F150 - 2.7L vs 3.5L vs 5.0L

[Highlander]

I'd focus on buying the most proven, durable, reliable, simple drivetrain you can buy

We hear you and you might have a point here but the old NA engines will be replaced soon by overly complicated, modern turbo engines mated with some sort of hybrid system.
For first 10 years they will be unreliable like everything else was in early stage, auto transmission comes in mind.
If you drove an auto in 60s your masculinity was questioned. Today we are competing who's got more gears in the new transmission.
If you have less then 7 gear you probably are gay... (Needless to say I don't share this opinion)

The guy I train my dog with he got a ford f250 FX4 XL last year for the very same reasons you are concerned with. Those engines will be gone in 7-10 years.

 

[Todd780]

For first 10 years they will be unreliable like everything else was in early stage, auto transmission comes in mind.

The 3.5L EcoBoost has been available in the f150 for 11 years now.

 

[Grassland]

The 3.5L EcoBoost has been available in the f150 for 11 years now.

And they still haven't ironed it out

 

[T-Willy]

I was spec’ing F-150s today. The 2.7 in an extended cab XL FX4 with 36-gallon fuel tank is a compelling, high-value remote touring platform. Gobs of range.

 

[skrypj]

My 2.7 has been crap, lots of new broncos have been crap…

I am not sure I have heard anyone straight up say their F150 2.7 sucked besides you. I have seen some people frustrated about oil pan leaks, but besides that they seem very solid.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I am not sure I have heard anyone straight up say their F150 2.7 sucked besides you. I have seen some people frustrated about oil pan leaks, but besides that they seem very solid.

I’ve known of a few 3.5 ecos locally to me that were total crap before 100k. My neighbor right now, his overheats and goes limp mode if he tows over 5k.

 

[skrypj]

I’ve known of a few 3.5 ecos locally to me that were total crap before 100k. My neighbor right now, his overheats and goes limp mode if he tows over 5k.

3.5’s, absolutely, they have had issues.Thats why i said i think your are the only person ive heard say their 2.7 sucked.

Tell your neighbor to make sure his coolant system is properly bled. Ive heard a lot of people with that issue and its a result of air pockets in the cooling system and they need to be vacuum bled.

And I am not saying the 3.5 doesnt have overheating issues, but unless you are towing a travel trailer in the rockies in the summer, it shouldn’t be an issue.

 

[Highlander]

Is the 2.7 same engine as the 3.5? mechanically speaking.

 

[rruff]

Is the 2.7 same engine as the 3.5? mechanically speaking.

Nope. Completely different design.

EDIT: Found this user post in another forum:

"Something to note, though, is that the 3.5 EcoBoost started out as a naturally aspirated V6 that Ford later threw some turbos onto. It's an open deck design, all aluminum block, forged crank but powdered rods and hyper pistons.

The 2.7/3.0 Nano engines were designed from the ground up to be turbocharged. They're a partially closed-deck design with a CGI main block and aluminum webbing structure. This makes it MONUMENTALLY more sturdy than the 3.5's block. Look into the really high horsepower 3.5 builds like what Livernois is doing - they machine out the top part of the 3.5 block and press in their own plate to make it a partially closed deck design.

The 2.7/3.0 are that way from the factory. And their cylinders and main structure are CGI like a diesel engine - made to take extremely high cylinder pressures and punishing forces of a high horsepower turbocharged engine for hundreds of thousands of miles. I'm usually a "no replacement for displacement" guy but the structure of the 2.7/3.0 lets it take a whole lot more boost and abuse than the 3.5 can."

 

[Grassland]

That's mostly correct but the cyclone engine was designed with forced induction in mind as well IIRC.
2.7 I still hear less issues with across forums and in articles online compared to any version of 3.5EB and the later 5.0 with dual injection

 

[skrypj]

Nope. Completely different design.

EDIT: Found this user post in another forum:

"Something to note, though, is that the 3.5 EcoBoost started out as a naturally aspirated V6 that Ford later threw some turbos onto. It's an open deck design, all aluminum block, forged crank but powdered rods and hyper pistons.

The 2.7/3.0 Nano engines were designed from the ground up to be turbocharged. They're a partially closed-deck design with a CGI main block and aluminum webbing structure. This makes it MONUMENTALLY more sturdy than the 3.5's block. Look into the really high horsepower 3.5 builds like what Livernois is doing - they machine out the top part of the 3.5 block and press in their own plate to make it a partially closed deck design.

The 2.7/3.0 are that way from the factory. And their cylinders and main structure are CGI like a diesel engine - made to take extremely high cylinder pressures and punishing forces of a high horsepower turbocharged engine for hundreds of thousands of miles. I'm usually a "no replacement for displacement" guy but the structure of the 2.7/3.0 lets it take a whole lot more boost and abuse than the 3.5 can."

Fun fact, the 1st gen 3.5L Ecoboost exhaust manifolds fit the 3.7L Cyclone motor. People with 3.7L Mustangs have used the Ecoboost mani's to turbo their cars.

Its also probably why the 1st gen 3.5 manifolds have a tendency to warp.

 

[Grassland]

Auto Mafia has some turbo kits for the 3.7 mustangs. Haven't looked too hard into them. They had one beat up rental car with 2.73 gearing and 180k miles on it they turbo'd, ran high 9s or something and threw a rod IIRC, just to see how a beat up semi neglected 3.7 could handle abuse. I don't remember what the boost was set to.

 

[Highlander]

The 2.7/3.0 Nano engines were designed from the ground up to be turbocharged. They're a partially closed-deck design with a CGI main block and aluminum webbing structure. This makes it MONUMENTALLY more sturdy than the 3.5's block. Look into the really high horsepower 3.5 builds like what Livernois is doing - they machine out the top part of the 3.5 block and press in their own plate to make it a partially closed deck design.

wow I didn't know this.
If you had to pick a new F150 for long-term ownership, longevity, cheap service, decent mpg and you also knew you were not gonna tow anything more than 8000lb what engine would pick, the 2.7EB or the 3.3NA?

 

[Todd780]

wow I didn't know this.
If you had to pick a new F150 for long-term ownership, longevity, cheap service, decent mpg and you also knew you were not gonna tow anything more than 8000lb what engine would pick, the 2.7EB or the 3.3NA?

If not more than 8,000 lbs then how much? I don't think I'd tow 7,500 lbs with a 2.7. But, that's me. And I'm picturing a travel trailer...

Personally regardless I'd go with the 2.7 over the 3.3.

 

[skrypj]

wow I didn't know this.
If you had to pick a new F150 for long-term ownership, longevity, cheap service, decent mpg and you also knew you were not gonna tow anything more than 8000lb what engine would pick, the 2.7EB or the 3.3NA?

The 2.7 is hard to pass up. Its only a $1200 option over the base 3.3 and offers significantly more torque and a decent amount more power. For truck stuff like towing, 2.7 is an easy choice. Also, towing an 8000 lb trailer with the 3.3L would suck. My 301hp/330tq Lexus GX struggles with my 5500 lb travel trailer.

It also surprisingly gets a higher MPG rating by the EPA and Fuelly says they are pretty close real world. So you're not taking a hit on efficiency, just the initial cost.

I don't know much about reliability on the 3.3L. I assume it may be slightly better simply because its a simpler engine, but the 2.7 has proven itself to be pretty reliable.