Topic: Rumour: 2015 Ford F-150 To Get Small Displacement EcoBoost V6

[Autos_Editor]

In addition to wide use of aluminum, rumours have it a 2.7L EcoBoost V6 could be introduced in new F-150 pickup

Read More...

[Ex-airbalancer]

That is one ugly truck 

[Fobroader]

While I think it looks much better than the current generation of F150s, I dont get the need for this engine. If you want to tow, Ecoboost/V8, if you are a fleet owner, the V6.....what the hells the point of this thing?? "I dont need the power of the Ecoboost, the reliability of the V8 or the fuel efficiency of the V6......if only they made an engine for me!!".

[PJ]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5. 

[Fobroader]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

[Northernridge]

Interesting that only Ford is offering turbos in half tons, they must be learning a lot from the experiment.

[Vanstar]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

320 hp is "underpowered?"

We live in a strange world......

[Fobroader]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

320 hp is "underpowered?"

We live in a strange world......

For a truck...yeah...

[wing]

The current V6s are more powerful then the old V8s. The RAM V6 I tested was awesome IMO

[tpl]

I would expect a 320 bhp F150 to have no trouble running around with the 1000 lb load.  I suspect MANY people just don't tow anything heavier than a CanTire trailer full of stuff to the dump if even that.

[Northernridge]

When it comes to hauling/towing it's more about lower RPM torque than hp I believe. An engine that requires high revs to make decent power is not ideal in a pickup.

[safristi]

May I suggest a SUPER Charger

[Northernridge]

I think it's kind of ugly in the snout too. Big, complex chrome plastic chunks…sort of barking up Toyota's tree. The current F150s are looking pretty good and don't need fixing up front. I like Ford's distinction between their light and HD trucks, this effort blurs the line a bit would make me feel like I had the wanna-be truck.

[Fobroader]

When it comes to hauling/towing it's more about lower RPM torque than hp I believe. An engine that requires high revs to make decent power is not ideal in a pickup.

Yup! Torque is where its at!!

[RobM]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

320 hp is "underpowered?"

We live in a strange world......

For a truck...yeah...

Jeez. I own a 3.5L ecoboost F150 and would argue it is overpowered and overkill unless you are towing something big. Truck weighs around 5800lbs and will do 0-60 in 6.1 seconds according to Car and Driver, but it can't stop or turn. It isn't a fun vehicle to drive fast.

If the new 2.7 liter combined with the new 9 or 10 speed transmission comes with a real world improvement in fuel economy, I'll buy one. 370 ft lbs of torque should be plenty for most people. Up until just a few years ago that would have been what the top level V8 option would put out.

Too bad the diesel is such a costly option in the Ram.

[Ex-airbalancer]

I think it's kind of ugly in the snout too. Big, complex chrome plastic chunks…sort of barking up Toyota's tree. The current F150s are looking pretty good and don't need fixing up front. I like Ford's distinction between their light and HD trucks, this effort blurs the line a bit would make me feel like I had the wanna-be truck.

The front looks cartoonish, I like a more mature look 

[Vanstar]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

320 hp is "underpowered?"

We live in a strange world......

For a truck...yeah...

Jeez. I own a 3.5L ecoboost F150 and would argue it is overpowered and overkill unless you are towing something big. Truck weighs around 5800lbs and will do 0-60 in 6.1 seconds according to Car and Driver, but it can't stop or turn. It isn't a fun vehicle to drive fast.

If the new 2.7 liter combined with the new 9 or 10 speed transmission comes with a real world improvement in fuel economy, I'll buy one. 370 ft lbs of torque should be plenty for most people. Up until just a few years ago that would have been what the top level V8 option would put out.

Too bad the diesel is such a costly option in the Ram.

My first and only pick-up was a GMC half ton with a 250 Six and four on the floor. We used to fill the bed with firewood every weekend, and tow an 8' pick up box trailer, also filled.

That 250 had maybe 100 hp and we never failed to make it home. Too bad 320 hp isn't enough for today's world!

[mixmanmash]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

Not if they take 700lbs weight out of the truck like Ford is attempting to do.

Love how the thread focused on the new engine versus the significant weight reduction.

[revalations]

I'm patiently waiting for the new F150 to show before I buy a new truck. It will be between it and a new GMC. I hope it's toned down from the atlas concept, I don't like it.

If GM had availability now for the new 6.2 v8 I'd probably already have my new truck. Ford has a chance to convince me to buy another one of their trucks, but I'll take a good ole V8 please!

[PJ]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

Not if they take 700lbs weight out of the truck like Ford is attempting to do.

Love how the thread focused on the new engine versus the significant weight reduction.

That's because the smaller engine is easier to believe.  I'd love to see a 700 lb weight loss but have my doubts.  They could do it by making the truck 10-20% smaller but then it wouldn't sell to the average pick up buyer.