2015 Ford F-150 (just released)

[Dogmeat]

2.7 ?

Was hoping for more, not less.
I love the 3.5, but I think smaller would not help mileage any & likely forfeit some power/torque?

It sounds to me like they're doing the same thing they did with the small blocks 10-15 years ago. They made a smaller motor and then rev the living piss out of it to make the advertised power, even though its at 5000+ RPM.

It looks like that is basically what they'd be doing here. So instead of having a nice, smooth reliable power band that maxes out at 2500 RPM, which is right where you want it for towing, like the current T3.5L does, they're going to go for the best fuel economy they can when you aren't towing (again look at the small blocks) and then rev and boost the piss out of it to make the power when you are.

So in other words, they're totally ruining everything they acheived with the current crop of ecoboost motors the last few years

 

[christopher]

Certainly NOT what I was expecting either!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2 pro.

 

[volcano buster]

My understanding is, the GM Canyon (mid-size truck) will be eating up some market share for this style and size of truck. Ford has not committed to making a replacement Ranger for the U.S. so the small motor in the F-150 is to be the Ranger substitute. I don't believe the small Eco motor in the half ton will be their "standard" truck but a utility truck for business folks that would otherwise buy a Ranger sized truck.

 

[polarisfornow]

I think the difference in the new eco motor is that it will be mated to a 10 speed tranny. That will negate any power shortcomings it may have. Look at how good the new modestly powerful v6 in the ram is with the new 8 speed. I own an international based toy hauler that makes really good power (500ish hp). Is fairly light (30k lbs fully loaded). It gets up and moves pretty well but when we hit the mountains bigger, more loaded, and less powerful big rigs are able pull hills at better speed because they have better trannys with more gears. I've got a 5speed with a split rear end while newer rigs will run 9 or 10 speeds plus a splitter. Mechanical advantage plays a big role. All you Pro RMK owners should understand.

 

[Dogmeat]

I think the difference in the new eco motor is that it will be mated to a 10 speed tranny. That will negate any power shortcomings it may have. Look at how good the new modestly powerful v6 in the ram is with the new 8 speed. I own an international based toy hauler that makes really good power (500ish hp). Is fairly light (30k lbs fully loaded). It gets up and moves pretty well but when we hit the mountains bigger, more loaded, and less powerful big rigs are able pull hills at better speed because they have better trannys with more gears. I've got a 5speed with a split rear end while newer rigs will run 9 or 10 speeds plus a splitter. Mechanical advantage plays a big role. All you Pro RMK owners should understand.

Making a motor that revs twice as high to make the same total power will not be negated by adding more gears to the transmission. What this does do however, is mean that under all conditions other than the one where it requires peak torque to tow a trailer up a hill, the gear ratios will be more properly matched to engine output. Read this as towing a 4 place enclosed up a long hill you're going to be in 4th or 5th gear at 5000 rpm instead of 2nd or third like you would be now. the transmission does nothing to change the power output or characteristics of the motor .... its just that with more gears to choose from on a revvy motor with a flat torque curve, the transmission is more properly matched to said peaky but flat torque curve under all conditions that don't require the motor to be full out.

 

[polarisfornow]

Making a motor that revs twice as high to make the same total power will not be negated by adding more gears to the transmission. What this does do however, is mean that under all conditions other than the one where it requires peak torque to tow a trailer up a hill, the gear ratios will be more properly matched to engine output. Read this as towing a 4 place enclosed up a long hill you're going to be in 4th or 5th gear at 5000 rpm instead of 2nd or third like you would be now. the transmission does nothing to change the power output or characteristics of the motor .... its just that with more gears to choose from on a revvy motor with a flat torque curve, the transmission is more properly matched to said peaky but flat torque curve under all conditions that don't require the motor to be full out.

One thing to remember however though is from what I've read the new smaller eco is not replacing the 3.5 just simply another engine choice in the line up. I think basically it will replace the current 3.0 v6. So I think "the sky is falling" rhetoric over the new 2.7 is a little misplaced.

 

[Dogmeat]

One thing to remember however though is from what I've read the new smaller eco is not replacing the 3.5 just simply another engine choice in the line up. I think basically it will replace the current 3.0 v6. So I think "the sky is falling" rhetoric over the new 2.7 is a little misplaced.

That is good news then, I've become a big fan of the 3.5L V6 ....

If I'd had driven an EcoBoost before I bought my cummins last year I probably would have bought the ecoboost

 

[christopher]

Well, it's supposed to be out in January...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2 pro.

 

[Dartos]

I've had a 2011 EcoBoost for just over a year now. It has the Max Tow Package with the 3.73 gears. It does great for me hauling a 23 foot trailer in most conditions. When its real windy out I sure do miss the big 3/4 ton Dodge.

I get 17-19 mpg when driving 55-65 mph. I get 15-16 mpg when 75-80 mph and I get 10-12 mpg when towing my trailer.

Overall I'm pretty happy with it. I need new tires and am looking at some Cooper Discovery AT3 that is load rated E (normally seen on a 3/4 ton) and see if that makes me happier while towing.

 

[Calvin42]

Love the look of that new truck! Would be nice if they'd boost the 5.0. However, every time I hookup my 5.0 Super Crew to my 30ft enclosed trailer is still surprises me. Empty I get 22 to 23 if I keep it around 60, 17 to 18.5 at 75 to 80. Pulling my 30 ft trailer with two 163" Pro's plus gear and tools, I get 12 all day long.

 

[warreng417]

I hear the eco boost 5.0 will make 900 hp and get 40 mpg

 

[Calvin42]

I hear the eco boost 5.0 will make 900 hp and get 40 mpg

You heard that too, eh??

 

[Mafesto]

I hear the eco boost 5.0 will make 900 hp and get 40 mpg

I just read it on the internet, so it's gotta be true.

I also heard the turbo would have a Japflap.
This is an additional intake you can open when passing an import & the turbo will simply ingest the import & waste rice comes out the tailpipe.

 

[volcano buster]

Overall I'm pretty happy with it. I need new tires and am looking at some Cooper Discovery AT3 that is load rated E (normally seen on a 3/4 ton) and see if that makes me happier while towing.

I was going to install those tires last fall (265/70-17 E) for my '12 F150 5.0, but after talking to my dealer he said he had sold several sets that the tires were cracking out when new. I looked for reviews and found the same thing so I passed and put Toyo AT/2's on instead. If you go that route, I hope you have good luck with them.

 

[Dogmeat]

FYI everyone ..

Load Range and Load Capacity are two totally different things.

Load Range is the ply RATING, not actual # of plys .... its sort of confusing.

There is really no reason whatsoever to go to a LR E tire on a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton truck IMO.

Load Range != load capacity .... most load range D tires are rated with the same total weight carrying capacity (load capacity) as their load range E counterparts.

The LR E tires are probably better if you tow heavy loads off road and on rocky terrain as they do have stiffer sidewalls .... but at any rate, the total carrying capacity is the same. D is an 8 ply rating, E is a 10 ply rating, etc.

I've been running LR D's on my 3500 cummins ... they ride a lot nicer and I have yet to feel as if they weren't sturdy enough in the wind.

 

[volcano buster]

Most tires I find come in a C or E rating. I haven't seen too many D rated tires since the 235/85-16 sizes I had on my F250.

I use mine in the woods so the added puncture protection is nice. It corners better with a stiffer tire too and has less sidewall squish when hooked to a trailer.

 

[summ8rmk]

That varies with tire sizes and manufacturers. Most 315/85 r16 are a D or 8ply rating. It is hard to find an E or 10ply rating.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

 

[MORSNO]

That varies with tire sizes and manufacturers. Most 315/85 r16 are a D or 8ply rating. It is hard to find an E or 10ply rating.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

Wide, balloon tires are not available in E 10 ply. Some D 8 ply's will still have a larger load capacity.

 

[summ8rmk]

My 315/75 r16 toyo M/T are an E rated tire
Almost 4,000lb per tire
Hankook 315/75 r16 are only available in D rating and ~3300lb

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

 

[summ8rmk]

I had to stick with 285/75 r16 Hankooks because they are a E rated tire and ~3700lbs

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk