The Best Ford F-150 Engine Is The Smallest One You Can Buy

After one week with a 2016 Ford F-150 XLT SuperCrew 2.7-liter EcoBoost, I’m convinced that this small turbocharged V6 engine is the pick of the current F-150 range.

Stunning acceleration, a positive working relationship with the F-150’s six-speed automatic, minor capability cutbacks, and a lower price tag combine to make the 2.7-liter completely worthy of full-size pickup truck duty, difficult though it may be for owners of 6.8-liter V10-powered Ford Super Dutys to believe.

But based on our week-long experiences with each F-150 EcoBoost engine, fuel economy hardly plays into the 2.7-litre’s favorable equation.

Admittedly, no two real-world fuel economy tests are identical. Our 2015 F-150 (SuperCrew, 4×4, 145-inch wheelbase) 3.5-liter EcoBoost test specimen arrived last November in Platinum guise with 275/55R20 Hancook Dynapro AT-m tires and a 3.31 rear axle. After a week of exhaustive use, the result was 17.8 miles per gallon.

Little more than four months later, a 2.7-liter EcoBoost-equipped F-150 (SuperCrew, 4×4, 145-inch wheelbase) arrived in our driveway courtesy of Ford Canada as a heavily equipped XLT on 275/65R18 Goodyear Wrangler Fortitude HTs with a 3.55 rear end. This time, a slightly greater portion of the test was completed on the Trans-Canada Highway between Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia, and Shubenacadie, and fuel economy was better: 19.4 miles per gallon.

A meaningful difference? Hardly. Imagine you’re driving 12,000 miles per year and prevailing fuel prices in the heart of truckland, Dallas, Texas, are $1.80/gallon, as they are now. At 17.8 miles per gallon, the F-150 EcoBoost 3.5-liter will cost $1,213 per year. At 19.4 miles per gallon, the F-150 EcoBoost 2.7-liter will cost $1,113 per year, a savings of – drum roll, please – $8 per month.

Fuel won’t always be cheap, of course. If our hypothetical Texas truck owner keeps his F-150 long enough, he’ll pay $4.00/gallon. (Eventually. Some day. Maybe.) At that point, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost F-150 will cost $2,697 per year at 12,000 miles, $223 more than the 2.7-liter F-150 will cost. Still, that’s only a $19 savings per month, hardly the stuff of Prius or even Ram EcoDiesel dreams.

(Keep in mind, we drove a couple of F-150s around town and on the highway for a week, but the EPA’s fuel economy numbers aren’t much different: 20 mpg combined for the 2.7-liter; 18 mpg for the bigger 3.5 turbo. On Fuelly.com, 2016 F-150 SuperCrews with the 2.7-liter are averaging 19.2 mpg while 2016 F-150 SuperCrews with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost are down at 16.3 mpg. Consumer Reports calls it 17 mpg for the 2.7; 16 mpg for the 3.5.)

If the available fuel savings are limited, if the 2.7-liter gives up 40 horsepower and 45 lbs-ft of torque, and if the 2.7-liter needs more revs to reach peak torque, how is this the pick of the F-150 range?

It’s $1,400 cheaper.

And it’s just as quick.

Indeed, the 2.7-liter feels quicker in everyday driving and seems to have a somewhat happier marriage with the six-speed automatic transmission. Perhaps at fault are the 3.5 EcoBoost’s bigger 20-inch wheels and the Platinum trim’s presumably greater curb weight.

Granted, over the life of a five-year payment plan, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost’s $1,400 premium won’t seem terribly arduous. Ford is currently offering interest-free financing over 60 months, which means the bigger EcoBoost costs only $23 more per month.

Now, however, our monthly savings total $31 for a truck that’s just as quick. And we do mean quick. Consumer Reports tested the duo and found the 2.7-liter EcoBoost accelerates to 60 miles per hour in 7.0 seconds, two-tenths quicker than the 3.5-liter EcoBoost. Car And Driver’s SuperCab 2.7-liter EcoBoost did the deed in 5.7 seconds, one-tenth shy of the heavier SuperCrew’s 3.5-liter time. Acceleration times at higher speeds were essentially the same, as well.

At best, the outright power difference is imperceptible, though the 2.7-liter sounds less like a vacuum when being hustled.

Not until you take towing and payload capacity into account does the 3.5-liter EcoBoost outshine its little brother. Like for like, an F-150 SuperCrew 4×4 with the 145-inch wheelbase and the 3.5-liter powerplant can tow up to 11,500 pounds, 3,500 more than the 2.7-liter, and accepts a 2,060-pound payload, 100 more than the 2.7-liter.

Those aren’t irrelevant numbers, but if regular high-weight towing is on your radar, isn’t a heavy-duty truck the more suitable vehicle?

There’s hardly any towing of any kind on my radar. Filling the bed with home reno materials that would otherwise be chucked into the back of our Odyssey will scarcely challenge either EcoBoost F-150. With superior economy, similar off-the-line punch, a significant price advantage, and all (if not more) of the 3.5-liter’s driveability and refinement, I can’t imagine paying more and, in my case, getting nothing for it.

Then again, Ford’s rumbling 5.0-liter V8 costs only $800 more than the EcoBoost 2.7 and doesn’t sound like a sewing machine in need of repair.

[Images: © 2016 Timothy Cain and Stephanie Cain/The Truth About Cars, Ford Motor Company]

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.