Just found this about an SFE F150
#16
08-07-2014, 06:37 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: May 2003
Location: York, NE
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all fairness to that truck, it was my first new vehicle, I don't think that I had towing in mind when I bought it, however my dad had just bought a new chaparell 20 ft boat and this is what I tried to tow it with, I think this is the hard way of educating ones self about what is needed for gears, there is no doubt in my mind that if this truck had 3.73 gear set that it would have done just fine. It seems as though when we were in the sixties and seventies a camper seldom weighed more than 4 or 5000# and were often towed with a station wagon or large sedan with a big v8, when the air stream people would tow they would use something like a 300 cubic inch ford inline six or the chevy version with 292 cubes and have transmissions like a 4spd manual with a creeper first gear that you only used when you were pulling something, will this new 2.7 handle it? I think it will, but I also think that the R V industry needs to do some homework and start making rv's a little lighter, if a person wants to tent camp or buy an expensive trailmanor that folds down for aerodynamics, this truck would do just fine!
#19
08-07-2014, 09:58 PM
I've been really impressed by the 2V 4.6 mod motor in my '02 van. Not as high tech as the 2.7 but using less oil at 120k miles than it did when it was new.
I do feel better about the iron block being used on the 2.7.
George
#20
08-07-2014, 10:25 PM
#21
08-07-2014, 11:13 PM
Postmaster
The 2.7L can't be had with the max tow option so it's not Ford's pulling machine anyway.
Now I can see a salesperson talking someone into a 2.7L with references about being able to pull 8000 lbs, etc when we all know here on FTE that you still have the load the camper, add the passengers, etc.
People need to learn the limitations of their vehicles and adjust their expectation accordingly OR, buy a pulling machine and prepare for lower than advertised MPG's.
I don't know how many times we've argued this point on the 2009+ forum.
Now I can see a salesperson talking someone into a 2.7L with references about being able to pull 8000 lbs, etc when we all know here on FTE that you still have the load the camper, add the passengers, etc.
People need to learn the limitations of their vehicles and adjust their expectation accordingly OR, buy a pulling machine and prepare for lower than advertised MPG's.
I don't know how many times we've argued this point on the 2009+ forum.
#22
08-08-2014, 01:23 AM
It'll take many years before we know if it'll last as long as the 300. It's sure more complex (but so is everything). I remember the 1 barrel carb on my '78 300 inch six and the simple manifolds. I'm having a tough time envisioning 15 year old clapped out F150's driven by lawn crews with 2.7's in them. But we shall see.
I've been really impressed by the 2V 4.6 mod motor in my '02 van. Not as high tech as the 2.7 but using less oil at 120k miles than it did when it was new.
I do feel better about the iron block being used on the 2.7.
George
I've been really impressed by the 2V 4.6 mod motor in my '02 van. Not as high tech as the 2.7 but using less oil at 120k miles than it did when it was new.
I do feel better about the iron block being used on the 2.7.
George
#23
08-08-2014, 02:10 PM
#24
08-09-2014, 09:03 PM
I'm sure that's possible, but I find it unlikely they would put such a critical component into an engine without extensive durability testing. We'll see though, I don't know of any engine that's currently made with this technology.
#25
08-09-2014, 09:39 PM
#26
08-09-2014, 10:20 PM
I have no problem with this technology as long as failure mode will default to higher pressure as opposed to low pressure, I imagine this for fuel economy, parasitic drag of higher oil pressure is probably not the only reason for variable oil pressure, I can see them modulating it for advancing cam timing, I don't think this would be for building fuel pressure as in a power stroke diesel where they need 25-30,000 psi for fuel injection.
#27
08-09-2014, 10:26 PM
#28
08-09-2014, 10:32 PM
Durability testing, like they did with the 3.5 EcoBoost (which I saw torn apart at the Detroit Auto Show) is definitely a tough test, but it is a limited test that can't simulate 150k miles over 10 years in every possible climate that these trucks will live in.
Still, I would like to be optimistic, and think the 2.7 EB would be a great engine in a vehicle like the Edge or something like that.
Only time will tell what EcoBoosts will look like after 10 years. We know what the 302, 300 inch six, and mod motors look like after 10 years, and I'd say they did quite well although not totally without issues.
I'm rooting for Ford but would not be a first year buyer of a new engine with high tech features.
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
builtfordtough13
Ford vs The Competition
243
01-20-2008 05:19 PM