Go Back  Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > General > General Automotive Discussion
Reload this Page >

Question of the Week: 2.7L EcoBoost or New Diesel?

Notices
General Automotive Discussion

Question of the Week: 2.7L EcoBoost or New Diesel?

 
  #1  
Old 02-05-2016, 03:33 PM
Patrick R.
Patrick R. is online now
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 135
Patrick R. is starting off with a positive reputation.
Question of the Week: 2.7L EcoBoost or New Diesel?

If you are planning on buying a future Ford F150 based on superior fuel economy, would you pick the 2.7L EcoBoost V6 - which is the most efficient gasoline engine in the segment - or the upcoming diesel engine - which will most likely be the best overall truck in the half ton segment in terms of MPG.

Keep in mind that the diesel will likely cost a couple grand more, so is the extra fuel economy worth it to you?
 
  #2  
Old 02-05-2016, 04:22 PM
LSchicago2's Avatar
LSchicago2
LSchicago2 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,676
LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.
5.0. Mine gets mid 20's driven easy unloaded.
 
  #3  
Old 02-05-2016, 04:54 PM
JKBrad's Avatar
JKBrad
JKBrad is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,507
JKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to behold
The 2.7 should be the least expensive to operate overall, even if the rumored diesel gets 3-4 MPG better. Take the purchase premium (est. 4K), the difference in fuel costs (not that significant at this time) and the maintenance costs (likely double the 2.7). The 2.7 would be my choice if saving actual money overall, vs at the pump, was the goal.

Now, if you just like diesels, go for it. Ford has proven themselves with the 6.7, I would hope that the proposed diesel engine for the F150 would be equally as well engineered. If it is the 3.0, I Imagine it would also find it's way into the Expedition and possibly the Explorer.

No news from Ford, so the F150 spotted could be simply a test mule for the engine that would be destined for another platform such as the upcoming Ranger. Any and all F150 diesel discussion is just wild speculation at this point.
 
  #4  
Old 02-06-2016, 04:19 AM
DSPEagle71
DSPEagle71 is offline
New User
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4
DSPEagle71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I would spend the extra on the diesel. Additional factors include the durability and longevity of the engine, lesser amount spent on maintenance coupled with the higher fuel economy, which results in a payoff in the long-term.
 
  #5  
Old 02-06-2016, 08:23 PM
JKBrad's Avatar
JKBrad
JKBrad is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,507
JKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to beholdJKBrad is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by DSPEagle71 View Post
I would spend the extra on the diesel. Additional factors include the durability and longevity of the engine, lesser amount spent on maintenance coupled with the higher fuel economy, which results in a payoff in the long-term.
Lesser spent on maintenance? More like double. Twice the oil, more filters, DEF. It's not like the old 7.3 days. Diesels today are expensive to buy and expensive to maintain. Thank the EPA.
 
  #6  
Old 02-06-2016, 08:59 PM
RainDesert's Avatar
RainDesert
RainDesert is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,451
RainDesert has a good reputation on FTE.RainDesert has a good reputation on FTE.RainDesert has a good reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by Patrick R. View Post
If you are planning on buying a future Ford F150 based on superior fuel economy, would you pick the 2.7L EcoBoost V6 - which is the most efficient gasoline engine in the segment - or the upcoming diesel engine - which will most likely be the best overall truck in the half ton segment in terms of MPG.

Keep in mind that the diesel will likely cost a couple grand more, so is the extra fuel economy worth it to you?
2.7, not even close. Maybe if we were talking "Triton" motor days it would be a little more of an argument. The EB makes diesel power while attaining good mpg's without sacrificing reliability. My local dealer sells Ford/Ram, it is roughly 100-1 EB's to EcoDiesels. Someone is always going to be a buyer to chase mpg's in a 1/2 ton, but don't call me to give you a ride when you're truck's down.....
 
  #7  
Old 02-07-2016, 01:03 AM
DSPEagle71
DSPEagle71 is offline
New User
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4
DSPEagle71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by JKBrad View Post
Lesser spent on maintenance? More like double. Twice the oil, more filters, DEF. It's not like the old 7.3 days. Diesels today are expensive to buy and expensive to maintain. Thank the EPA.
Having both a 7.3 Powerstroke (1999 F250 SuperCab) and a 6.7 Powerstroke (2015 F250 Crew Cab), I can state that if I follow the recommended fluid changes as stated in the manuals to the letter that the 6.7 is more economical to maintain. Additionally there are no conventional tuneups to perform. Finally, if you look at the lifespan ratings of the diesel engines compared to gas engines, you will see that the diesel will outlast the gas engine many times over.
 
  #8  
Old 02-07-2016, 10:53 AM
55 f350's Avatar
55 f350
55 f350 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: springfield il
Posts: 5,776
55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold
Why the hades are you even buying a TRUCK for fuel economy ????? Something wrong with the thinking of anyone who buys a truck and worries about economy . my 53 gets a whole whopping 8.5 mpg . so my beater is a fiat 500 to be on the cheap . makes more sense to buy a little turd for economy . 2.7 litre ? What a da=& four cylinder in a full size ? The whole freaking industry is freaking retarded and flawed in their thinking.
 
  #9  
Old 02-07-2016, 12:50 PM
DSPEagle71
DSPEagle71 is offline
New User
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4
DSPEagle71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by 55 f350 View Post
Why the hades are you even buying a TRUCK for fuel economy ????? Something wrong with the thinking of anyone who buys a truck and worries about economy . my 53 gets a whole whopping 8.5 mpg . so my beater is a fiat 500 to be on the cheap . makes more sense to buy a little turd for economy . 2.7 litre ? What a da=& four cylinder in a full size ? The whole freaking industry is freaking retarded and flawed in their thinking.
For the same reason that you have your Fiat 500. If I look at the purchase from a financial status to determine what my break-even costs are going to be for all the trailering or cargo loads hauled in the bed, then fuel economy does play an important fact in the purchase decision. By the way, my 1999 gets between 14-to-19 and my 2015 gets between 14-to-22.
 
  #10  
Old 02-07-2016, 07:21 PM
55 f350's Avatar
55 f350
55 f350 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: springfield il
Posts: 5,776
55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold
Uhhuh but my fiat only cost 9,000 unlike a 30 to 40,000 pickup so go figure the costs on that . and i average 42 to 48 mpg . i never buy a truck thinking about fuel economy more about whether i like it or not and if it's for pleasure or work . mpg never figures into that equation period .
 
  #11  
Old 02-07-2016, 11:51 PM
DSPEagle71
DSPEagle71 is offline
New User
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4
DSPEagle71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Your comparison costs of your Fiat and the purpose of this car are completely non-sequitur. The purpose of having a car is completely different versus having a truck and the capabilities of the truck. You cannot carry a tonne of anything in any car nor can you haul a 30-foot trailer. To say that fuel economy does not matter to people who buy a truck, I am sorry, is completely ridiculous. Unless one is independently wealthy, which most of us are not, to even ignore even one aspect of financial management is just not logical and financially irresponsible.

 
  #12  
Old 02-08-2016, 04:28 PM
superrangerman2002's Avatar
superrangerman2002
superrangerman2002 is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 4,767
superrangerman2002 has a great reputation on FTE.superrangerman2002 has a great reputation on FTE.superrangerman2002 has a great reputation on FTE.superrangerman2002 has a great reputation on FTE.
An EB makes diesel power! Rofl on what fin planet! It must be all that diesel power that prevents the f150 EB from maintaining speed up hills with the 4500 lb boats in tow in my area.

Bottom line is that diesel has more btus per gallon. No amount of fancy turbo or di will change this.

If ford were truly serious about mpg in a 1/2 ton truck they'd be selling 3.0l diesel with a 6 spd manual. 30 mpg no problem.

If my SD can get 22 with its heft, 30 is no problem in a aluminum body 150 with a much lighter and stronger tranny.
 
  #13  
Old 02-08-2016, 04:48 PM
55 f350's Avatar
55 f350
55 f350 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: springfield il
Posts: 5,776
55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold55 f350 is a splendid one to behold
I'm not comparing my fiat to a truck , i am however comparing the ludicrousness of buying a truck for mileage . if you purchase it for mpg you are killing it's ability to do it's job . i have a buddy who bought into the hype about that crappy turbo six and bought one now he wishes he hadn't . lack of bottom end power and it gets worse mileage than his previous work truck with a 5.4 and he did buy this one concerned about mileage . he can't pull his camper with it and complains incessantly about it's lack of power . so again buying a truck for mileage is ludicrous as they are expected to work . my vote goes to the v8 deisel not a dinky four popper deisel or small gas engine. ....... I am the arseholeasaurus and opinionated too ..... Mpg ... Buy a car .
 
  #14  
Old 02-10-2016, 06:03 AM
John1001
John1001 is offline
New User
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 3
John1001 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Diesel, without question

The lower repair/maintenance costs, (I say that because of the turbo's potential for failure over time). I already have a neighbor who's turbo went out. Using a small highly turbocharged engine to pull a load means a lot of stress on that engine, much rather have a high torque diesel that doesn't need to dip into the turbo as often. Further, due to high compression inherent in diesels, the block is built stronger. We have two deiesels now, a Mercedes RV that weighs in at 12,500 and hets 21 mpg and a 6000 pound SUV that gets 34.5 highway. Diesel for me.
 
  #15  
Old 02-13-2016, 05:03 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is offline
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 29,375
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by John1001 View Post
The lower repair/maintenance costs, (I say that because of the turbo's potential for failure over time). I already have a neighbor who's turbo went out. Using a small highly turbocharged engine to pull a load means a lot of stress on that engine, much rather have a high torque diesel that doesn't need to dip into the turbo as often. Further, due to high compression inherent in diesels, the block is built stronger. We have two deiesels now, a Mercedes RV that weighs in at 12,500 and hets 21 mpg and a 6000 pound SUV that gets 34.5 highway. Diesel for me.
The 6.7L block is CGI and the 2.7L block is also CGI. Compacted Graphite Iron. The next gen 3.5L will be CGI. Sounds like the same to me.

I'd love to see the diesel, choices are good. However, Ford's rendition of a small diesel needs to be able to work as hard as the chassis will allow, it seems that Ram did something wrong. Either the engine lacks capability or the chassis does. But, Ram is getting the MPG's.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Question of the Week: 2.7L EcoBoost or New Diesel?


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.