Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

  1. #1
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 KingElvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,237
    Thanks
    823
    Thanked 754 Times in 630 Posts
    My Ride
    '10 DODGE RAM ST RC HEMI 4.10

    Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    There's plenty of horsetrading tomfoolery afoot in both autotrader and cars.com. We regularly get EPA estimate creep, wherein the 4wd V8 Silvy rating is listed as the v6 4wd. V8 2wd Sily is regularly listed with V6 2wd rating.

    But I've noticed that, when cubic inches are listed, Ford dealers universally use the 226 cubic inch displacement of last years standard engine, the 3.7 liter - obviously one whole liter, or 61 cubic inches larger in displacement that the 2.7L.

    It appears Ford dealers "can't face" how small the 165 cid 2.7 TT V6 sounds in cubic inches.

    Maybe going to that one as a first numeral is just a bridge too far for them. Starts to sound like a four cylinder displacement, which in fact it could be.


    Last edited by KingElvis; 04-12-2015 at 11:45 AM.
    Check out my automotive blog Hidden Content

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to KingElvis For This Useful Post:

    AMERICA 123 (04-13-2015)

  3. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  4. #2
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Logged off
    Posts
    4,723
    Thanks
    1,348
    Thanked 1,141 Times in 635 Posts

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    I thought these system!s just pulled from third party databases for specs. If so, maybe the database hasn't been updated with the new engine options.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Tone For This Useful Post:

    roy219 (04-13-2015)

  6. #3
    Chevrolet VOLT Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The land of the hethan
    Posts
    10,944
    Thanks
    1,532
    Thanked 3,930 Times in 2,545 Posts
    My Ride
    The coffin on wheels

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    It's more likely to be lazy cut and paste issues with the data base than any embarrassment over 2.7 Ecoboost.

    Those buyers who actually go and test driving the truck love it

    Actual vehicle details in Cars.com can be a real hit and miss with thousands of F Series models not actually identified in the data base.
    Last edited by jpd80; 04-12-2015 at 09:34 PM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jpd80 For This Useful Post:

    roy219 (04-13-2015)

  8. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  9. #4
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC MarkStevenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 239 Times in 81 Posts
    My Ride
    2015 Ford Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    I thought these system!s just pulled from third party databases for specs. If so, maybe the database hasn't been updated with the new engine options.
    This.


    Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
    Managing Editor, Hidden Content

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to MarkStevenson For This Useful Post:

    roy219 (04-13-2015)

  11. #5
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid Ed753's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,431
    Thanks
    12,818
    Thanked 8,711 Times in 5,090 Posts
    My Ride
    2018 GMC Sierra Crew 6 1/2'

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    I saw a F150 commercial on TV today, they called out the 2.7L, I'll admit, I think I winced as I watched it, I need to go drive a 2.7L and 5.0L back to back.

    As small as the 2.7L is, it's only 0.8L small than the 3.5L and nobody ever accused that engine of being a wimp.................
    Current: Hidden Content Hidden Content

    Past: '17 Cruze; '15 F150; '14 Volt; '13 MKX; '13 Silverado; '13 Fusion; '11 Ram; '10 Commander; '08 Sierra; '07 Rendezvous; '05 Ram; '04 Grand Cherokee; '03 F150; '01 Silverado; '00 Jimmy; '99 Sierra; '97 Ram; '96 Mustang GT; '96 Jimmy; '90 Escort GT; '89 Ranger; '84 Omni; '76 Malibu; '78 LeMans; '85 Escort; '82 Lynx; '75 Sierra

  12. #6
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 Premium Member Extreme4x4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Payson, AZ
    Posts
    6,217
    Thanks
    6,153
    Thanked 3,029 Times in 1,303 Posts
    My Ride
    2013 Ford Explorer Sport

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    The 2.7L will surprise you. It doesn't have the torque management of the 3.5L, so it really feels like a hotrod............ especially off the line.

    It will be fun to see how the next gen 3.5L feels. I think they learned a lot from the first gen, and a lot of that knowledge was used in the 2.7L.

    As it stands, there isn't a bad engine in the bunch. Everyone has their favorite, and for most that makes everyone else wrong................... but there is no bad choice here. Just different strokes for different folks.
    The resident "girl"

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Extreme4x4 For This Useful Post:

    Ed753 (04-13-2015)

  14. #7
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid sfbreh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    19,260
    Thanks
    7,625
    Thanked 8,770 Times in 5,645 Posts

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme4x4 View Post
    The 2.7L will surprise you. It doesn't have the torque management of the 3.5L, so it really feels like a hotrod............ especially off the line.

    It will be fun to see how the next gen 3.5L feels. I think they learned a lot from the first gen, and a lot of that knowledge was used in the 2.7L.

    As it stands, there isn't a bad engine in the bunch. Everyone has their favorite, and for most that makes everyone else wrong................... but there is no bad choice here. Just different strokes for different folks.
    I assume you've you driven it?

    I haven't and I don't plan to, but from a strategic perspective, the 2.7L is my favorite.

  15. #8
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 Premium Member Extreme4x4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Payson, AZ
    Posts
    6,217
    Thanks
    6,153
    Thanked 3,029 Times in 1,303 Posts
    My Ride
    2013 Ford Explorer Sport

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    Yes I have. When Ford had their 2015 F150 drive event, we went. We drove all 3 engines................. and I drove the 2.7 and 3.5 like I stole them.

    You really get a feel for the torque management in the 3.5L, when you drive it back to back with the 2.7L. Same transmission, although it is beefed up in the 3.5L. Still, a forced induction engine with the torque of a BBC will put a tremendous amount of force against a transmission, in first gear. This used to be buffered by using check balls in the valve body to limit the amount of flow and buffer the shock. Today it is done with electronic torque management. The Ford rep wanted my opinion of the two engines. After I told him what was going on, he was surprised, but realized my answer fit what he had seen................... basically that people felt the 2.7L was faster than the 3.5L, even though it is not true. The 2.7L has a freeness that the 3.5L doesn't have, and you can feel the electronics pulling back the 3.5L if you pay attention to it. It has an artificial feel.

    Now, the torque management in the 3.5L is nothing compared to the GM V8's. GM has to find a way to not make their V8's feel like 4 cylinders off the line.
    The resident "girl"

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Extreme4x4 For This Useful Post:

    CJH (04-13-2015),Ed753 (04-13-2015),jpd80 (04-13-2015),NoStopN (04-14-2015),sfbreh (04-13-2015)

  17. #9
    Chevrolet VOLT Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The land of the hethan
    Posts
    10,944
    Thanks
    1,532
    Thanked 3,930 Times in 2,545 Posts
    My Ride
    The coffin on wheels

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    What amazed me:

    0-60 in under 7 seconds and puts the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel in the shade (+10 seconds)...LINK

    Up Ike gauntlet, towing 7,600 lbs (Ram 4x2 Ecodiesel vs F150 4x4 2.7 EB)...
    the Ram Ecodiesel - 9 minutes, ....LINK
    the 2.7 EB, 7 minutes 25 backing off because doing over 65 mph....LINK

    I guarantee you, anyone with a 5.4 F150 will be knocked over after a test drive.
    Last edited by jpd80; 04-13-2015 at 05:52 AM.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to jpd80 For This Useful Post:

    Ed753 (04-13-2015)

  19. #10
    Banned Butz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Celestial North Korea
    Posts
    11,892
    Thanks
    2,802
    Thanked 1,596 Times in 965 Posts
    My Ride
    です

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    It is not the size, it is how you use it.

    No need to even advertise displacement now with turbocharging being common, just list the power and torque and fuel economy.

  20. #11
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC MarkStevenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 239 Times in 81 Posts
    My Ride
    2015 Ford Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    The 2.7L EB is a super punchy motor. On the highway, it feels just as powerful as the 5.0L V8 when you need to drop the hammer and pass someone.
    Managing Editor, Hidden Content

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MarkStevenson For This Useful Post:

    CJH (04-13-2015),Ed753 (04-13-2015),jpd80 (04-14-2015)

  22. #12
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8 CJH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    MinnesoTAX
    Posts
    3,745
    Thanks
    4,924
    Thanked 1,784 Times in 995 Posts
    My Ride
    Audi S4, Merc GL

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    Interested to see what the "Lincoln Exclusive 3.0L" is like. If the 2.7L is that good, the 3.0L should be awesome.
    Hidden Content Originally Posted by CJH Hidden Content
    Don't be loyal to a company, be loyal to good product and service.
    Past Rides:
    Audi A6 4.2L
    QX80 - @Big Salvage Yard in the Sky
    Audi S4 2.7TT
    Durango Limited Hemi 5.7L
    Ford Explorer 5.0L
    Pontiac Grand AM 3.4L
    Chevy Corsica 3.0L
    Toyota Tercel "Turdcel"
    Ford LTD Station Wagon 5.0L "Blue Thunder"

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CJH For This Useful Post:

    Ed753 (04-13-2015),jpd80 (04-14-2015)

  24. #13
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid Ed753's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,431
    Thanks
    12,818
    Thanked 8,711 Times in 5,090 Posts
    My Ride
    2018 GMC Sierra Crew 6 1/2'

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme4x4 View Post
    ........................... Now, the torque management in the 3.5L is nothing compared to the GM V8's. GM has to find a way to not make their V8's feel like 4 cylinders off the line.
    The new 5.3L's are better, but my 2013 doesn't feel like a 4-cylinder off the line, it feels like its pulling a 4-cylinder off the line..............


    Quote Originally Posted by jpd80 View Post
    What amazed me:

    0-60 in under 7 seconds and puts the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel in the shade (+10 seconds)...LINK

    Up Ike gauntlet, towing 7,600 lbs (Ram 4x2 Ecodiesel vs F150 4x4 2.7 EB)...
    the Ram Ecodiesel - 9 minutes, ....LINK
    the 2.7 EB, 7 minutes 25 backing off because doing over 65 mph....LINK

    I guarantee you, anyone with a 5.4 F150 will be knocked over after a test drive.
    When I bought my 2011 Ram (5.7L HEMI) I was real close to buying a left-over 2010 F150 with the 5.4L, I think my old 5.3L feels a lot like the old 5.4L.

    Quote Originally Posted by Butz View Post
    It is not the size, it is how you use it.
    Or where you use it..............
    Current: Hidden Content Hidden Content

    Past: '17 Cruze; '15 F150; '14 Volt; '13 MKX; '13 Silverado; '13 Fusion; '11 Ram; '10 Commander; '08 Sierra; '07 Rendezvous; '05 Ram; '04 Grand Cherokee; '03 F150; '01 Silverado; '00 Jimmy; '99 Sierra; '97 Ram; '96 Mustang GT; '96 Jimmy; '90 Escort GT; '89 Ranger; '84 Omni; '76 Malibu; '78 LeMans; '85 Escort; '82 Lynx; '75 Sierra

  25. #14
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,821
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 1,082 Times in 555 Posts

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme4x4 View Post
    Yes I have. When Ford had their 2015 F150 drive event, we went. We drove all 3 engines................. and I drove the 2.7 and 3.5 like I stole them.

    You really get a feel for the torque management in the 3.5L, when you drive it back to back with the 2.7L. Same transmission, although it is beefed up in the 3.5L. Still, a forced induction engine with the torque of a BBC will put a tremendous amount of force against a transmission, in first gear. This used to be buffered by using check balls in the valve body to limit the amount of flow and buffer the shock. Today it is done with electronic torque management. The Ford rep wanted my opinion of the two engines. After I told him what was going on, he was surprised, but realized my answer fit what he had seen................... basically that people felt the 2.7L was faster than the 3.5L, even though it is not true. The 2.7L has a freeness that the 3.5L doesn't have, and you can feel the electronics pulling back the 3.5L if you pay attention to it. It has an artificial feel.

    Now, the torque management in the 3.5L is nothing compared to the GM V8's. GM has to find a way to not make their V8's feel like 4 cylinders off the line.
    I think the problem with the 5.3 is throttle response, which is just programming. With an aftermarket tune they are plenty punchy from what I've read. I have not driven any gen V stuff though.

  26. #15
    Chevrolet VOLT Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The land of the hethan
    Posts
    10,944
    Thanks
    1,532
    Thanked 3,930 Times in 2,545 Posts
    My Ride
    The coffin on wheels

    Re: Ford's 2.7EB cubic inches "Too small to print" on F150 ads?

    But that's the problem, as soon as you suggest an aftermarket tune for the 5.3 Silverado,
    it opens the door to the Ecoboost engines gaining a huge increase from a simple tune..

  27. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2