F150 - 2.7L vs 3.5L vs 5.0L

[Dougnuts]

Do all motor platforms have the annoying start/stop feature, or just the 5.0L?

The 5.0 has cylinder deactivation, but the 2.7L and 3.5L shouldn't, right?

My understanding is that only the 5.0 has cylinder deactivation. The 5.0 and 2.7TT also have a wet belt driven oil pump.

Those items are the reason I went with the 3.5TT in my new truck.

 

[rruff]

Cylinder deactivation, or auto-start stop? Those are not the same thing.

The buzz is that cylinder deactivation will not happen if you are in Sport or Tow/Haul modes, so that is easy. But the complexity of the parts that allow for cylinder deactivation will still be there.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

Our 2023 MAVERICK 2.0 Eco-Boost and 2023 BRONCO 2.3 Eco-Boost have cylinder deactivation.

Easy override with the push of a button on console/dash OR you can order a kit online that will always deactivate it without any effort on your part.

Cylinder deactivation, or auto-start stop? Those are not the same thing.

I think the Maverick has both cylinder deactivation and stop / start. Our Bronco Sport has the Stop / Start deactivation button you are referring to, it's located on the console by the E brake.

Do all motor platforms have the annoying start/stop feature, or just the 5.0L?

The 5.0 has cylinder deactivation, but the 2.7L and 3.5L shouldn't, right?

My '22 F150 3.5 was delivered without the stop /start feature due to chip shortages. So if buying used, it's possible to get them with out stop / start. Not sure if the chip is being installed on the new 24's.

 

[Dougnuts]

I think the Maverick has both cylinder deactivation and stop / start.

I don't think the 2.0T has cylinder deactivation. As far as I know, only the 1.5T (3-cylinder) and the 5L currently have it.

2023 Ford Maverick AWD

Fuel Economy of the 2023 Ford Maverick AWD. Compare the gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions of the 2023 Ford Maverick AWD side-by-side with other cars and trucks

www.fueleconomy.gov

For the record, I'm not as concerned about the valvetrain issues with the 5.0's cylinder deactivation, I am concerned about oil control in the cylinders that are turned off. It may not be an issue, but Honda has/had significant problems with it on their 3.5L v6 for quite a while.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

I don't think the 2.0T does. As far as I know, only the 1.5T (3-cylinder) and the 5L currently have it.

2023 Ford Maverick AWD

Fuel Economy of the 2023 Ford Maverick AWD. Compare the gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions of the 2023 Ford Maverick AWD side-by-side with other cars and trucks

www.fueleconomy.gov

For the record, I'm not as concerned about the valvetrain issues with the 5.0's cylinder deactivation, I am concerned about oil control in the cylinders that are turned off. It may not be an issue, but Honda has/had significant problems with it on their 3.5L v6 for quite a while.

Could be. We have the 1.5L in our Sport.

I wasn't concerned with the 5.0. Just wanted the low end grunt of the 3.5TT for trailer towing duties.

Really, I think you'd have the same amount of luck going with any engine offered in a F150 / RAM 1500 / Silverado / Sierra / Tundra.... They are all pretty good trucks overall. Regardless of make or model it is possible to get a lemon. It happens.

You pay your money and you take your chances. Then buy extended warranty.... haha

 

[plainjaneFJC]

The buzz is that cylinder deactivation will not happen if you are in Sport or Tow/Haul modes, so that is easy. But the complexity of the parts that allow for cylinder deactivation will still be there.

That’s hurts daily economy. If you want to trick the computer the easiest thing to do is get a blank 7 pin hitch plug and leave it in all the time- it thinks you are towing without changing everything to tow/ haul mode.

 

[vintageracer]

Cylinder deactivation, or auto-start stop? Those are not the same thing.

You are right!

NOT cylinder deactivation but AUTO-STOP/START deactivation!

My Mistake.

I happen to hate both of em!

 

[D45]

2.7L - 165 cid
325 HP @ 5,000
400 TQ @ 2,750

3.5L - 213 cid
375 HP @ 5,000
470 TQ @ 2,500

5.0L - 302 cid
395 HP @ 5,750
400 TQ @ 4,500

I didn't realize the 2021 3.5L numbers jumped, alot

400HP @ 6,000
500TQ @ 3,100

Is this on all 3.5L applications or?

 

[Dougnuts]

I didn't realize the 2021 3.5L numbers jumped, alot

400HP @ 6,000
500TQ @ 3,100

Is this on all 3.5L applications or?

Yes, except Raptor is 450hp. Rumor is that the regular 3.5 will make close to Raptor numbers on 91+ octane.

 

[Moyshe Kapoyer]

That’s hurts daily economy. If you want to trick the computer the easiest thing to do is get a blank 7 pin hitch plug and leave it in all the time- it thinks you are towing without changing everything to tow/ haul mode.
View attachment 816937

Or, just turn it off with Forscan.

 

[calicamper]

I didn't realize the 2021 3.5L numbers jumped, alot

400HP @ 6,000
500TQ @ 3,100

Is this on all 3.5L applications or?

Ford was sorta using hp in their trim differences around 2019. For example my Platinum Expedition was listed at 400hp, the lower trims were sub 400 in the marketing papers. The Lincoln version was 450 etc. I noticed all the trims were pretty much 400 by 2023. 91 definitely changes the tune pretty noticeable difference between 87 and 91 regarding performance.

If you go find the tear down videos of the recent versions of the 2.7 and the 3.5 they are super beefy with some block structural features you don’t see in other engines. Definitely built for truck applications.

The 3.0 is quite different built for lighter work loads but higher RPM performance basically the race car engine version of the 2.7.

The 2.3 is heavily updated since its early days also.

My understanding about all the cylinder deactivation the primary issue is the valve actuator thats part of the deactivation mechanism starts to fail and causes valve failure GM and Chysler both apparently are well known for this issue by the engine builders. GM LS those guys convert them back to standard valving to avoid that failure issue. Not sure about the Fords I kinda suspect Ford shied away from it due to those issues and finding fuel economy saving in weight loss and more gears.

 

[D45]

I guess I'm impressed with the 2021+ numbers, knowing how much I liked the power of my 2012 F150 with the 3.5L (365HP / 420TQ)

 

[Todd n Natalie]

There are two 3.5's: The regular one and the HO. The major differences are the HO has slightly lower compression, larger turbos, and more aggressive tuning.

As for octane, the truck has a very accurate knock sensor and monitors knock closely, and adjust the timing and fuel curves accordingly. There is something like a 20-25 hp difference between regular and premium fuel on an otherwise stock EcoBoost. Much to the dismay of raptor and Limited owners, for about 600.00 you can easily tune a regular 3.5 to make more power than the 3.5HO.

I ran a set of CR stage 3 cores in my stock turbo housings on my 2015 and had meth injection. It was probably close to 475-500Hp at the rear wheels. It held up well for the 240k that I had it. It could spin all 4-35x10.5s on dry pavement without much effort.

The 3.5 EcoBoost is based on the old NA 3.5. The 2.7 was designed from the ground up to be a twin turbo, full size truck engine, so it’s internals are very stout. I almost went with the 2.7, but they were brand new when I bought my F150 and the 3.5 was a little more proven.

Yes, except Raptor is 450hp. Rumor is that the regular 3.5 will make close to Raptor numbers on 91+ octane.

Ford was sorta using hp in their trim differences around 2019. For example my Platinum Expedition was listed at 400hp, the lower trims were sub 400 in the marketing papers. The Lincoln version was 450 etc. I noticed all the trims were pretty much 400 by 2023. 91 definitely changes the tune pretty noticeable difference between 87 and 91 regarding performance.

If you go find the tear down videos of the recent versions of the 2.7 and the 3.5 they are super beefy with some block structural features you don’t see in other engines. Definitely built for truck applications.

The 3.0 is quite different built for lighter work loads but higher RPM performance basically the race car engine version of the 2.7.

The 2.3 is heavily updated since its early days also.

My understanding about all the cylinder deactivation the primary issue is the valve actuator thats part of the deactivation mechanism starts to fail and causes valve failure GM and Chysler both apparently are well known for this issue by the engine builders. GM LS those guys convert them back to standard valving to avoid that failure issue. Not sure about the Fords I kinda suspect Ford shied away from it due to those issues and finding fuel economy saving in weight loss and more gears.

Huh. I never knew about the +91 octane boosting HP / Torque numbers. Most stations around here carry 87, 89 then it jumps to +93/+94. I'll have to try filing up with +93/+94 next time I'm headed out towing our trailer and see if I can notice any difference in torque when towing.

 

[deserteagle56]

Huh. I never knew about the +91 octane boosting HP / Torque numbers. Most stations around here carry 87, 89 then it jumps to +93/+94. I'll have to try filing up with +93/+94 next time I'm headed out towing our trailer and see if I can notice any difference in torque when towing.

Owner's manual on my F150 with the 3.5 recommends using the highest octane possible when towing heavy. Engine will adjust and put out additional power on the higher octane fuel.

 

[ITTOG]

Owner's manual on my F150 with the 3.5 recommends using the highest octane possible when towing heavy. Engine will adjust and put out additional power on the higher octane fuel.

I tried that with all octane ratings available to me: 87, 89, 91, and 93. I saw no changes at all (mpg's, power, torque, etc). This was true whether I was towing or not.