2.7L, dual cam chains and Iron block. My type. With the lighter truck it will perform where the 3.5L does now.

 

5.0
The 2.7 will quickly disappoint in the fuel mileage arena. All that hp and all that tq are going to come from burning fuel. Small mileage gains will be made with the lighter weight and improved transmissions. Like getting decent fuel mileage from the 3.5, you'll need tall gears and speeds at about or under 70 to get mileage to brag about. Vary from either to far and you'll be where so many 3.5 owners are. Wondering why they only get 16-18mpg............
Making power requires fuel.

 

Yes it does, but how often to you spend driving with your pedal on the floor? Because that's the only time it's making its rated power. You only make as much power as you are using, and unless you're driving on a race track increased potential engine output won't necessarily mean decreased fuel economy.

 

Tell that to those current eco boost owners that were expecting great fuel mileage because it's "only" a 3.5 V-6.
I'll be surprised if the 2.7 betters a 5.0 in real world mpg. Not EPA estimates. That 15 5.0 will also benefit from lighter weights etc.
From what I've read many 3.5 eco owners would love to MEET their EPA estimates.

 

Reading the fine print of the ordering guide the 2.7 is not available on any model above the Lariat "mid-level" (501A). Furthermore, the 2.7 has its own payload package (622) and cannot be configured with the heavy-duty payload package (627). This is very disappointing and yet very telling at the same time. If you want the "Luxury level" (502A) you need to choose between the V8 and the 3.5 EB - the same holds true for King Ranch and Platinum versions. Ford is obviously avoiding the heavier, more-optioned versions as this engine must not be able to perform very well under these configurations.

Therefore, one has to go through a lot of trouble with individual options to configure a mid-level Lariat to match the attributes of the luxury level and yet retain the alleged fuel advantages of the 2.7. Plus the discounts when ordering under the packaged offerings are lost.

 

Many 3.5L owners didn't realize what they were buying and didn't realize that the truck will pull with a numerically lower axle ratio which is enhanced by the 6R80 and the HP/TQ of the 3.5L.

 

It's interesting that the 2.7 EcoBoost is half the displacement of the Triton 5.4 V8 and has comparable (slightly better) numbers than the 5.4. That's horse power, torque and gas mileage. Clearly moving in the right direction. I just hope Ford comes out with an EcoBoost 5.0.

 

He** I'd like to see an egoboosted 6.2, but I don't think either of them will happen. J/K

 

They do that and I'm buying stock in tire manufacturers!!

 

It all honestly it wouldn't surprise me if we do eventually see a ridiculously overpowered version of the 6.2L boss or possibly a 5.0 ecoboost in a limited production vehicle. I mean, both GM and Chrysler offer supercharged 6.2Ls. Sure, they're only in cars right now, but it wouldn't be a stretch for them to go into a truck. At the very least Ford should be prepared with something to counter.

 

Ford does it's called the Shelby GT500. It has a supercharged 5.8. And I know I can vision a new lightning truck with that engine.

 

The 5.8L is dead as of next year. Apparently they're replacing the GT500 with a GT350, including a new naturally aspirated 5.2L.

 

Yes, I do actually meet the EPA numbers as advertised.

15 city/21 highway/17 combined.

Trick is if you run a lot of short trips and never get up to temp, mpgs suffer a lot.

 

For my next truck, it's going to be between. The 2.7 and 3.5 Ecoboost engines. I'm going to drive both and compare all the data before I choose. I really think the 2.7 will meet my needs though.

 

If you keep it below 70 on the interstate you will punch through 22 mpg's. If you keep it below 75 you can still get over 20. As you increase your speed past 75 the mpg's drop fast. I would like to get 22+ at 85, maybe on the next one. For me the EcoBoost was the right choice.