Advanced 2.7-Liter EcoBoost with Auto Start-Stop

[jpd80]

GM has absolutely no answer to the 2.7 Ecoboost, it's the killer punch they didn't see coming...

 

3.5 DI V6, 5.0 V8 and EB 3.5 with incremental improvements and in a lighter truck,

IMO this will give a 2 to 3 mpg bump on fuel economy. so look for the worst 2WD

versions to be around hwy 23 or 24 mpg.......WOW, GM will be pissed....

Edited January 14, 2014 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Didn't the first Fusion engines have cartridge filters?

[chevys]

GM has absolutely no answer to the 2.7 Ecoboost, it's the killer punch they didn't see coming...

 

3.5 DI V6, 5.0 V8 and EB 3.5 with incremental improvements and in a lighter truck,

IMO this will give a 2 to 3 mpg bump on fuel economy. so look for the worst 2WD

versions to be around hwy 23 or 24 mpg.......WOW, GM will be pissed....

The 2.7 is the wildcard in the lineup. I cant figure if its just for advertising or if it can be a higher volume engine. The vast majority of F series buyers dont need the 5 liter or 3.5EB. Need and want are two different things of course. GM has been blindsided by this engine and have no answer. Ford will advertise the dickens out of it if they can pull down some respectable numbers. The next question is what else can Ford use it in? For me, the weight loss and 2.7 are the most interesting things about the new F150.

 

Is the 2.7 considered a gen 2 EB? Should be at least 100hp per liter and maybe 125?

Edited January 14, 2014 by chevys

[Bryan1]

Cartridge style oil filters... pros

 

1) I have a Ford Fusion, 2.3L with a cartridge filter and I prefer this to the old spin-on style. They seem to be much easier to replace

 

2) I love the cartridge filter on my 530i. It's accessible from the top and it's super easy to replace. Less mess than with a canister filter.

 

3) Spin-ons usually start leaking when you first loosen them (unless they're pointing STRAIGHT down). Cartridge filters, if they open from the top and are easily accessible, usually don't leak at all when you change them.

 

4) got a cartridge filter on my Ion, the 2.2L Ecotec. Seems a lot better to change than the canister type. Cap opens from the top and most of the oil drains back down to the pan instead of trapped inside a canister. Much less waste IMO.

 

5) I think the cartridge type is a little safer because things like road debris can't smack it like it could a canister filter and puncture it. Or like in the case of using an oversized filter that hangs down and gets crushed.

 

6) The advantage of a cartridge is you don't have a metal can with waste oil. You've got only a plastic basket and paper media. the waste oil ends up back in the pan and out when drained. Most can filters will hold close to half a quart of oil.

 

7) A well designed canister, such as the one on my 02 Ecotec, is much easier to change than any spin on.

 

8) My old W123 diesels had a cartridge filter that was really easy to change. Two 13 mm nuts, lift the lid, and grab the handy wire handle to pull the filter out. Easy oil change without lifting the car at all

 

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1616066/1

[jpd80]

The 2.7 is the wildcard in the lineup. I cant figure if its just for advertising or if it can be a higher volume engine. The vast majority of F series buyers dont need the 5 liter or 3.5EB. Need and want are two different things of course. GM has been blindsided by this engine and have no answer. Ford will advertise the dickens out of it if they can pull down some respectable numbers. The next question is what else can Ford use it in? For me, the weight loss and 2.7 are the most interesting things about the new F150.

 

Is the 2.7 considered a gen 2 EB? Should be at least 100hp per liter and maybe 125?

I don't believe that GM were blind sided with the 2.7 Ecoboost, it's been a long running story and a natural progression of further downsizing.

 

What's more likely is that GM has calculated the minimum it is required to do to get by with increasing CAFE limits without expending what

it sees as unnecessary technology to fil a product market - that's not to be rude to gM but it shows a different attitude in play when considering

what is really needed to keep its buyers happy.

 

This next F150 is certainly "drought proofed" and it looks set for a long run into the future as additional technology arrives to give incremental

boost to fuel economy numbers. A 2.7 Ecoboost is extremely provocative and will build upon the EB 35's reputation.

 

Dying to see the inevitable comparison between the Ram 1500 diesel and the F150 EB 2.7, I think the Ford will carry the day even if economy

is a few MPG down compared to the diesel, the baby EB will appeal to a lot more buyers than the V6 diesel, especially former 5.4 3V buyers..

[theoldwizard]

I don't believe that GM were blind sided with the 2.7 Ecoboost, it's been a long running story and a natural progression of further downsizing.

Rumor about the 2.7L "Nano" engine have been floating around for over 3 years. It was originally rummored to go in the MKZ.

 

I will be interesting if a non-EcoBoost version of this engine shows up anywhere.

[Biker16]

Everything old is new again...once upon a time, all (Ford) oil filters were cartridge filters.

Really, I did not know that.

[jpd80]

Rumor about the 2.7L "Nano" engine have been floating around for over 3 years. It was originally rummored to go in the MKZ.

 

I will be interesting if a non-EcoBoost version of this engine shows up anywhere.

Barb Samardich first mentioned the 2.7 V6 back in 2006 when Ford NA was still weighing up the pros and cons of I-4 Ecoboost...

Back then, it was said to have been a variation of Cyclone but clearly the project took on an entirely different twist with Ecoboost.

 

A 2.7 DI would make a perfect replacement for the 2.5 I-4, adding a bit more oomph and smooth V6 sound and experience to Fusion?

I wonder if the cost making and machining CGI block vs aluminum has now come much closer, does CGI deaden noise, quieter engine?

Edited January 15, 2014 by jpd80

[Biker16]

they NEED the 2.0 eco in the Transit Connect...the 1.6 eco isnt avail in the extended versions 9 wagons ) just the plain 2.5....IMO thats not going to be enough with 7 passengers...............

I disagree. People buy the TC for economy ot performance, I remember all the naysayers about the current model having only 130hp, and it would fail.

 

Should the TC have the EB1.5 hell yes, I cannot foresee the need for a 350hp v6 for this van.

[silvrsvt]

Everything old is new again...once upon a time, all (Ford) oil filters were cartridge filters.

 

How long ago? I've had Fords in my family since 1979 and not one of them ever had a cartridge filter on them. All but one where passenger cars though.

 

I know I have a friend's mom who has an Audi and she had problems with her filter leaking on her 2.0L T engine

[Biker16]

Barb Samardich first mentioned the 2.7 V6 back in 2006 when Ford NA was still weighing up the pros and cons of I-4 Ecoboost...

Back then, it was said to have been a variation of Cyclone but clearly the project took on an entirely different twist with Ecoboost.

 

A 2.7 DI would make a perfect replacement for the 2.5 I-4, adding a bit more oomph and smooth V6 sound and experience to Fusion?

I wonder if the cost making and machining CGI block vs aluminum has now come much closer, does CGI deaden noise, quieter engine?

The 2.5 like the 2.0 is a value engine for ford. Why ould you replace a cheap base model engine with more expensive premium engine.?

 

The non Ecoboost 2.7 would make about 250hp, that isn't a replacement for the 2.5 but the EB2.0. which shold be replaced by a better optimized GTDI 2.0L or smaller displacement GTDI engine to make room for the GTDI 2.3L

[sullynd]

Wonder if this will end up in the 'stang... Or the 3.5 for that matter (non-EB in lieu of the 3.7).

[ehaase]

I hope there is no 2.7 NA V6. It would have roughly the same horsepower as the 2.0L EB and probably less torque and less fuel economy (based upon other small displacement V6's).

 

I also wonder why the Mustang also did not change to the 3.5 as its base V6 (instead of the 3.7) as the F150 did.

[akirby]

I also wonder why the Mustang also did not change to the 3.5 as its base V6 (instead of the 3.7) as the F150 did.

 

Because Camaro?

[RichardJensen]

 

How long ago? I've had Fords in my family since 1979 and not one of them ever had a cartridge filter on them. All but one where passenger cars though.

 

I know I have a friend's mom who has an Audi and she had problems with her filter leaking on her 2.0L T engine

 

The 50s.

 

http://www.autozone.com/autozone/parts/Fram-Oil-Filter/1958-Ford-P100/_/N-jikftZ8gcsgZ1z13yh9?itemIdentifier=510406_5867_6863_&moreBrand=110

[SoonerLS]

How long ago? I've had Fords in my family since 1979 and not one of them ever had a cartridge filter on them. All but one where passenger cars though.

As Richard noted, I think the switch to spin-on filters came with the advent of OHV engines in the '50s; the flatheads all used cartridge filters. On my 8N (flathead I4), the oil filter housing is bolted to the side of the block, but on the V8s it was often mounted to the rear end of the driver's side head. In this pic, it's the black jobbie with the grey wingnut on top:

[351cid]

My brother in-law's 2007 Mariner Hybrid uses a cartridge filter.

Edited January 15, 2014 by 351cid

[03 LS]

What's more likely is that GM has calculated the minimum it is required to do to get by with increasing CAFE limits without expending what

it sees as unnecessary technology to fil a product market - that's not to be rude to gM but it shows a different attitude in play when considering

what is really needed to keep its buyers happy.

 

This next F150 is certainly "drought proofed" and it looks set for a long run into the future as additional technology arrives to give incremental

boost to fuel economy numbers. A 2.7 Ecoboost is extremely provocative and will build upon the EB 35's reputation.

...

GM certainly has taken a different approach in their truck strategy, but I don't think it's because of their "attitude" to be cheap to just get by. After all, it's decision of making two sizes of pickups for NA market certainly is not cheap.

 

IMHO, what likely happened were either,

1) They were forced into this position because it was too late for them to change their half ton PU design, like you mentioned before. Or,

2) After careful consideration, they think 2-size strategy may be better, for both CAFE and market share purposes. It would be worth it even though it's more expensive.

 

I think they knew their half tons would be outclassed by the new F150. But they only need to compete with F150 on the capability side, they will have a mid/compact truck to go against full size Fords on the mpg front. If (IF) they have a good design, I don't think it's that difficult or costly to beat the new F150 in CAFE/EPA/real world fuel economies. Let's face it, the pickup drivers who really put MPG at the highest priority (and willing to switch brand because of it) really don't care/need the half ton capabilities. "Best of both worlds" may not serve them the best.

 

And if, again a big IF, if GM does have a well designed mid/compact truck, they may finally be able to out sell F-Series and gain market share in the "Pickup" truck segment.

Both strategies have its own merits, and risks. It will come down to design and execution.

[RichardJensen]

My brother in-law's 2007 Mariner Hybrid uses a cartridge filter.

 

I think the Mazda 4s used cartridge filters, as a friend's Fusion had a cartridge filter as well.

[Biker16]

GM certainly has taken a different approach in their truck strategy, but I don't think it's because of their "attitude" to be cheap to just get by. After all, it's decision of making two sizes of pickups for NA market certainly is not cheap.

 

IMHO, what likely happened were either,

1) They were forced into this position because it was too late for them to change their half ton PU design, like you mentioned before. Or,

2) After careful consideration, they think 2-size strategy may be better, for both CAFE and market share purposes. It would be worth it even though it's more expensive.

 

I think they knew their half tons would be outclassed by the new F150. But they only need to compete with F150 on the capability side, they will have a mid/compact truck to go against full size Fords on the mpg front. If (IF) they have a good design, I don't think it's that difficult or costly to beat the new F150 in CAFE/EPA/real world fuel economies. Let's face it, the pickup drivers who really put MPG at the highest priority (and willing to switch brand because of it) really don't care/need the half ton capabilities. "Best of both worlds" may not serve them the best.

 

And if, again a big IF, if GM does have a well designed mid/compact truck, they may finally be able to out sell F-Series and gain market share in the "Pickup" truck segment.

Both strategies have its own merits, and risks. It will come down to design and execution.

 

with the Colorado GM is trying to Reinvent the VERY Stagnant mid-sized pickup segment, finally delivering a Pickup with economy significantly better than full sized Pickup.

 

They are offering a Class Exclusive:

 

Wait for it....

 

• Direct Injection
• 6spd Automatic
• Diesel engine
• Base engine HP (197hp Vs Tacoma's 157hp)

[silvrsvt]

 

 

with the Colorado GM is trying to Reinvent the VERY Stagnant mid-sized pickup segment, finally delivering a Pickup with economy significantly better than full sized Pickup.

 

They are offering a Class Exclusive:

 

Wait for it....

 

• Direct Injection
• 6spd Automatic
• Diesel engine
• Base engine HP (197hp Vs Tacoma's 157hp)

 

 

 

But that is also akin to coming out with a super duper Personal Luxury Coupe...the market has changed.

 

Should be interesting how it plays out when they are for sale...I think there is going to be alot of unhappy people in GM HQ

[fordmantpw]

Let's face it, the pickup drivers who really put MPG at the highest priority (and willing to switch brand because of it) really don't care/need the half ton capabilities. "Best of both worlds" may not serve them the best.

 

I don't agree with that statement. There are plenty of folks who tow with their half ton trucks, but also use them as a daily driver. If I want to tow a 6k travel trailer and drive 20k miles/year, which am I going to choose? The Colorado that can't tow the load? Nope. That leaves me with the F150 or Silverado. Give me the F150 with 15% more MPGs.

[Hoser768]

 

If I want to tow a 6k travel trailer and drive 20k miles/year, which am I going to choose? The Colorado that can't tow the load? Nope.

 

But my travel trailer is only 3.5k, and my boats are less than that. If they can keep the price reasonable I think they'll sell. Maybe even one to me.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Hoser768

[mackinaw]

And if, again a big IF, if GM does have a well designed mid/compact truck, they may finally be able to out sell F-Series and gain market share in the "Pickup" truck segment.

Both strategies have its own merits, and risks. It will come down to design and execution.

 

The new Colorado isn't a compact truck. It's even a stretch to call it a mid-size truck. This thing is BIG. A standard crew cab Colorado (there's no standard cab) is longer than a standard cab Silverado. All the Colorado will do is to syphon sales away from the Silverado guaranteeing that the F-150 will remain the best selling pickup in the U.S.

[fordmantpw]

 

But my travel trailer is only 3.5k, and my boats are less than that. If they can keep the price reasonable I think they'll sell. Maybe even one to me.

 

OK, then the Colorado is good for you. But, let's say it gets only 1MPG better than the F150 (guessing here).

 

Would you:

 

1) Buy the Colorado and not be able to upgrade to a larger travel trailer without buying a new truck first. Don't forget, you are only getting 1 MPG more for less space, and a smaller bed for hauling stuff.

2) Buy the F150 and enjoy the extra space and comfort that comes with towing with a more capable truck. The 1 MPG penalty will seem like peanuts, especially when your wife says "let's go looking at 5k lb travel trailers."

 

If the difference in MPG is 5, then the decision is much easier. But with very close MPG numbers (and I'm thinking Ford will be within spitting distance of the Coloranyon's numbers), why buy a smaller, less capable truck? At least, that's my thought process, and I think that's pretty much the way the general population thinks. Don't give me the smallest, cheapest thing that will do the job, give me the best value and bang for the buck.

 

But, if you just want a smaller truck, then sure, go for it. I just don't think that is what the population is after, otherwise SUVs and CUVs wouldn't be all the rage.