F150 To Get 2.7L EB First

[ANTAUS]

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/30/2015-ford-f-150-ecoboost-2.7-liter/

[Hugh]

As good as an introduction as any this year. I would have no complaints if it was shared with any other models.

[ehaase]

I would guess the 2.7EB will also end up in the Taurus, MKS, Edge, MKX, Explorer, and MKZ.

[RangerM]

Sounds like it might be the top engine in the "light duty" F-150. (the one with the thinner frame)

[Deanh]

here comes the Fusion ST.............

[jpd80]

A 2.7 EB would give power and torque similar to a 5.4 3V but with almost diesel like fuel economy.....

 

Looking at the current truck's fuel economy for a moment and compare the effective change in economy

downsizing and turbocharging has comparing the 6.2 V8 to the EB 3.5:

 

6.2 4x2 = 13 / 18 / 15mpg

3.5 EB 4x2 = 15 / 21 / 17mpg

 

The EB 3.5 gives around a 17% improvement in economy over the 6.2 V8.

 

If an EB 27 gave similar improvement over the 5.0 V8's fuel economy figures,

then that would be good enough to raise fuel economy to 18 / 25 / 20mpg

even before we consider the effects of a lighter truck..

Edited December 31, 2013 by jpd80

[Trader 10]

I agree. I think the nanos will replace the 3.5/3.7 motors as the cars/suv's are updated, leaving the 3.7 for the Mustang, Transit, and maybe the F-150 (I saw one article that speculated a n.a. nano would be the base F-150 engine) and the 3.5 EB for the F-150, Expedition,Navigator and possibly the next MKS. I also saw a post on another site that stated the 3.5 would be upgraded to at least 400 hp for the 2015 F-150. Hopefully, that will be the case as it would have about the same power as the new 6.2 GM V-8 with better fuel economy.

[Trader 10]

Dean, I think there's a better chance the ST will be a 2.3 EB.

[jpd80]

I think the 3.7 will stay as the entry level base option, it should perform much better in the lighter '15 F150

I see a future small EB-Medium EB -V8 combination still covering 90% of F150 but with increased volume to boot.

 

Perhaps with different alloy constructional methods, the body shop becomes less of a limiting factor on production volumes,

Ford may be counting on that happening if sales of the next gen F150 really take off...

 

Just imagine if this new Aluminum construction process extends out into Ford's volume Utilities and cars,

a 20% drop in weight would make smaller engines work even better in those lighter vehicles.

Edited December 31, 2013 by jpd80

[Hugh]

Dean, I think there's a better chance the ST will be a 2.3 EB.

Perhaps, but dare to dream. I'd like to see the NANO EB and NA versions in the MKZ to start. I would love to see a Focus RS with EB23, AWD and the attitude to go with it.

[sullynd]

2.7EB Mustang?

[Hugh]

I think the 3.7 will stay as the entry level base option, it should perform much better in the lighter '15 F150

Does anyone know what's the future for the D35?

[ANTAUS]

So where does it leave the 2.3L EB? Would that be a potential offering in the F150? Seems to be many posibilities for the 290-320HP range that are now being answered by about 4 engines.

[theoldwizard]

I think the 3.7 will stay as the entry level base option, it should perform much better in the lighter '15 F150.

Concur ! There is still a significant cost hit for EcoBoost.

[silvrsvt]

So where does it leave the 2.3L EB? Would that be a potential offering in the F150? Seems to be many posibilities for the 290-320HP range that are now being answered by about 4 engines.

 

Right now, the 2.3L is looking at 275HP/300FT lbs in a non performance application...and 300+ HP in a performance application, such as the Mustang...no idea how much the Torque ratings will be, guess we'll find out next year.

 

The 2.7L Ecoboost is supposed to be rated at 320HP and 370FT...in a truck application. Thats a pretty significant improvement and most likely dialed back a bit. I'd expect the same engine in a car application to have roughly the same numbers as the 3.5L with better Torque ratings and a nice bump in MPGs. I don't see the 3.5/3.7L going anywhere...they'll be the base model engines and I'd expect the Ecoboost models to be bumped up a bit more power-wise also. Given that Caddy can get 420HP out of their 3.6L Turbo, Ford can do the same with the 3.5L (aftermarket tunes already do this and more...and give a shit load of torque)

[akirby]

The 3.5L Ecoboost is torque limited in D3 applications. If the CD4 platform has the same limitations than a 2.7EB would make a lot more sense.

[silvrsvt]

The 3.5L Ecoboost is torque limited in D3 applications. If the CD4 platform has the same limitations than a 2.7EB would make a lot more sense.

 

 

I believe that is more driveline limited then anything else...

[akirby]

 

 

I believe that is more driveline limited then anything else...

 

It was both the driveline and the front clip. The initial tests destroyed the front clip in the Taurus. There is a point of diminishing return trying to add more power to a FWD vehicle. I know Caddy went to 400 hp with the XTS but to me you don't need more than what the 2.7EB can provide. Save the 3.5L EB for the RWD applications.

[92merc]

The 6F35 is only capable of handling 350ft/lbs of torque. So Ford is computer-wise, capping the torque to 350.

 

I was hoping the nano would come out at the same time the new 10sp trans would come out to maximize the fuel efficiency gains the new engine will bring. But I guess it's probably better to bring it out ASAP and get the gains now rather than wait.

[Edstock]

 

There is a point of diminishing return trying to add more power to a FWD vehicle.

 

That's why the SHO is AWD, like the smaller Audi TT. Unfortunately, until the new transmissions arrive, the SHO is somewhat launch-restrained, unlike the Audi TT. IIRC, the AWD turbo "S" TT is awesomely quick.

[2b2]

2.7EB Mustang?

remember the LincStang

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

The 2.7 nano EB, 9 - 10 speed auto, and AWD should make a nice drivetrain for anything built off of the CD4. It is too bad that the CD4 doesn't feature more aluminum and other weight saving materials, ala 2015 F150, to go along with this powertrain.

[Hugh]

The 2.7 nano EB, 9 - 10 speed auto, and AWD should make a nice drivetrain for anything built off of the CD4. It is too bad that the CD4 doesn't feature more aluminum and other weight saving materials, ala 2015 F150, to go along with this powertrain.

The new manufacturing techniques shown this year could make limited numbers of a model as you suggest feasible.

[silvrsvt]

The 6F35 is only capable of handling 350ft/lbs of torque. So Ford is computer-wise, capping the torque to 350.

 

Not quite, the Ecoboost 3.5L engines use the 6F55 transmission. Also the torque limiting issue is limit the amount of torque input at first, there are tuned SHO/MKS's that are putting down alot more torque than what the transmission is rated for without grenading them. This is my buddies car with a tune and a couple other small mods on it

 

http://www.dragtimes.com/2013-Ford-Taurus-Dyno-Results-Graphs-25831.html

 

I also saw that GM has a 6T75 transmission rated for 315 hp/300 lb·ft..and the 6T and 6F are kissing cousins design-wise.

 

I'm sure with the introduction of the 2.3L Ecoboost and the 2.7L Nano engines, the 6F will be bumped up in strength to handle them as permitted.

[RichardJensen]

AFAIK, the 550 is the transmission's capacity for multiplied torque, not flywheel torque. Recall that's the advantage of a transmission: torque multiplication.

Edited January 1, 2014 by RichardJensen