Yes, just a punched out 2.7. Used in some Lincolns and the new Explorer.is there a 3.0 eco boost ?
My bad I meant 6.7 alcohol was involvedThis is incorrect. The 7.3, 6.0, and 6.4 were cast-iron blocks. CGi wasn't used until the 6.7
I'd be surprised if they redesigned the 3.5. The 3.0 already makes more power than any 3.5 outside of the Raptor and Ford GT. And its more rugged construction gives it much more room overhead. The 3.5 is limited by its open deck and aluminum block, where the Nano has the structure to handle a lot more abuse.I wonder if they'll use this architecture when they redesign the 3.5 sometime soon.
And poultry?My bad I meant 6.7 alcohol was involved
Yes, just a punched out 2.7. Used in some Lincolns and the new Explorer.
Sounds to me like they should redesign the 3.5 to use the same architecture as the 2.7/3.0, just scaled up. A 3.5L Nano style EcoBoost would be a screamer, I'm sure.I'd be surprised if they redesigned the 3.5. The 3.0 already makes more power than any 3.5 outside of the Raptor and Ford GT. And its more rugged construction gives it much more room overhead. The 3.5 is limited by its open deck and aluminum block, where the Nano has the structure to handle a lot more abuse.
Most manufacturers seem to have converged on the TT 3.0 as a good displacement - BMW B58, Nissan VR30DDTT, Cadillac LGY, Acura's rumored 3.0TT.
That'd be the 3.7 Cyclone, and was available in the Mustang, some Lincolns, and police Explorers.Sounds to me like they should redesign the 3.5 to use the same architecture as the 2.7/3.0, just scaled up. A 3.5L Nano style EcoBoost would be a screamer, I'm sure.
Plus, Ford seems to have a thing for boring and stroking engines to get more displacement, a la the 2.0/2.3 and the 2.7/3.0. If they did the same with the 3.5, we could see a 3.8L EcoBoost, and that'd probably be a monster.
The 2.7's best factory rating is 335hp/380tq.Is there a big power increase ?
Sort of, but not really. I mean, you're correct that the 3.7 Cyclone was just a bored and stroked 3.5 Duratec, but that overlooks my main point.That'd be the 3.7 Cyclone, and was available in the Mustang, some Lincolns, and police Explorers.
Depends on how you define "best," I think.The 2.7's best factory rating is 335hp/380tq.
This got me curious, so I looked up a '19 F150 with the 2.7 via Identifix and from what I'm seeing there, it doesn't appear to have a timing driven water pump (That's what I'm assuming you mean by 'internal water pump'). Looks like a traditional bolt on assembly, but who knows! Maybe something has changed. Or maybe I'm just ignorant of a completely newer version of the 2.7, I'm not above being corrected.I just hope the new 2.7 ecoboost don’t have that internal water pump like fords 3.5 V6 have
I'd be much more excited to see two more cylinders added to a 2.7. That 3.6L V8 CGI block designed to handle boost would bring more to the table, and more consumer interest, than simply scaling up the V6 in volume I would think.... "The 3.5 is limited by its open deck and aluminum block, where the Nano has the structure to handle a lot more abuse."
I'm saying that they should build a nano structured engine with 3.5L of displacement, and they could bore and stroke it to 3.8L of displacement.
...
Except the 3.7 Cyclone in the Mustang Rwd is different then in the fwd/transverse drivetrain cars.That'd be the 3.7 Cyclone, and was available in the Mustang, some Lincolns, and police Explorers.
The 2.7's best factory rating is 335hp/380tq.
In the Lincolns the 3.0 is rated 400hp/400tq, in the Explorer/Aviator it's 400hp/415tq.
What else is different? Obviously the accessory drive and intake manifold would be different in a transverse vs. longitudinal orientation.Except the 3.7 Cyclone in the Mustang Rwd is different then in the fwd/transverse drivetrain cars.
For one the 3.7 Cyclone in the rwd mustang uses and external water pump, different intake manifolds design along with some other differences. Super dependable motor even when modded.
Think of the 3.7 Cyclone fwd/transverse motor as a bored out 3.5 NA version.