In the video explaining the features/changes, the spokesperson said 10.5:1.

So there are some differences depending on the source?

 

So, it's an all new engine. Still aluminum with the same bore and stroke. They must have engineered it to allow future power udates or perhaps displacement increases. Maybe there will be a larger displacement variant for the Super Duty.

I'm still curious about the architecture and construction of the 2.7 EB. Was it initially designed as a diesel? I'm surprised that Ford didn't base the new 3.5 EB on it.

 

The Raptor compression is probably lower to allow for an increase in boost.

 

Well the EcoBoost was first launched in 2007 under TwinForce, so I doubt the CGI block was even considered. Maybe the CGI block was used to show it could be done on a gas engine or maybe for cylinder bore longevity.

 

The first EcoBoost engine in a production vehicle was in 2010. TwinForce was the name of the engine in a concept car, and nothing more.

The 2.7L makes a much higher specific horsepower than the 3.5L. 120 HP/liter for the 2.7L vs 104 HP/liter for the 3.5L.

I don't believe any of Ford's plants are tooled to manufacture a CGI block. If I remember right the 2.7L block comes from the Tupy foundry in Brazil, just like the 6.7L Powerstroke block.

 

We had a couple BMW's that had GM designed transmission plus my wife tends to like GM vehicles so we've had a few of those as well. The transmissions in what we owned were very good.

 

I share your concern about Ford developing a transmission with GM, but I'd be even more concerned if Chrysler was involved. They haven't done a decent transmission in 30 years!

 

Rolls Royce used to use GM Turbo Hydramatic 400's in its cars because they were regarded as the best automatic transmissions available in their day. (They were also used on some Jaguars, Ferraris, and Bentleys.)

Powerglides are still widely used in modern drag race applications--although they are significantly modified.

I did have a '96 Savana van from hell with a 4L60E that got 7 new valve bodies and 3 new transmissions in 60k miles, however... I sold it very soon after my 60k warranty expired because of the trans and many other problems.

The Ford/GM joint FWD 6 speed has been mostly OK, with mostly software problems in its first couple years. (I believe it was introduced in 2007 in the Edge.) Interestingly, Ford and GM collaborated on the design(s), but each automaker builds its own transmissions. There is a lower torque version for the Escape and a bigger one for Edge and bigger vehicles.

The old Chrysler 727 Torqueflites were great for drag racing and sturdy, but I agree that their newer transmissions are troubled (and I just bought a Grand Caravan--for which I should buy an extended warranty).

BMW's should have manual transmissions I've got a '91 318is with a sweet Getrag 5 speed manual.

George

 

I agree the GM Powerglide and the Turbo-350 & 400 were bulletproof, but that was a long time ago. Even the 700R4 was strong, but that's long gone as well. This is a new era in which transmissions are becoming increasingly complex and I fear somewhat less durable

 

I had two Edges, a 2007 and 2013, with the 6 speed Ford-GM automatic and both were flawless. Not only with regards to the transmission but in all regards. Nice cars.

 

I think it's the opposite to be honest. Ten years ago it was quite common to hear of failures with the old 4-speed transmissions. A decade later it's downright rare to hear of anything breaking in the newer designs. The 5R110 is now 13 years old, and is widely regarded to be one of the most reliable transmissions on the market.

The 6R80 used in current-gen F150s is a licensed version of the ZF 6HP26 that's been used since 2002 in all manner of foreign cars. I can't remember the last time I read of one of these failing, and some of them have over 200,000 miles on them now. Likewise the 6-speed FWD transmissions...you don't really hear of them failing very often. I think modern transmissions are far more reliable than the old designs despite the complexity.

 

I think the only issues now are mostly glitches in shift points which are taken care of by the dealer.

 

I've noticed a trend that any innovation in the last decade or so has been labelled "unreliable" by a certain segment of the population.

My experience has been that since the eighties, cars and trucks have all gotten much more reliable and cheaper to operate.

I have zero hesitation about the reliability of this new transmission. If I can get myself into a position to buy one, I will be really excited about the extra gears, and increased torque of the EcoBoost.

 

Yeah, no lie.

 

It was rare for a 1960's or 1970's car to go 100k miles without major engine or transmission problems. Something like a rich-running carburetor (which is as sophisticated as a cheap lawnmower carb these days) could dissolve piston rings and kill an engine, whereas modern fuel injection ensures a perfect air-fuel ratio.

Likewise, auto transmissions are electronically controlled with strict parameters involving a LOT of information from sensors all over the car. In the old days they use all manner of mechanical and vacuum systems to control their shifting which, like carburetors, were kind of random in their operation.

So yeah, I'll take a new car over an oldie for reliability. It used to take an hour to change out a water pump, but they often went only 40k or 50k miles before they started leaking.

And cars don't get rust holes in 4 or 5 years like they used to.

George