Turbo small displacement - displacement on demand- a winner?

[Lessmore]

Boy Ford's new 2.7 liter turbo truck engine....375 HP out of 2.7 liters(Correction....325 HP -** Thanks Fast Mopar.).....that's about 168 cubic inches. I did the conversion in my head....so that's just an approximate...I'm sure I'm out a few cubes ...+/-.

The correct cubic inches is 168.** Thanks ib516,

That's an awful lot of power being squeezed out of a relatively tiny engine....in a heavy truck that has a significant payload and towing capacity.

I think somewhere there has to be a balance...between cubic capacity....HP/torque being produced...purpose of the HP/torque.....general durability and long term longevity of certain high stress components. In this case the...high rpm, bearing cooling, capacity of the turbocharger(s).

I'm not a mechanical engineer and I'm sure Ford would have these questions resolved, before production.

But they are things that I would have in the back of my mind, if I owned a 2.7 turbo engine in a truck.

Another question is how low....cubic inch capacity....truck duty....will Ford go ?

They started with the 3.5 turbo V6 in the F 150. Now a 2.7 liter turbo V6 in an F 150 and this 2.7 puts out more HP/Torque than the original 3.5 Truck turbo V6.

How small an engine can Ford go to, in a full sized truck, with full size cargo/tow ratings ?

Where is the bottom line...for cubic inches ?

I'm not being critical, just inquiring.

GM seems to be going with larger cubic capacity, more cylinders...ie; 5.3 liter regularly aspirated (no turbo forced induction)... but with displacement on demand with 6 to 8 cylinders....than cutting out 2 to 4 cylinders under light load.

Which is better ?

Both Ford and GM are looking at the same way of achieving efficiency / improved fuel economy, while maintaining very good HP/Torque output. Same way being with reduced displacement....either permanent (fixed engine capacity, but forced induction- Ford) or varying displacement (displacement on demand, non forced induction- GM).

As with most things, eventually and probably....only one technology will win out.

Which will it be and why ?

[Hybridhunter]

hone eagle wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:
Interesting that a you know things about Ford's marketing bent that they have never said and don't know themselves.
What diesel? Are you now suggesting the f150 is competing against 6L+ diesel 2500's!?
I am now entering the twilight zone apparently......

Sorry should of been more clear - the eco diesel in the ram 1/2 ton ,thats what we were discussing no?

hone eagle wrote:


The eco is not even the direct competitor of the 5.3 ,it is to go up against the 6.2.

hone eagle wrote:
Power

Ford marketing targets the ecoboost (3.5)against the large engine of competitors.
until the 2.7 came along ,its target is the diesel.

You just said it was the competitor to the 6.2, now we compare the 360hpEB to the 240hp Ram? Good grief, you are all over the place.

I hate to break it to you, but the Ford 3.7 compares very well to the ED, just different. It is faster cheaper, and slightly less efficient, but cheaper to buy and operate. It's not a low rpm engine, and there will be commotion associated with towing bigger loads.
The ED will tow, quieter, at lower rpm, but will never do it cheaper than any of the base engines. It will be more "relaxed", and please the diesel crowd. For a part timer who is not into spending cash on a warm fuzzy feeling, and does not care which fuel it takes, those are the facts. Add the ford ecoboost into the mix and it destroys the ED performance wise, and the ED will destroy it mileage wise. I'd bet the overall cost would be similar, unless you need a 2000# payload, in which case the ED is not an option anyhow. Which will last longer? That's a toss up too, as the Ford will be using far less of it's designed power capacity, it's just not a fair comparison.
The 2.7 EB will be more efficient, but most numbers will be skewed along the same lines as the 3.5EB vs 3.0ED
Probably better to get back on track discussing gas engine fuel saving tech, as per the OP, because diesel vs gas engine debates around here turn into philosophical debates, not factual ones.

[Hybridhunter]

deleted

[hone_eagle]

brulaz wrote:

hone eagle wrote:

...
the closer match is 3.5 to 6.2
...

In terms of torque and HP, the 3.5L EcoB has more than Ford's 6.2L V8 upto about 3500-4000 rpm. Then the big V8 takes over.

Just talking about peak torque and HP are not that useful IMHO.

Please read back more then one post

[brulaz]

hone eagle wrote:

...
the closer match is 3.5 to 6.2
...

In terms of torque and HP, the 3.5L EcoB has more than Ford's 6.2L V8 upto about 3500-4000 rpm. Then the big V8 takes over.

Just talking about peak torque and HP are not that useful IMHO.

[hone_eagle]

All conversation on enthusiast forums (GMI or BON) when this comes up - 5.3vs 3.5 - the poster is quickly reminded by both Ford or G.M. fans "the ecoboost is to be compared the larger engine" its only fair.
True it will be argued back and forth but not too much.
The points are usually -the ford is the higher cost option so compare it to the G.M. higher cost engine.
Or
power to power
Or
mileage to mileage
the closer match is 3.5 to 6.2
just saying what they say

[hone_eagle]

Hybridhunter wrote:
Interesting that a you know things about Ford's marketing bent that they have never said and don't know themselves.
What diesel? Are you now suggesting the f150 is competing against 6L+ diesel 2500's!?
I am now entering the twilight zone apparently......

Sorry should of been more clear - the eco diesel in the ram 1/2 ton ,thats what we were discussing no?

[Lessmore]

hone eagle wrote:
Power

Ford marketing targets the ecoboost (3.5)against the large engine of competitors.
until the 2.7 came along ,its target is the diesel.

I think you're right. I know a buddy recently bought a new F 150. He chose the 5 liter V8, as he likes V8's and he didn't want a turbo.

He also chose the 5 liter V8 as HP figures were similar to that of the 3.5 Turbo V6.

He was also looking at the GM with the 5.3 V8.

I would say the F150, 5 liter V8, 3.5 turbo V6 and GM 5.3 V8 are all around the same HP level and therefore, competitive options.

I don't know why Ford introduced the 2.7 turbo V6, but better MPG...than the Ford V8, turbo V6 and GM 5.3 V8 sounds plausible as the reason. If this is the case, I could see the Ford 2.7 turbo as more competitive with the Dodge 1500's, smaller TD.

Ford seems to be making every effort to offer available engines for every possible need.

Takes me back to the '60's where both Ford and Chevy in the horsepower race of that era, both offered customers...a large number of different power levels. Everything from low powered sixes, small, then intermediate V8's...to powerhouse big block V8's.

Since that era, it has been more difficult for manufacturers to offer such a broad range of power plants.

Ford seems to be bringing back the old days, by providing a wide range of power and different engine options.

[Hybridhunter]

Interesting that a you know things about Ford's marketing bent that they have never said and don't know themselves.
What diesel? Are you now suggesting the f150 is competing against 6L+ diesel 2500's!?
I am now entering the twilight zone apparently......

[hone_eagle]

Power

Ford marketing targets the ecoboost (3.5)against the large engine of competitors.
until the 2.7 came along ,its target is the diesel.

[Hybridhunter]

hone eagle wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:
Are we now judging the inherent goodness of vehicle based on how it burns? What a waste of mental effort and time with such a discussion.

On topic - What CR says on the matter is that in general ecoboost engines don't do so well comparatively, but the 3.5EB gets within 1 mpg of the newer GM 5.3DI engine, while performing very similar. CR strangely has the only test I have seen where the 5.3 slightly edges out the 3.5EB, but they do complain about the lack of response from the GM, which is one way it achieves better mileage, I believe GM euphemistically calls it "electronic coaching".

The eco is not even the direct competitor of the 5.3 ,it is to go up against the 6.2.

How do you figure that? Ford's 6.2 would be the equivalent. In 2015, Ford has no flagship bragging rights engine, but for 2014, the Eco was the direct competitor, as the 3.5EB is the optional volume engine, as is the 5.3, without a doubt. Or do you consider the second from the top engine vs the top engine a fair direct comparison? Or do you need to stack the deck with 55hp more to make it close?

If you need, go back to 2013, and realize that the 3.7/4.3, 5.0/4.6, 3.5eb/5.3, 6.2/6.0 are the comparison engines - Outclassed power wise or not, that was how they line up.
The uprated 5.3 compares well to the 4 model year old 3.5EB, or the 5.0

For 2015, there is no direct comparison again, as the Ford has 1 more option than the GM, and the 5.0 is the horsepower engine. GM has nothing that compares to the 2.7Eb, and the 3.5 bas engine in the Ford seems like a bad joke to push folks into the 2.7

[Lessmore]

Fordlover wrote:

Lessmore wrote:
I'm the OP and I have 'noticed' :B that my thread has quite a number of aluminum/magnesium melting point posts. Kind of drifted off my original topic a bit, eh.

So, I would ask if people want to discuss the merits of aluminum, magnesium and melting points...this might be a great idea for another thread.

Les

We now return to regular and scheduled programming. 😄

Sorry OP, read this after my previous post. I will make said previous post my last on that topic. Mea culpa!

Thanks Fordlover, much appreciated.

Les

[hone_eagle]

Hybridhunter wrote:
Are we now judging the inherent goodness of vehicle based on how it burns? What a waste of mental effort and time with such a discussion.

On topic - What CR says on the matter is that in general ecoboost engines don't do so well comparatively, but the 3.5EB gets within 1 mpg of the newer GM 5.3DI engine, while performing very similar. CR strangely has the only test I have seen where the 5.3 slightly edges out the 3.5EB, but they do complain about the lack of response from the GM, which is one way it achieves better mileage, I believe GM euphemistically calls it "electronic coaching".

The eco is not even the direct competitor of the 5.3 ,it is to go up against the 6.2.

[Hybridhunter]

Are we now judging the inherent goodness of vehicle based on how it burns? What a waste of mental effort and time with such a discussion.

On topic - What CR says on the matter is that in general ecoboost engines don't do so well comparatively, but the 3.5EB gets within 1 mpg of the newer GM 5.3DI engine, while performing very similar. CR strangely has the only test I have seen where the 5.3 slightly edges out the 3.5EB, but they do complain about the lack of response from the GM, which is one way it achieves better mileage, I believe GM euphemistically calls it "electronic coaching".

[Fordlover]

Lessmore wrote:
I'm the OP and I have 'noticed' :B that my thread has quite a number of aluminum/magnesium melting point posts. Kind of drifted off my original topic a bit, eh.

So, I would ask if people want to discuss the merits of aluminum, magnesium and melting points...this might be a great idea for another thread.

Les

We now return to regular and scheduled programming. 😄

Sorry OP, read this after my previous post. I will make said previous post my last on that topic. Mea culpa!