Ford Announces 2.7L Ecoboost Powertrain Details

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler

Ford has announced power figures for the 2.7L Ecoboost engine powering the new F-150 – and later on, other Ford models – while also announcing a sub-5,000lb curb weight.

The new 2.7L engine makes 325 horsepower and 375 lb-ft of torque, with a maximum tow rating of 8,500 lbs and a 2,250 lb payload capacity. The venerable 3.7L V6 will be dropped for a 3.5L version that makes 283 horsepower and 255 lb-ft of torque. Towing capacity is up 900 lbs from the 3.7L to 7,600 lbs while payload capacity sits at 1,910 lbs.

Curb weight for the new trucks should sneak it at under 5,000 lbs, with the new Lariat trim shedding 732 lbs versus the 2014 truck. According to Ford, a 2015 Lariat will weight 4,942 lbs, though the actual fuel economy numbers weren’t announced alongside these figures, nor was any indication given regarding the power figures for the 3.5L Ecoboost or 5.0L V8.

All in all, we still don’t know a lot about specific weights, trim levels, engine options, axle ratios or fuel economy numbers. Without that data, it will be hard to make cross-comparisons between the new F-150 and competitor trucks. As it is, some GM trucks also weigh less than 5,000 lbs, so Ford’s PR boast is a bit meaningless without the proper context. But without more information, all we have to go on right now is Ford’s corporate messaging.

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Join the conversation
15 of 179 comments
  • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Jul 22, 2014

    Although some of you very much understand FoMoCo, I never really did. I have to say their overall strategy seems fraught with risk. I'm seeing tiny engines in small Euro spec'd cars and big ass Detriot spec'd trucks except for a few higher trim trucks which get the good motors they can build and other very different models such as the Volvo derived P3s or Mustang (which at the moment does make sense to me) and until recently misc legacy models such as Panther, Econoline, and Ranger. The brand has essentially been all over the map in the past ten years from a product standpoint and even now they are still a little bit mixed in terms of product offering. Given all of the Ford recalls everyone has now forgotten about, I'm concerned the path they are on will not be sustainable for their customers in the long term. This is not an anti-Ford or anti-Mullaly thing, I'm just concerned many of the moves they are making are not the right ones. Mfgs such as GM and Toyota you could set your watch by in terms of product strategy and predictability. Despite everything, some of GM's product moves seem to have been the right ones, and most of Toyota's have panned out well (excepting Scion and the whole BRZ/FR-S thing). I never paid much attention to Chrysler until maybe two years ago, but their strategy in the past seemed to be Jeep, Dodge Ram, "has it got a Hemi?" catchphrases, and somehow stay in business. Now maybe its those things plus LX platform, Fiat derived models to be named later, and generally building product everyone else is [mostly] too afraid too such as a *mainstream* RWD sedan platform. Chrysler has done well with what it had in terms of money and product, as has GM for the most part. What about Ford? If F-150 takes a nose dive can the company withstand it?

    • See 4 previous
    • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Jul 23, 2014

      @mkirk - I had an '84 Ranger bought new. It was not as tough as a F150. I got tired of it not surviving the punishment I inflicted upon it and bought an F250. That survived much better in the backcountry.

  • Highdesertcat Highdesertcat on Jul 23, 2014

    bball, "cautiously optimistic about a truck that cuts at least 625 lbs off its curb weight " That's been tried in various ways and forms before, as far back as the Fleetside Ford truck of the sixties. Even with composites in the modern applications. I think all the weight-cutting was done decades ago, and what we have today is the best balance of power and weight. While aluminum works well in aircraft, it remains to be seen how well this special-alloy for Ford's new trucks will hold up. It has to be thicker than the current steel sheet and isn't as flexible as steel in 360-degrees of freedom encountered for road use. That's why it is still using the BOF design. Who's Ann Coulter?

    • 95_SC 95_SC on Jul 23, 2014

      Pretty sure all the Army's H1's were aluminum bodied. There were some issues of course but none that my truck would have...I don't need my truck to stop bullets or take a blast. If this was a midsize truck with a diesel and a sombrero on the grill you guys would be tripping over each other to talk about how great it was and how Detroit had been caught flatfooted again by the innovative Japanese.

  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Jul 23, 2014

    If Ford can produce this F-150 at the weight they are discussing this engine will work fine. It will work in the current F-150. Reliability will be the key. With all of the friction reduction I wonder how engine wear will be and how expensive will it be to replace whole components instead of bearings and bushes. Hmmm?? I wouldn't be so sure yet with the weight of the aluminium F-150. Remember Ford was having difficulty forming the aluminium panels, it would be reasonable to assume that the panels will be thicker to allow for a malleable and ductile metal required to shape. I'll bet my balls that the next F-150 will only drop around 500lbs from the current truck and how much heavier are they then the competition. This will be an expensive vehicle.

    • Bball40dtw Bball40dtw on Jul 23, 2014

      Yesterday, Ford said that the minimum drop in weight (regular cab 5.0L most likely) for any F150 model will be 625 lbs. Some will lose over the 732 lbs they showed yesterday. The most significant drop in weight may be the SuperCrew Raptor that hasn't had any specs announced yet. It certainly has the most weight to lose.

  • Vulpine Vulpine on Jul 23, 2014

    Ok, let's kick off a storm. How many people recall when Chevy's pickup truck got by just fine on a 196c.i.d. I-6 at only 96 horsepower? That was a 3.2 litre engine that puts out far fewer horses than the 2.7EcoBoost even before you add the turbo to it. All this tells me is that there are WAY too many people obsessed with massive power for no purpose since most newer trucks never carry a decent load any more and the ones that do tend to already be the HD and heavier models.

    • See 3 previous
    • Vulpine Vulpine on Jul 24, 2014

      @Lou_BC: Personally, I couldn't care less. The last GM car I owned was a Saturn Vue and GM has killed off my three favorite marks--Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Saturn. While I never owned any Pontiacs, I've owned three Oldsmobiles and the Saturn and I would have been driving a Firebird instead of a Camaro had the dealership been willing to give up a mere $500--the only Chevy I ever bought. So far, GM has done nothing to regain my interest in them as a corporation and they killed a dawning interest in their newest trucks by making them still too big. For all that many here consider Chryslers as "imports" now, they at least appear to be interested in the types and sizes of vehicles I want.