I can think of a reason why the 2.7 liter motor won't be as big a volume motor as many people here are predicting it to be. Right now, the largest truck you can get the 2.7 motor on is a 4x4 Supercrew with the near-useless 5.5' bed. I see far more Supercrew F-150's rolling with the 6.5 bed. Vast majority of 1500's/150's are 4x4's as well. Most common configuration is the Supercrew with the 6.5' bed. I just wonder why Ford will not put the 2.7 into this truck. RAM has gone ahead and allowed their little pentastar to be optioned onto any RAM 1500 configuration. I think the 2.7 would be a good powerplant but something raises a flag with me if they stop short of their largest (not necessarily most capable) truck configuration.
Post in short: Can't put a 2.7 into a Ford 4x4 Supercrew with 6.5' bed. At least going by how the configurator was setup about 2 weeks ago when I checked it out.
In Texas, the most popular configuration for an F-150 is Supercrew 2WD with 5.5 bed, followed closely by the 4x4 supercrew 5.5 bed. Perhaps where you are the 6.5 bed is popular, but how many trucks does Ford sell in your state vs. mine?
Yeah, in my area, the 6.5 ft bed is a rarity as well. I think I came across exactly 2 listed for sale in my truck shopping.
Weird, though, my 5.5 ft bed holds everything I put in it. I didn't know it was useless!
Well, now you know !! ;)
The 3.5 had a lot of turbo related intercooler problems that took a long time to fix.
Chevy had a stop sale and recall on it's 1.4 turbo.
I will say that the more expensive diesels have worked out the problems on their turbo's. GM has seemed to fix al their injector problems and Ford seems to have worked out all their problems. But while they worked out all their problems their diesel option price has almost doubled.
I am not sure that 1 or 2 grand really covers the cost to Ford for it's turbo setups. And if it does, has it been at the expense of reliability.
Am I a doubting Thomas? Well with regards to turbo gas engines I guess I am. But you have to remember I have been interested in cars and driving for over 50 years. And up until now have not really seen a lot of turbo/super charged gas engines in a vehicle that was required to go more that 1/4 mile maybe a couple of hundred miles in the Indy cars.
Lets not forget the wonderful power and unreliability of the old Indy Buick.
The turbo could be the next miracle. But why not the supercharger? The supercharger doesn't have to sit on top of the block anymore so the clearance issues are no longer a problem. The super charger doesn't have to deal with the tremendous heat that the Turbo does. It can come in at real low rpm and doesn't restrict the exhaust.
VW have developed a small 1.4 liter gas engine along with Eaton. It's called the Twin Charger and has both a supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger provides good low end power....the turbocharger....enhances power at higher rpm.
Good power throughout the rpm range...equivalent to a significantly larger, non forced induction engine and with better MPG.
A better idea that a turbocharged or displacement on demand engine ? I'm not sure and of course there is that modern technology given...complexity.
VW Twin Charger engine
Maybe I should clarify a bit. I am having a hard time figuring what the 2.7 market is. The normal 3.7 v6 is cheaper to buy. And has decent mpg. The 3.5 has great HP. Where does the 2.7 fit into this lineup?
More power, better performance and similar or better MPG. Plus I would venture a guess the 2.7 can be packaged in other model lines easier than the base v6 we see in the F150. If the 2.7 becomes the base or a variant for other models the 3.7 will eventually go away.
Wonder if anyone ever would of thought...10 years ago... that a 2.7 liter (168 cube) engine would become an available engine for a full size pickup truck ?
I know we aren't there yet, but that is food for thought.
It reinforces how stringent Federal mandated MPG figures are and will become. I say this as manufacturer's are finding incredible and imaginative ways, to make sure their trucks lose significant weight and reduce displacement....while maintaining and/or improving power.
All in the quest of increased MPG.
I'm not saying this a bad thing. I am saying that we are witness to incredible engineering feats, that we as consumers, will benefit.
The pressure on engineering staff at the Big 3, must be unbelievable.
Makes me wonder how a 225CID engine from '61 moved 16,000# of truck and grain to the elevator? Or any farm grain truck from the '50's and early '60's got the job done.
I know what you mean, being a bit of an old farmer myself. I used to drive those farm trucks. We had a '50's IH with the Black Diamond six...( 200 something cubes), a '48 Fargo (Canadian Dodge) with a 250 cube flathead six...both grain trucks.
We could and move the heavy loads of truck and grain...but the distances were relatively short and the speeds were generally slow. From the combine to the grain bin, from the grain bin to the grain elevator.
On the fields and in the farm yards, generally we were going about 15 to...maybe 30 mph (top speed)and the grain elevator was about 25 miles away. With a load of grain we would go to the grain elevator about 25 or so miles away. With the Ford F 700 (370 V8)we would do about about 50 mph, with the '50's IH about 45 mph and slower with the '48 Fargo.
The engines...both OHV gas with the Ford and IH....but they didn't have a lot of punch.
Pulling a good sized travel trailer with a modern half ton pickup (F 150, Chevy/Dodge 1500)...at highway speeds in different terrains, racking up many 100's to 1000's of miles....is more demanding than the short miles and lower speeds, that many farm trucks put on.
However those old farm trucks were plenty rugged and could take a real kicking.
I agree with you 100%, about how much truck/power do we need to get the job done.
I think we have gone over board in that area, with monster HP/torque figures we have now.
Modern light truck power figures remind me, of the '60's muscle car Detroit HP wars.
One of the factors that seems to allow small displacement engines to use low rpm at constant highway speeds, is the advent of many gear transmissions. The newer 6 to 8 speed transmissions and in the Jeep Cherokee's case....a 9 speed are quite a jump from the 4 speed automatics of not all that long ago.
I think both the increased number of gears , the ability to have a greater number of closer ratios and improved automatic selection of the gear ratios in modern, current transmissions has been a boon to keep smaller engines within their power band.
Also engines...of all displacements/forced induction/non forced induction have benefited from variable valve timing and/or forced induction systems particularly those where there are two turbos...one for low speed 'launch' and the other turbo for punch, higher in the power band.
Amazing what technology has and can do. But to me the caveat is...that's a lot of expensive equipment to gain wide powerbands and multi speed transmissions to take advantage of it.
What happens when it needs to be fixed ?
Boy Ford's new 2.7 liter turbo truck engine....375 HP out of 2.7 liters.....that's about 162 -165 cubic inches.
Less, if I am not mistaken, I think the 2.7 Ecoboost is actually rated at 325 horsepower, and the 3.5 Ecoboost is rated at 365 horsepower. Either way, a lot for a small displacement.
You're right. Don't know how I got 375 hp. Senior's moment on my part.:)
Boy Ford's new 2.7 liter turbo truck engine....375 HP out of 2.7 liters(Correction....325 HP -** Thanks Fast Mopar.).....that's about 168 cubic inches. I did the conversion in my head....so that's just an approximate...I'm sure I'm out a few cubes ...+/-.
The correct cubic inches is 168.** Thanks ib516,
That's an awful lot of power being squeezed out of a relatively tiny engine....in a heavy truck that has a significant payload and towing capacity.
I think somewhere there has to be a balance...between cubic capacity....HP/torque being produced...purpose of the HP/torque.....general durability and long term longevity of certain high stress components. In this case the...high rpm, bearing cooling, capacity of the turbocharger(s).
I'm not a mechanical engineer and I'm sure Ford would have these questions resolved, before production.
But they are things that I would have in the back of my mind, if I owned a 2.7 turbo engine in a truck.
Another question is how low....cubic inch capacity....truck duty....will Ford go ?
They started with the 3.5 turbo V6 in the F 150. Now a 2.7 liter turbo V6 in an F 150 and this 2.7 puts out more HP/Torque than the original 3.5 Truck turbo V6.
How small an engine can Ford go to, in a full sized truck, with full size cargo/tow ratings ?
Where is the bottom line...for cubic inches ?
I'm not being critical, just inquiring.
GM seems to be going with larger cubic capacity, more cylinders...ie; 5.3 liter regularly aspirated (no turbo forced induction)... but with displacement on demand with 6 to 8 cylinders....than cutting out 2 to 4 cylinders under light load.
Which is better ?
Both Ford and GM are looking at the same way of achieving efficiency / improved fuel economy, while maintaining very good HP/Torque output. Same way being with reduced displacement....either permanent (fixed engine capacity, but forced induction- Ford) or varying displacement (displacement on demand, non forced induction- GM).
As with most things, eventually and probably....only one technology will win out.
Which will it be and why ?
Tiny homes seem to be something that seems to be taking place in Europe. Do you need more than 500-600 square feet of cabin space, for husband, wife and 2 kids ? My view is to have it permanently placed....not too move it around.
I kind of like the idea. If you could buy a small property in the country, maybe near a lake or river....it might be a better deal than towing a large trailer all over.
Rather than having a one ton or 3/4 ton tow truck...maybe a small SUV like a Jeep Patriot would be good. Tow a small utility trailer behind it, get the Trail Rated package and you could easily access with 4 family members....summer and winter.
Great post Jim. Your detail is much more thorough than any media report I have read.
Mr. Vickers is truly a hero.
Your summation says it all and I quote you:
" People here in Canada are saddened by this event, but we will not let fear govern our future. We will continue to be a fair and lawful country, with the same type of quiet bravery that Kevin Vickers showed, when the lives of some many people were being threatened by a mad man. "
Our family has family members both in Canadian police and the Canadian military. Unbelievable how fast things can change.
However one thing that never changes, is the strong, positive relationship between Canada and the USA.
As a Canadian I've always been happy and thankful, to have America as our neighbour.
Corporations and labor unions. Largely the same thing; one not more, nor less, noble than the other.
Both are merely united groups formed 100% for their own consolidated benefit and power, one a union of small business owners, the other a union of physical production.
May neither obtain absolute power... ever.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton
Very good assessment in a nutshell, Wes.
British Lord Acton, was onto something when he came up with that thought.
Another well regarded British aristocrat....Sir Winston Churchill came up with this bon mot....which reminds me of a few, extreme brand loyalists we have read on this thread;
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
As per usual, excellent posts from Ben, who IMO, has a marvelous gift for taking, then distilling complex mechanical issues down to easily understandable explanations.
I quote from Ben:
"The high MPG of hybrids are due to two things. Two sources of power,
the liquid fuel (gasoline or diesel....toss in propane and the other
forms of liquefied gaseous fuel) and the battery...which has a higher
power density than either gasoline or diesel
False MPG, as the day of reckoning is the day you have to replace the
worn out Li-Ion battery. Tens of thousands of bucks at todays current
The same can be said for 100% electric too. Plus using the grid
to recharge skirts the various road taxes...for now"
In my opinion, many people are attracted to 'new' technology....such as hybrid or electric technology...assuming it will be all benefit, without any penalties.
As Ben says, the expense of replacing Li-on batteries is significant. I realize that manufacturers tout long battery lives....think around 8 years or so....for these batteries, but sometime they will need to be replaced at great cost.
I can only imagine what the resale value on a Toyota Prius will be , when the car is 7 or so years old and the battery replacement issue is coming near.
Ben also mentions that:
"....using the grid
to recharge skirts the various road taxes...for now"
I agree. IMO, once significant numbers of cars are made and sold on the market with either Hybrid or complete electric power....I can see the price of electricity going up. It's only a matter of time.
Also to me, the jury is still out on the longevity of turbos or superchargers, on engines.
I read about an interesting engine (Hot Rod Magazine ) that a Ford engineer mentioned in an interview. Apparently it's a 4 cylinder engine...very small...1.4 liters....with both a supercharger and a turbocharger .The supercharger provides non lag low end power, the turbo...high end power...the small displacement provides good MPG.
My preferences would be to have a larger displacement, non super or turbocharged, engine. My view....is that a fuel injected gas engine,is not working as hard as as a forced induction engine and less expensive parts replacement in the future. Also some mechanics see turbos as service items which will need to be replaced at certain time intervals. Ie;... cold/hot cycles, lubrication of bearings, high rpm of internal turbocharger components.
Maybe I'm just an old fogey ? Perhaps....or...maybe not.
In the end, there is no free lunch.
If there was...well I'd go for a corned beef on rye, with Swiss cheese and a regular coke.;)
Good luck, we have a 2008 extended cab and as you, we were always a Bow-tie family.
We were excited about our first new truck,after 30,000 miles the transmission went bad. At 80,000 the intake manifold and cylinder head went bad. at 130,000 the transmission went a 2nd time. None of these issues turned our heads from being a Chevy family, but the final straw was the dealer who did the service they were the worst.
Good luck with your new Colorado. As for us the next truck will be something other than a Chevy. Hope the dealer is better than any of the ones in the upstate ny area.
Your experience is the exact opposite of my son's experience with his 2008 extended cab Colorado, bought new in November 2008.
He had 129K on the odometer when he finally traded it in. Problems...yes. A leaking power steering hose and a bad radio speaker. That's it.
He had the 5 cylinder and the Z 71 package.
He lives where the winters are long...about 5 1/2 months, snow is heavy and the temp plunges down to -25 to -35 C for sometimes weeks at a time.
Many times at work, there was no available plug in and his vehicle would be outside for 10 hours or more. Always quick start ups.
Consumer reports (yes, I know, it's all made up stuff, bla bla) had the Colorado at the top of it's most unreliable list in ~2009 Link.
Luckily, I don't think the new truck has ANYTHING to do with the old ones, so I wouldn't use past performance as a predictor of the future.
Sounds like you actually believe what CR has to say on subjects. As I indicated before, my son's experience with his 2008 Chevy Colorado was excellent.
Ford owned Jaguar, which made entire bodies from aluminum. The hood on the F150 has been aluminum for what, a decade? Unless you think steel airplanes, motorcycles, snowmobiles and engine blocks are a great idea, I have a hard time understanding the luddite fear of aluminum.
Probably the reason for the 'Luddite' fear.....is because many posters have been around for a long time. They remember some of the initial attempts to use aluminum, in place of the more traditional materials.
The Chevy Vega's aluminum engine block (1970's)or early mating of dissimilar metals...ie; aluminum heads on cast iron blocks by many manufacturers, etc. There were some issues...some greater than others.
Many of the issues that had to be worked out using aluminum, have been worked out as use of aluminum has evolved, over the years.
But because there is that past history, many individuals have concerns, that issues may surface, when aluminum is used. I think concern about 'newer' application of a material, used in large volume, can make many to want to sit back and see how a newer material...works first over an extended period, before accepting. This is not unwise.
Yes aluminum has been used in bodies before...one comes to mind Aston Martin, Jaguar, etc.
But Ford is using it on a huge volume vehicle, that will be put to the hard and long service use that trucks are expected to fulfill.
I expect that there will be no issues and that aluminum use will be successful with the Ford truck line.
But I also will be one, who will prefer to monitor the situation...see how things go over the first few years, before thinking about a commitment to buy a truck like this.
I also think that the other makers will follow in Ford's footsteps, when it comes to decision about material choice for truck bodies.
With ever increasing, stringent federal requirements for increased MPG's....the ability to significantly reduce weight, while maintaining high vehicle capability is a good decision for a manufacturer. It's a very good way to accomplish increased fuel efficiency, increased towing capability and increased performance in braking and handling. Less weight is always better, if capability such as payload, towing capacity can be maintained and/or improved and not compromised.
BTW, being a history buff, I think your use of the term 'Luddite' is over reaching....just a bit. ;)
Class 8 trucks are duallys usually, except for the ones that are single rear wheel.
As long as you get a dually one you will be fine.
We are looking at class 8's - saw one with door sticker GCWR 140,000lbs.
The missus couldn't possibly pack...
Yeah, don't get a SRW class 8, you'll never here the end of it.:D
Actually; a friend ordered a new Mack Vision 630 in 04 with full condo sleeper and auto-shift and immediately removed his inner wheels on both of his tandems. He consulted with Mack and got all the engineering authorization to maintain warranty due to his never using it for commercial and never hooking the thing to anything heavier than his Mountain Aire. It rode way better with just the four outer aluminums and without the added unsprung weight of those other four steel inner wheels. His huge air/disk brakes were also cooled better because they were not hidden inside a wheel. Service guys loved the set up as everything was much easier to view and work on.
Super singles didn't quite catch on over here as compared to the European and U.K.. Cost and availability were prohibitive.
Out here on the vast prairies, one of the prime reasons, super singles didn't catch on, was because of concerns about having a flat. With dually's, you can always limp into to the nearest large town or city, with tire repair facilities.
With super singles...you can be in a more difficult predicament due to the fact that cities and large towns in the prairies, are quite a distance.
I had an electric snowblower ...a Toro. It was useless.
About 18 years ago, I bought a new MTD 24/5 snowblower. It has a Tecumseh 5 HP SnowKing, 5 speeds forward, one reverse.
It's excellent but it's gas powered.
We get long, hard winters up here on the Canadian prairies. Big drifts, big snows, really cold.
The MTD has been great. Starts great. The secret to a good starting, gas snowblower is to switch off the fuel cock and run the engine till the carb is dry of gas. Every time after you've cleared snow.
If you don't, remaining gas evaporates in the carb and leaves residue which gums up the carb, making it hard or impossible to start next time.
I also make sure I change and gap the spark plug every season.
I also use fresh gas, bought at the beginning of the season and also put some StaBil in the gas to preserve it.
My Snow King engine usually starts first or second pull. Eighteen winters .
What FJ12 says makes sense. I don't think Oregon gets much snow, or at least doesn't the snow melt after a few days ? If so you may not need the heavier duty gasser snowblower that I need for my 6 month winters. The snow starts in late October, early November, and is here till late March/ early April. It never disappears in that period. Just accumulates.
Just use Zerex Dexcool.
Thanks for the recommendation. As to a leak, I've never added any coolant in 2 years but like to have some on hand just in case I need to add a bit.
Ron, if the Traverse is still under warranty I would only use GM Dexcool, bought from the Chevy dealer.
I'm also not sure if it's a good idea to mix different brands. I'm assuming the Traverse still has the original factory issued GM, but that's just my assumption.
Also I am careful about using the proper mix...of antifreeze and distilled water....as per GM recommendations.
I never top off, just using water as depending n the quantity it can weaken the mix. Being that I'm in a cold climate, I may need to maintain the proper mix, more than those who live south of me.
I think it's a very good idea that you have, about keeping some on hand. I do the same, and also keep the brand/type of motor oil on hand.