It's still weird for me to wrap my mind around the thought of a 2.7 V6 in a truck.

However.......

My 5.8 = 210/315 vs 2.7 = 325/375

WTF

 

I test drove all the engines available last weekend and the 2.7 was very nimble and quick the 5.0 felt strong as well ....I honestly didn't get on the 3.5 ecoboost hard but it was easy to feel that motor could launch that truck easily uphill in a hurricane I drove a non turbo V6 as well and it felt fine but lacked the real uuumph plus with similar cost to 2.7 I don't see why someone would want the non turbo V6

 

351W engine family is nearly 60 years old. Out with the old in with the new!

 

That's definitely true, but I sure love the sound of the old 351 under acceleration.

 

The 60 years old 5.8L and 7.5L engines were far less expensive to own and maintain than today's EB engines are. And they can be made to perform as well too.

 

I think the hood fell on your head one too many times.

 

5.0 gets better mpg working then the 3.5 on every forum I have seen.

I tried closing the deal on a rclb 3.5 Eco, but they are hens tooth rare, and was doing a ton of research then.

 

Can they be made to make as much power? Certainly. Will they get the same MPG at that power? I doubt it.

I love my 351W dearly, but I think these new EB engines are good too.

 

The 5.8L can't be made to get the same MPG towing as the EB with the old 4spd automatic transmission. But they are close with the correct heads and cam selection for a lot less money. The 7.5L can do a little better towing with the proper cam and heads and a little more compression. (No replacement for displacement) And both of the OHV engines are naturally aspirated making them less complex. Less complexity = less cost.

 

DAMN!! I wish you would have told me that earlier! When I was looking for a new truck I had it down to two possible options: a new 2012, or a 1982. If I had only known, then I would have chosen the 1982 instead.

It just makes me sick to think of how I let that '82 slip away. And now I have to drive this 2012 instead. Oh well, maybe next time.

 

I canʻt wrap my mind around the $40,000 price tags. A truck I configured on the Ford website priced out at $41,000.

Sorry to say my dreams of owning a NEW truck are diminishing pretty quick.

I may go with just spending money on my Bronco instead (with a 351).

I would rather spend $20,000 on the Bronco and put the other $20,000 in the bank (for gas).

Only time (and my wife) will tell on the future of a new 2.7 EB.

 

The EB because of hp/weight ratio will out accel the 5.0 off the line, but 30-50 & 50-70 mph...the 5.0 wins hands down...imho

 

Cheaper to maintain? C'mon Greg, you can't mean that. My ecoboost is the first ultra modern engine that I've ever owned and after 47K miles I've settled into a 6K-7K mile oil dump cycle.

My older push rod engines, 300, 302 and 351 each needed 3K oil changes, plugs, wires and rotor cap changes every 30K, air filter every oil change, PCV valve change every oil change, front end broken down and 4x4 hubs cleaned and repacked every 30K, coolant change every 30K. Tell me when to stop!

 

All one has to do is look at the flat rate times for labor and it's obvious the old push rod engines are far cheaper to own, Tim. The parts are also less expensive. One can run 5K oil change intervals on a push rod engine as well. It's all about how the vehicle is driven. All city driving on any vehicle warrants severe service duty cycle requiring more frequent oil changes, etc. Never had to repack front wheel bearings oftener than every 60K on the old trucks. And repacking on the older trucks costs much less than replacing on the newer trucks. I would not recommend running the platinum plugs longer than 60K on any new engine. And I have never had to change plugs more often than 50K on a fuel injected push rod engine either. But if we could get a six speed automatic in the old stuff it would be the best of both worlds imo.

 

Edmunds is currently undertaking a long-term review of a new 2015 F150 2.7L eco-boost. As part of their review they provide monthly updates as to the performance of the vehicle being tested. Also, each month they update fuel consumption. The truck they're testing has just over 1,000 miles on it so likely it is not fully broken but, the average fuel consumption is 15 MPG to this point - combined.

In a word that mileage SUCKS!!!