Jump to content
  • Custom Search


ironhorse

Ram 1/2 ton Diesel a hit...did Ford miss the boat?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by jpvbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current line up

Engine 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 V8
Horsepower (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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

F150_Torque_Curves.jpg

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is still Blue Oval Forums. We'd find something. :hysterical:

 

Did you hear the 2015 Edge won't be coming out until next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×