SoonerLS Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Is there any reasoning why the 2.7L EB would cost more then the 3.5L Ecoboost engine? Initially, it should cost more to build simply because the EB35's development and tooling costs should pretty well be paid for by now, and the EB27 is brand new. Once those items are equalized, I don't know if there's anything inherently more expensive about the EB27's design and manufacture; maybe the CGI upper block? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) Ford would not develop the EB 27 as diesel alternative and then offer it at a lower price than its default base 5.0 V8. The trick is to add sales, not replace them so a slight premium on the EB 27 would align it as a "diesel option". ... and that price/availability should put the cat amongst the pigeons over at Ram... Edited July 14, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) It sounds like Ford put effort into making the 2.7l less expensive to assemble. The CGI block not only has strength advantages, but it doesn't require pressed in liners like the 3.5eb. They eliminated the piston rod bushing and replaced it with different machining techniques and a high tech coating. The front cover of the engineis integrated with front accesory drive parts and water pump and comes preassembled for quick assemble in the engine plant. I bet it will be less expensive to build than the 3.5. Edited July 14, 2014 by jpvbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 The CGI block probably cost whole lot less than a full alloy block, the only catch in the past was machining such a hard material but tooling developments have overcome that problem. The EB 27 comes with a lot of modern thinking and the experience Ford gained with the EB 35 in service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Ford would not develop the EB 27 as diesel alternative and then offer it at a lower price than its default base 5.0 V8. The trick is to add sales, not replace them so a slight premium on the EB 27 would align it as a "diesel option". ... and that price/availability should put the cat amongst the pigeons over at Ram... See, when you classify it as a "diesel alternative," then it makes sense. However, Ford has never called the 2.7EB a "diesel alternative." Ford themselves has stated that the engine hierarchy, from base to top-level, is 3.5 --> 2.7EB --> 5.0 --> 3.5EB. Regarding Ram, the EcoDiesel in Tradesman trim is priced $2850 higher than the 5.7 Hemi, but most of that pays for the added complexity of the engine and its aftertreatments. If Ford priced the 2.7EB above the 3.5EB, they would be doing nothing more than mimicking Ram's upcharge, as you said. But it would be 100% a money grab, since the 2.7EB isn't *that* much more complex than the 3.5EB just because of the block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 I can see Ford charging $1-2K over the standard 3.5L as an Eco engine, not slotting it as a Diesel replacement with its associated costs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 I don't even think Ford has to brand it an Eco engine to upcharge it. All indications are that it will be more powerful and capable than the NA 3.5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 I can see Ford charging $1-2K over the standard 3.5L as an Eco engine, not slotting it as a Diesel replacement with its associated costs. Unless they can sell the 35 for less than the D37 or increase the upcharge to the 5.0 significantly, they don't have enough headroom to charge that much--the upcharge from D37 to Coyote is only $1K. You can get away with charging a premium for the EB35 because its performance is equivalent to, if not better than, the 6.2, but it doesn't look like the EB27 will match the Coyote's performance, let alone exceed it, so I'd think you'd have trouble getting people to pay more for the EB27 than for the 5.0. About the only way I could see that happening is if the EB27 and 5.0 aren't available in the same trim lines, but there's some risk in that--making a V6 the top mill is one thing, but not having a V8 even available in a trim level is quite another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Keep in mind that the the 3.7 V6 currently makes up about 5% of sales and that in most popular configurations, the NA V6 is not available and the 5.0 V8 becomes the default base engine. Does Ford want to position the EB 27 as the default base engine in those heavier applications? Or is it better to keep the 5.0 V8 as that default base engine and option the EB 27 as an efficient engine between the V8 and the EB 35? I have a hunch that the choice between 5.0 V8 and the EB 27 will be a no cost option.... Thinking back to before the EB 35 was released in F150, plenty of people were thinking it would be sold at a lower price than the 5.0 V8, but here we are. I'd expect that the latest torque increase to EB 35 is an indicator that Ford is making room for the EB 27 to take its place alongside the 5.0 V8. The point to the EB 27 is for Ford to continue lowering its CAFE score, no one directly asked for this engine, much like no one asked for the EB 35 but once people know and understand the new engines, I'm sure that the EB 27 will be a hit just like the EB 35. Edited July 15, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I have a hunch that the choice between 5.0 V8 and the EB 27 will be a no cost option.... That's entirely possible, but I don't think you can position the EB27 above the Coyote, because it's not looking like it will have the numbers to fit the slot, and the numbers still matter to truck buyers--after all, the axle ratios still feature prominently in the F150's specs; how many other vehicles even show things like the axle ratio, let alone feature it? The guesses so far put the EB27 on par, at best, with the 5.0, and that'll only get you par on price in a truck. This isn't like being able to upcharge for a "lesser" engine in a car because it gets better mileage; in a truck, for an engine to take a slot above another engine, it has to have the numbers to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 how many other vehicles even show things like the axle ratio, let alone feature it? Mustang. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Think about the hallmark of Ecoboost, the torque from 1700 on is going to be up around roughly 360-370 lb ft while the 5.0 V8 at the same rpms is going to be significantly down around 300 to 320 lb ft. So it's possibly 60-70 lb ft difference - that's not a small matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I've heard several sets of HP/TQ numbers thrown around for the 2.7, from 300/300 to 320/370. Man, I wish Ford would stop playing around and release the real specs on everything. Then we could put all or speculations to rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Current line upEngine type 3.7L Ti-VCT 4-Valve V6 FFV 3.5L Ti-VCT 4-Valve V6 EcoBoost™ 5.0L Ti-VCT 4-Valve V8 FFV 6.2L VCT 2-Valve V8Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 302 @ 6500 365 @ 5000 360 @ 5500 411 @ 5500*Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 278 @ 4000 420 @ 2500 380 @ 4250 434 @ 4500* I'd assume the 3.5 will develop roughly the same power as the 3.7L and the 2.7L EB will maybe 5-10HP more with a bit more Torque to it, but better MPG numbers, which would be the reason for a $1K upcharge on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Man, I wish Ford would stop playing around and release the real specs on everything. Then we could put all or speculations to rest. Then we'd have nothing to argue about discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I'd assume the 3.5 will develop roughly the same power as the 3.7L and the 2.7L EB will maybe 5-10HP more with a bit more Torque to it, but better MPG numbers, which would be the reason for a $1K upcharge on it $1K upcharge from the D35, that I can see. There's another reason you can't position the EB27 above the Coyote--the upcharge from the 5.0 to the EB35 is a bit over $1000, so there's not really any room in between the two. I'm thinking that the "no charge option" between the EB27 and 5.0 is the most likely situation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) From the chart below, it's easy to see why the 3.5 EB V6 all but eliminated the need for the 6.2 V8 in F150. Now imagine a similar but lower torque curve for the 2.7 EB V6, climbing to about 350-360 lb ft... It's the bottom end torque that really counts when moving larger vehicles. Edited July 15, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 $1K upcharge from the D35, that I can see. There's another reason you can't position the EB27 above the Coyote--the upcharge from the 5.0 to the EB35 is a bit over $1000, so there's not really any room in between the two. I'm thinking that the "no charge option" between the EB27 and 5.0 is the most likely situation. I would venture to guess that the 2.7L will be a 'cost' option between the 5.0 and the 3.5EB. Isn't the EB $1750 or something over the 5.0? The 2.7L would slot between them nicely. You get performance equal (or nearly equal) to the 5.0, but another 3-4 MPGs. I think the new baby V6 is going to surprise a lot of people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 There was a 2015 Mustang dealer guide posted at Jalopnik a few weeks ago. It indicated that the Coyote, in the Mustang at least, was being upgraded. It mentioned new head castings with larger valves and a more agressive cam. If the F150 gets some of those upgrades the power gap between the 2.7 and 5.0 may be larger. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Then we'd have nothing to argue about discuss. This is still Blue Oval Forums. We'd find something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 This is still Blue Oval Forums. We'd find something. Did you hear the 2015 Edge won't be coming out until next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Did you hear the 2015 Edge won't be coming out until next year? Ah, that's boring. How about "Ford should bring Mercury back or else the company will fail!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Ah, that's boring. How about "Ford should bring Mercury back or else the company will fail!" Lincoln will fail if they don't build super high performance RWD vehicles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Lincoln will fail if they don't build super high performance RWD vehicles! See, we can do this for days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Ranger would be selling like hotcakes if they had only updated it........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.