I would pick the 2.7, BUT it is not available in 4x4 crew with a 6.5 foot bed for some reason. 5.0 makes the Most sense I suppose...

 

I'm intrigued by the 2.7L as well. It seems more than grunty enough. I bet the mpg numbers won't be great, though.

 

Currently I have a 3.5L EB in an FX4 (3 years, 53k miles, 15.9 avg mpg)

Just ordered my '15 Platinum with the 5.0 V8.

 

Maybe I have been spoiled, but I keep reading that the eco boost s
"Should be fine for 150k-200k miles." Sorry, but I expect 300-500k out of my vehicles. I guess coming from Toyotas raises the bar for what you expect from a vehicle, but I would think these numbers are possible for the 5.0.

 

Toyota engines do have a reputation for longevity, but nowadays they are no better than any other engine out there.

If you "expect" 300-500k out of your engine, you can expect the same result basically regardless of who manufactures your engine...which is to say most gasoline engines will need to be rebuilt or replaced certainly before 500k. Perhaps, with exceptional maintenance and driving routines, you might make your goal, but you have to realize the mileage you're looking for is what Class 8 cross-country truckers are getting out of their big diesels.

Engines wear out because of cylinder / ring wear, or bottom end bearing wear / failure. This is basically the same for any engine. Adding "turbos" doesn't somehow make those basic components weaker. I think you can reasonably expect 200k miles out of the Ford EcoBoosts just by following the factory maintenance schedule. With more frequent fluid changes, and lots of highway miles, and operation in a warmer climate, than 300k is probably possible.

 

It makes me laugh to read all the "technical" arguments on this site while knowing that half those people can't figure out how to change a brake pad. Just a general observation. Not calling out any particular person.

I also find it funny that V-8 lovers are down to literally one choice.

 

I guess I'll throw in my lot. I tend to place performance higher in my ranking of priorities than some people would so my stack-up reflects that.

3.5 naturally aspirated --- There will always be a small group of people, very boring people, that will buy the base engine regardless of what that engine is. Not me. Just not interested in the most anemic engine in the group.

2.7 Ecoboost --- This gets a shoulder shrug from me. Just too far down the power lineup. And that engine will be working super hard just to be average. But I also think a lot of people would be fine with it. Just please, Ford, don't make it wear a 2.7L badge. Nobody wants to wear that badge on a full size truck, not even people that want the engine!

I currently own a 3.5L Ecoboost and I would do it again. I could have a 5.0L but it would have to be pretty modified for me to be happy with it. It is crazy easy and cheap to add 100 Hp and even more torque to an Ecoboost with a $400 tuner. The Gen II engine might go 500+ Hp with the same easy mod. I can make a 5.0L go faster but it takes a lot more money and effort and I'm not willing to do that. And the Ecoboost is so quiet! I've grown to like that more and more in a daily driver. I have a car with a very rowdy 427 if I want to be loud.

In reality I'm not buying anything. I'll just keep driving what I have.

 

My guess is that the base 3.5NA engine is actually a really good engine, if you don't mind it not being super gutsy - it will probably be very reliable and more fuel efficient than at least the 3.5L turbo engine. What's interesting is that for the vast majority of the folks who will buy a new crew-cab 4x4 pickup of this generation with the primary purpose of commuting and going to the mall, this base engine would be perfectly fine.

 

i picked the 3.5 turbo because i had good experences with it would consider the 2.7

 

Anytime you ask less cubes to do more work, longevity suffers. Given all things being equal amongst the other engines, what they're being asked to accomplish in any given period of time and environment.

 

I currently own the 3.7l. The 5.0 got better mileage...until...sniff, sniff, the guy turned left in front of me...snif and I couldn't find a 5.0...sniff. I think the 5.0 is the most efficient engine for a vehicle that size and 700 pounds doesn't change that.

 

The 3.5 and the 2.7 were built specifically to handle Turbos and Direct Injection therefore all things are NOT equal. There are many high mileage examples of EcoBoost engines roaming the planet.

 

No there aren't. The reason we don't run single cylinder engines or twins in trucks in because the combination is not efficient. Same thing with 4's and 6's and pretty soon even the most unwise will realize the v8 even gets the best mileage for most people's normal driving.

 

Looks like we need a history lesson:

From Wiki:The 300 cu in (4.9 L) six was added for the F-series in 1965. It was essentially a 240 cu in (3.9 L) with a longer stroke. The two engines are nearly identical; the differences are in the rotating assembly and combustion chamber sizes in the head (although the heads are interchangeable). It produced 170 hp (127 kW) (gross). The 300 became the base F-series engine in 1978 at 114 hp (85 kW) (hp number changes due to Ford switching to net power ratings in 1971). Power outputs were increased to roughly 122 hp (91 kW) during the early 1980s, before fuel injection was introduced. This became the primary engine of the line, eclipsing the 240. Unlike the Falcon engine, it featured separate intake and exhaust manifolds, which could be easily replaced with aftermarket manifolds offering the promise of even more power, through the installation of larger carburetors and a higher flowing exhaust system.

Also during the late sixties and early seventies, the 300 was used in larger vehicles such as dump trucks, many weighing into the 15,000–20,000 pound (7,000–9,000 kg) range. These 300s were equipped with a higher flow HD (Heavy Duty) exhaust manifold, since the engines were going to be constantly working in the 3000–4000 rpm range. These rare, yet effective manifolds had higher flow than the electronic fuel injection 4.9 (300) manifolds and some headers.[citation needed]

Engine sizes were converted to metric for 1983, causing the 300 to become the "4.9". Fuel injection and other changes in 1987 pushed output up to 145 hp (108 kW) with 8.8:1 compression. This engine was gradually phased out, ending production in 1996, and was replaced by the Essex V6 in the F-series trucks with their 1997 redesign. However, it was renowned for its durability, low end torque, and ease of service. The 300 4.9 came with the Ford C6, E4OD, AOD, ZF S5-42 and S5-47 transmissions, as well as the Mazda built M5OD 5-speed manual transmission, and the Borg-Warner T18 and New Process NP435 4-speed manual transmissions. The 4.9-liter 6-cylinder was built in the Cleveland, Ohio engine plant.

This engine is also used by Stewart and Stevenson in the MA Baggage Tow Tractor (pdf), and Harlan in their standard tow tractors [1], as well as a multitude of other pieces of equipment, such as ski lifts, power generators, wood chippers, tractors, and, until they converted to diesel engines, most UPS trucks. Many UPS trucks still use the 300 to this day.

In stationary service (generators and pumps) fueled with LPG or natural gas, this engine is known as the CSG-649.

Some people here are so wrapped up by power and number of cylinders that they forgot how big trucks used to be powered.

 

X2, more cylinders spread out the load and make it easier for the engine to run and perform work, hence less wear and more longevity. Your putting more pressure on 6 sets of rings vs. 8 sets of rings and journals.