.

However, I'd probably still end up going with the 5.0. The reason for me is that the 3.5 & 2.7 have an internal water pump housed behind the timing chain cover. If the water pump ever starts leaking, all the fluids will go into the oilpan leading to a potentially destroyed engine. Just like the 3.0 diesel that has a timing belt instead of a timing chain that has a 100K mile replacement, it's just something that I wouldn't want to take that risk.

To others, it might not be that big of a deal to them.

[AlmostAnOldGuy]

jaycocamprs wrote:

Groover wrote:

My brother has a 2017 F150 2wd supercrew with the 2.7 turbo and he claims to get over 25 on the interstates at 70+ mph.

The Ford 2.7 seems to be one of the most overlooked engines in the market. I would like to see a showdown between the two 2.7 turbos, including price after current incentives.

Have a 18 SCREW company truck, 12k since new running 23.5-24 over that 12K miles. That compares to the 11 reg cab F150 with a 5.0 that it replaced got 19 MPG over the 40K I drove it. I run a lot of highway miles with no load.

How do you like the 2.7 compared to the 5.0 re: rpms, holding gears, general impressions?

Take it easy,
Stu

[jaycocamprs]

Groover wrote:

My brother has a 2017 F150 2wd supercrew with the 2.7 turbo and he claims to get over 25 on the interstates at 70+ mph.

The Ford 2.7 seems to be one of the most overlooked engines in the market. I would like to see a showdown between the two 2.7 turbos, including price after current incentives.

Have a 18 SCREW company truck, 12k since new running 23.5-24 over that 12K miles. That compares to the 11 reg cab F150 with a 5.0 that it replaced got 19 MPG over the 40K I drove it. I run a lot of highway miles with no load.

[rjstractor]

bucky wrote:
A downhill towing report? Why?

To see how the truck handles the load on a downhill grade, how many brake applications, how well does tow/haul mode work, how well does the exhaust brake (if equipped) work, etc. Seems like pretty valid info.

[bucky]

A downhill towing report? Why?

[Groover]

AlmostAnOldGuy wrote:
Some of our best camping was in a 2wd Ford with the 4.6 pulling a pop up. Expect this engine would do just fine for many folks.

Just for comparison

Chevy 2.7 I4 turbo - Al block
310 hp
348 ft lbs torque
EPA 20/19/22 - 4WD

Ford 2.7 v6 turbo - CGI block
325 hp
400 ft lbs torque
20/18/23 - 4WD

Take it easy,
Stu

The 2.7 Ford turbo is rated to pull 7,600lbs in the standard truck and up 9,000 with the max payload package.

Ford towing guide, third page

My brother has a 2017 F150 2wd supercrew with the 2.7 turbo and he claims to get over 25 on the interstates at 70+ mph.

The Ford 2.7 seems to be one of the most overlooked engines in the market. I would like to see a showdown between the two 2.7 turbos, including price after current incentives.

[GWolfe]

While I do find it interesting and it probably would out pull my 5.3 I'll stick with whats proven, and paid for.

TFL did manage to get 24 MPG on their test loop in this truck which isn't too bad. I wish they could test the trucks at 80 mph when not towing, thats where my speed is at when going up to KC to see Mom. I get around 16 at that speed in my present truck.

[AlmostAnOldGuy]

Some of our best camping was in a 2wd Ford with the 4.6 pulling a pop up. Expect this engine would do just fine for many folks.

Just for comparison

Chevy 2.7 I4 turbo - Al block
310 hp
348 ft lbs torque
EPA 20/19/22 - 4WD

Ford 2.7 v6 turbo - CGI block
325 hp
400 ft lbs torque
20/18/23 - 4WD

Take it easy,
Stu

[Groover]

noteven wrote:
If I paid for a eleventeen speed transmission I want it to do lots of shifting. 🙂

I don't know about that, it sounds pretty shifty to me.