F150 owners.....3.5 or 2.7 Ecoboost - Page 2 - Escape Trailer Owners Community
Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×

Go Back   Escape Trailer Owners Community > Escape Tech > Towing and Hitching
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2021, 07:28 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
C&G in FL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tampa Bay Area, Florida
Trailer: 2015 Escape 5.0TA (Little Elsie) Extensively Personalized
Posts: 2,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
For towing the extra displacement of the 3.5 versus the 2.7 is probably a good choice within the EcoBoost options, but many trailer tow vehicles are used mostly for other purposes, and in those other uses the 2.7 might be a better choice.
That I agree with. While I have, through experience, come to favor the 3.5 over the 2.7, my F-150s have never been daily drivers. All three were purchased to primarily function as tow vehicles. When not towing, the 2.7 is more fuel efficient and equally as “zippy” when not pulling a load.
__________________
What a long strange trip it’s been!
C&G in FL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2021, 07:38 PM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Missoula, Montana
Trailer: Future 5.0 TA, 2021 F150 3.5L
Posts: 11
Also a major consideration for some…. The 3.5L as much as I love it and own one, it can be a bit heavier on maintenance than the 2.7L. That 2.7L is a great design. The early 3.5’s had the timing chain issues which have been “solved” on gen 2, but gen 2 has introduced cam phaser issues.

The 3.5L also loves early oil changes due to fuel dilution.
Helihawkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2021, 03:00 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Fredericksburg, Texas
Trailer: Scamp 19, Tradewinds 24, Escape 5.0
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpaharley2008 View Post
"No replacement for displacement" is commonly known.........
“Injected is nice, blown is better” if we are quoting old car show wisdom.

I have the 2.7 and it is perfectly good. I get 19-20 while not towing (often driving 70-80mph) and about 13 towing (top out at 75mph).

My next F150 will likely be a 3.5, especially if they add a plug to the hybrid. But the 2.7 has never left me wanting. In fact, if they offered the 2.7 with a plug in hybrid I may replace my truck sooner than planned. It is a very good engine.

I bought it because I needed a truck and it was on the lot with discounts back in 2018.

ETA: I have an STX with a column shifter for the transmission. I don’t think they offer that on higher trims, which is a shame.
Keith3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2021, 03:59 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 14,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith3 View Post
My next F150 will likely be a 3.5, especially if they add a plug to the hybrid. But the 2.7 has never left me wanting. In fact, if they offered the 2.7 with a plug in hybrid I may replace my truck sooner than planned.
An EcoBoost V6 is available in a plug-in hybrid system for the Explorer/Aviator, but the F-150 hybrid is currently not available as a plug-in. I think the greater size and weight and hauling capacity of the F-150 is the reason, as the 35 kilowatt electric motor in hybrid (plug-in or not) Explorers/Aviators (the only thing driving the vehicle in electric-only mode) would not be adequate for the F-150. A plug-in hybrid usually needs to be relatively capable in electric-only mode to make sense. A larger electric motor could be used, but one large enough for the F-150, combined with the inverter to drive it and a plug-in-sized battery, may be too expensive to be economically feasible at this point.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2021, 04:24 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Fredericksburg, Texas
Trailer: Scamp 19, Tradewinds 24, Escape 5.0
Posts: 105
Yep, the reviews say it is hard to drive in electric only mode because the electric motor just isn’t big enough. It keeps wanting to start up the gas engine.

But I can still dream, right?
Keith3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2021, 08:50 PM   #26
MVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: New Mexico, New Mexico
Trailer: 2017 E19
Posts: 610
So back when I asked in #9 about fuel mileage for the 2.7l versus the 3.5l, it appears that there is not a significant advantage to the 2.7l in terms of fuel economy based on forum comments. Like others in the forum, I received a significant discounts for purchasing a F150 with a 2.7l, so I went with the 2.7l. It was works fine for my towing needs (up to 2 tons for me), but it appears that the decision between 2.7l vs 3.5l comes down to price, not fuel economy or power.

2 cents
MVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 07:41 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Naples, Florida
Trailer: New 21 Escape (not classic)10/16 Sold Lil Snoozy 7/16
Posts: 484
3.5 vs 2.7 Ford

We have a 2018. Expedition 2whl drive with the 3.5 eco boost engine Gen 2 which gives you Direct injection and 10 speed tranny .We have a 331 rear end no positraction or whatever Ford calls it Around town we get 17-20 mpg. (45 mph ) average on hwy we get 24-25 mpg (65mph) Towing a 21c we get 13-14 mpg doing about 65mph I was very impressed with this engine and car
jennykatz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 09:03 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Fredericksburg, Texas
Trailer: Scamp 19, Tradewinds 24, Escape 5.0
Posts: 105
I wouldn’t judge fuel economy based on forum comments. We all drive differently. I feel certain I could approach 15 mpg towing if I limited myself to 60 or 65 mph. I have also gotten over 24 mpg not towing if I put my mind to it.

That’s just not how I typically drive because I’m still working and the time is worth more than the fuel. Once I retire I may revisit that calculation.

But I guess it is fair to say that the difference is not extreme.
Keith3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 09:06 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Perry Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Lanesboro, MN, between Whalan and Fountain, Minnesota
Trailer: 2016 Bigfoot 25RQ - (2018 Escape 5.0 sold)
Posts: 2,155
First we owned a 2015 F150 extended cab with a 3.5 EB engine. 18,000 miles of pulling our 5.0 we averaged about 13.2 mpg, dividing the actual miles by actual pumped gas. I only count tanks that we drove for 90% or more pulling miles. Using the built-in Ford Lie-O-Meter we got over 14 mpg (yeah, right!).

We now own a 2019 F159 quad cab, with 3.5 EB engine. After 15,000 miles we get around 13.4 mpg, again the Lie-O-Meter also wants you to believe it's well over 14 mpg.

Only in urban areas will I drive over 65 mph to avoid being a hindrance to traffic. Most of the time we're going 60-62 mph in 9th gear or less. The engine lugs too much in 10th gear at 60 mph with our 3.55 rear end.

The 2015 had a 3.31 rear end and was rarely in 6th gear. We bought the truck for hauling a camper at 60-65 mph, not traveling down the Interstate at 80 mph. That 3.31 was a waste for us. It was the end of year, only those on lots were available to us, so we have the 3.55 rear end in our 2019 F150, but much rather would have the 3.73 so we wouldn't have to lock out 10 gear and the sifts would be even closer together.

We also found Eco mode gets better mileage than tow haul and shifts less. Eco allows you to increase your coasting speed by 5 mph going down hill and decrease your speed by 5 mph going up. In urban areas we don't use Eco, but standard shifting. I don't care for tow-haul in either the 6 or 10 speed versions, so I manual shift when needed in mountains.

I wish people would state if they're dividing actual miles by actual gallons used or just believing the Lie-O-Meter. A friend of ours has owned a 2017 and now 2020 Ram truck. His Ram Lie-O-Meter was even more optimistic than Ford's.

Enjoy,

Perry
__________________
Those who know everything use pens. Intelligent people use pencils.
Perry Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 10:25 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Dallas, Texas
Trailer: 2019 E19
Posts: 265
One thing that a lot of folks are not taking into account here is what axle ratio do you have in your current vehicle or did you have in your prior vehicle. Just comparing 2.7L vs 3.5L Ecoboost tow experiences without also knowing what gear ratio the truck has/had is nearly pointless, i.e. 3.15, 3.31, 3.55, or 3.73? A 2.7L with the optional 3.73 rear could feel very close to a 3.5 with the 3.15 axle when towing, especially when towing modest loads. Likewise a 2.7L with the 3.15 ratio would probably feel merely adequate compared to a 3.5L with the optional 3.73. These axle ratio differences are not insignificant.


I used to change the ring and pinion's in my cars back in my younger drag racing days and a 10 - 15% difference in final drive can have a massive seat of the pants difference.
Chamberman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 10:42 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
escape artist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Thomas not BVI., Ontario
Trailer: 2014 Escape 5.0TA / 2016 Ram Eco Diesel 4X4
Posts: 8,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamberman View Post
One thing that a lot of folks are not taking into account here is what axle ratio do you have in your current vehicle or did you have in your prior vehicle. Just comparing 2.7L vs 3.5L Ecoboost tow experiences without also knowing what gear ratio the truck has/had is nearly pointless, i.e. 3.15, 3.31, 3.55, or 3.73? A 2.7L with the optional 3.73 rear could feel very close to a 3.5 with the 3.15 axle when towing, especially when towing modest loads. Likewise a 2.7L with the 3.15 ratio would probably feel merely adequate compared to a 3.5L with the optional 3.73. These axle ratio differences are not insignificant.


I used to change the ring and pinion's in my cars back in my younger drag racing days and a 10 - 15% difference in final drive can have a massive seat of the pants difference.
Hi: Chamberman... Also a massive seat of the pants difference with them draped over the differential too!!! Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie
__________________
Quote Bugs Bunny..."Don't take life too seriously, none of us get out of it ALIVE"!!!
'16 Ram Eco D. 4X4 Laramie Longhorn CC & '14 Escape 5.0TA
St.Thomas (Not the Virgin Islands) Ontario
escape artist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 02:08 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 14,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennykatz View Post
We have a 2018. Expedition 2whl drive with the 3.5 eco boost engine Gen 2 which gives you Direct injection...
All EcoBoost engines have direct injection - the combination of turbocharging and direct injection is what makes them an EcoBoost. The change in the Gen 2 3.5 is the addition of port injection as well as the direct injection. The current 2.7 L and 3.5 L engines have essentially the same features, including both port and direct fuel injection.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 06:14 PM   #33
Member
 
JeffinBC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Port Moody, British Columbia
Trailer: 2022 Escape 21C
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVA View Post
So back when I asked in #9 about fuel mileage for the 2.7l versus the 3.5l, it appears that there is not a significant advantage to the 2.7l in terms of fuel economy based on forum comments. Like others in the forum, I received a significant discounts for purchasing a F150 with a 2.7l, so I went with the 2.7l. It was works fine for my towing needs (up to 2 tons for me), but it appears that the decision between 2.7l vs 3.5l comes down to price, not fuel economy or power.

2 cents
I think you’re right that fuel economy isn’t that different when towing. Gear ratios may have some impact but I think much of that is negated by the 10 speed transmission which is very good at keeping engine speed at the torque peak. It really comes down to what power you like and your budget. The 2.7 will tow anything Escape makes fairly easily but the 3.5 will do it better, and with less stress on the engine and turbos. So if you don’t tow much, the 2.7 is a good bet as fuel economy unladen is better. If you tow a lot, the 3.5 might do you better. If fuel economy is really an issue, a diesel is your best bet if you handle the price premium. Ymmv.
JeffinBC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 07:24 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
C&G in FL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tampa Bay Area, Florida
Trailer: 2015 Escape 5.0TA (Little Elsie) Extensively Personalized
Posts: 2,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryb67 View Post
First we owned a 2015 F150 extended cab with a 3.5 EB engine. 18,000 miles of pulling our 5.0 we averaged about 13.2 mpg, dividing the actual miles by actual pumped gas. I only count tanks that we drove for 90% or more pulling miles. Using the built-in Ford Lie-O-Meter we got over 14 mpg (yeah, right!).

We now own a 2019 F159 quad cab, with 3.5 EB engine. After 15,000 miles we get around 13.4 mpg, again the Lie-O-Meter also wants you to believe it's well over 14 mpg.

Only in urban areas will I drive over 65 mph to avoid being a hindrance to traffic. Most of the time we're going 60-62 mph in 9th gear or less. The engine lugs too much in 10th gear at 60 mph with our 3.55 rear end.

The 2015 had a 3.31 rear end and was rarely in 6th gear. We bought the truck for hauling a camper at 60-65 mph, not traveling down the Interstate at 80 mph. That 3.31 was a waste for us. It was the end of year, only those on lots were available to us, so we have the 3.55 rear end in our 2019 F150, but much rather would have the 3.73 so we wouldn't have to lock out 10 gear and the sifts would be even closer together.

We also found Eco mode gets better mileage than tow haul and shifts less. Eco allows you to increase your coasting speed by 5 mph going down hill and decrease your speed by 5 mph going up. In urban areas we don't use Eco, but standard shifting. I don't care for tow-haul in either the 6 or 10 speed versions, so I manual shift when needed in mountains.

I wish people would state if they're dividing actual miles by actual gallons used or just believing the Lie-O-Meter. A friend of ours has owned a 2017 and now 2020 Ram truck. His Ram Lie-O-Meter was even more optimistic than Ford's.

Enjoy,

Perry
Perry, my 3.5 mileage towing of @15 mpg towing my 5.0 TA comes from paper and pencil calculations at or after visiting the pump. BTW, the so-called Lie-O-Meter can be owner adjusted by going into the engineering test mode. If you do not know how to do this, and you have accurate figures from manual calculations, go to You Tube and search for “Correcting Ford Fuel Mileage Readout” or something similar. It is very easy to tweak. I get better mileage when I go north. I don’t know if it results from less dense air at higher elevation of different fuel formulations in various regions. But I suspect Ford sets the default to mileage to whatever the average fuel efficiency where they do their testing.
__________________
What a long strange trip it’s been!
C&G in FL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 08:48 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Perry Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Lanesboro, MN, between Whalan and Fountain, Minnesota
Trailer: 2016 Bigfoot 25RQ - (2018 Escape 5.0 sold)
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&G in FL View Post
Perry, my 3.5 mileage towing of @15 mpg towing my 5.0 TA comes from paper and pencil calculations at or after visiting the pump. BTW, the so-called Lie-O-Meter can be owner adjusted by going into the engineering test mode. If you do not know how to do this, and you have accurate figures from manual calculations, go to You Tube and search for “Correcting Ford Fuel Mileage Readout” or something similar. It is very easy to tweak. I get better mileage when I go north. I don’t know if it results from less dense air at higher elevation of different fuel formulations in various regions. But I suspect Ford sets the default to mileage to whatever the average fuel efficiency where they do their testing.
Yup! Know about this. No matter how I tweak it's still a Lie-O-Meter. Sometimes it's accurate, most times not. That's why I only trust paper/pencil. We drive all over the US, at all elevations, in all temperatures, etc. If we were only to drive locally then it's within reason, but we don't.

Enjoy,

Perry
__________________
Those who know everything use pens. Intelligent people use pencils.
Perry Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 01:06 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Fredericksburg, Texas
Trailer: Scamp 19, Tradewinds 24, Escape 5.0
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVA View Post
So back when I asked in #9 about fuel mileage for the 2.7l versus the 3.5l, it appears that there is not a significant advantage to the 2.7l in terms of fuel economy based on forum comments. Like others in the forum, I received a significant discounts for purchasing a F150 with a 2.7l, so I went with the 2.7l. It was works fine for my towing needs (up to 2 tons for me), but it appears that the decision between 2.7l vs 3.5l comes down to price, not fuel economy or power.

2 cents
For some reason I was thinking about this the other day and remembered that the real reason I have a 2.7 is that I wanted a lower trim truck and was in a bit of a time crunch so had to buy off the lot. There were no 3.5s in lower trim trucks on the lot.

I wasn’t interested in spending more than about $35k and the only way to do that was to stick to lower trims. All I needed was a center console with AC vents for the back seat.

I assume if I was building from a build sheet I could get a lower trim with a 3.5 and I will look into that when buying the next time.
Keith3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 02:08 PM   #37
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Quincy, Alabama
Trailer: Still Deciding
Posts: 48
5.0......no twin turbo's to replace someday. Shortly before the release of the 7.3 "godzilla" Ford Dealership mechanics were polled which engine they would want for their personal vehicle. The 3.5 Eco or the 5.0......90% said the 5.0 w/out a doubt.
Ret.LEO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 05:54 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Dallas, Texas
Trailer: 2019 E19
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ret.LEO View Post
5.0......no twin turbo's to replace someday. Shortly before the release of the 7.3 "godzilla" Ford Dealership mechanics were polled which engine they would want for their personal vehicle. The 3.5 Eco or the 5.0......90% said the 5.0 w/out a doubt.

The 5.0L engine has had its fair share of issues. A rash of out of round cylinders the first few years 2010 - 2012 and more recently oil consumption issues. I personally am driving a 2014 5.0L supercab and have had no issues but I get the attractiveness of the low end torque that the turbo motors provide. I see from another thread that you're a Tundra guy. Early reports are stating that the next gen Tundra will be a twin turbo V6.
Chamberman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 09:58 PM   #39
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2021 F150 Lariat 2.7L EB
Posts: 10,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ret.LEO View Post
5.0......no twin turbo's to replace someday. Shortly before the release of the 7.3 "godzilla" Ford Dealership mechanics were polled which engine they would want for their personal vehicle. The 3.5 Eco or the 5.0......90% said the 5.0 w/out a doubt.
Great, but the thread is about the differences between the 3.5 EB and the 2.7 EB - not about how turbos are lame and how the 5.0 V8 is so much better.

I've only towed with an EcoBoost V6 for over 6 years now with Zero problems.

Can we save that debate for a gearhead forum? Thanks in advance.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2021, 01:10 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Doug2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London, Ontario
Trailer: 2020 Escape 19
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helihawkins View Post
Also a major consideration for some…. The 3.5L as much as I love it and own one, it can be a bit heavier on maintenance than the 2.7L. That 2.7L is a great design. The early 3.5’s had the timing chain issues which have been “solved” on gen 2, but gen 2 has introduced cam phaser issues.

The 3.5L also loves early oil changes due to fuel dilution.
One other problem with the EcoBoost. Some owners baby them, and drive them lets say nicely. The waste gate needs to be regularly actuated or it seizes and leads to an over boost situation blowing the head gaskets. Every day at least once, put your foot into it. Build some boost and have some fun.
__________________
Had 2 Escapes, 17b, 19, went back to a pop up that fit in the garage. 2018 Coachman Clipper RBST HW AFrame
Doug2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Escape Trailer Industries or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2023 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.