Future of the 2.7L?

[Sherminiator]

You most certainly do not.

Outside of Acura, there is no one else doing it that way

Sponsored

 

[Enginerd]

Outside of Acura, there is no one else doing it that way

My Audi B9 S5 is a single turbo 3.0l V6. It is a “Hot V” with the single twin scroll turbo on top nested in the V.

Engine code EA839, shared across multiple Audi and Porsche models.

3.0T Specs: Single twin-scroll turbo, making 354 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque (found in S4, S5, SQ5, A6, A7, Q7, Q8).

 

[TrailDamage]

Bore and stroke are both different

I think the point is why have one engine plant make two different blocks when they can condense resources.

 

[Ducati1098]

I think the point is why have one engine plant make two different blocks when they can condense resources.

Yeah I get that. It was just clarification

 

[Techun]

Outside of Acura, there is no one else doing it that way

Saab (RIP) also had one

 

[BluebroncoNC]

I can see them phasing out the 2.7 because there just isn't a big enough gap between the EcoBoost 4 banger popping out 345 hp (the engine in my Focus RS which could be made to produce 400hp with some simple mods) and the 3.0 engine.

 

[rmc523]

I imagine some of the trims on the Explorer that currently have the 3.0L will get the 2.7L instead (Tremor, for example).

On paper in a vacuum I would expect the 2.7L to stick around longer than the 3.0L to be honest. 2.7L is dual injection, slightly newer design, probably the most reliable turbocharged engine on the F-150 today (though I haven't seen data). Meanwhile 3.0L is a little older and still direct injection only as far as I know (unless it changed and I didn't hear about it). Plus they also discontinued a lot of the Lincoln products that previously used the 3.0L

BUT... I also think the Raptor/ST trims on the Bronco/Ranger/Explorer are selling well enough that the incentives aren't there to discontinue the 3.0L yet. Especially now that they need it to go up against Chevy's new V8s. So... we'll see.

There hasn't been a Lincoln model/product with the 3.0 discontinued....the only one if you want to count it was the optional "GT" PHEV option for Aviator, but the regular model still uses the 3.0EB.
CORRECTION: I forgot the Continental and MKZ offered the 3.0.

Of the current lineup, Navigator has long had the 3.5EB, and Nautilus never had the 3.0 (it had the 2.7, ironically enough, before switching to a 4-cylinder or 4-cyl hybrid with the redesign).


I think this news means the 2.7 is gone altogether and will be phased out in all products, with the 3.0 being offered in "regular" power versions for non-performance products (think Outer Banks, Badlands etc), and High Output power versions for performance products (like Raptor or ST models).

It makes sense for Ford to want to consolidate two similar powertrains into one with multiple tunes. They'll get even larger economies of scale by now bringing F-150, Bronco, Ranger (or F-100 replacement), Explorer, Aviator all under a single powertrain, instead of having Explorer, Aviator and Bronco/Ranger Raptors as the only 3.0 products with a separate 2.7 on F-150, Bronco and Raptor.

It depends-

A Mustang Sedan is a very real possibility-it would require little engineering (in the grand scheme of things) and would help keep the coupe in production (would be on the same platform) and be able be built at the same plant (which has issues with assembly line/roof height that makes it hard to make crossovers/SUV there). I'm guessing that it would be affordable to, with the entry level models starting under 40K.

I've also seen rumors that Ford is supposed to do a Mustang CUV that would be basically a shortened D3 (Explorer platform) that would be an Edge replacement that currently doesn't exist.

The Mach E will go away soon (2030) also from the rumor mill.

The new UEV platform that is getting a pickup first, is also going to have some sort of sedan on on it in a few years, after the CUV version launches about a year after the pickup.

Some other thoughts about the 2.7-if Ford offers a hybrid 2.3L, that would roughly make the same amount of power as the 2.7L V6, so that would be another reason for it be dropped from the Bronco.

Also from what I understand CAFE is done for (well for at least this current administration) so I'd expect manufactures to offer bigger/more fuel hungry engines to make more profit till they have to comply with it again-offering what Is basically the same engine with no engineering changes to be able to upcharge the 3.0L seems like a no brainer of offering the 2.7L on the Outer Bank and Big Bend trims again.

Explorer is on CD6.....the old FWD one was D3.....

 

[Sherminiator]

Explorer is on CD6.....the old FWD one was D3.....

Don’t get old

 

[rmc523]

Don’t get old

I'm trying but the mirror is telling a different story! lol!

 

[T800]

I think the point is why have one engine plant make two different blocks when they can condense resources.

This is the direction Ram has gone to some degree. My previous DD was a Ram 1500. Starting in '25, they replaced their 5.7 V8 with a 3.0 TT (Hurricane). So most trucks got the standard 3.0.

The RHO (high output) has the same 3.0, but tuned for more HP. I'm sure it would be some nice power, but left me thinking about why they can charge so much more for essentially a tune.

 

[Techun]

I can see them phasing out the 2.7 because there just isn't a big enough gap between the EcoBoost 4 banger popping out 345 hp (the engine in my Focus RS which could be made to produce 400hp with some simple mods) and the 3.0 engine.

Well it doesn't make 345 stock in the SUVs/trucks

 

[GoHawks63]

A dual super and turbo 3.0 inline 6 copying Volvos wonderful system that had virtually no lag and approx 1.4 HP /L should be good for 450HP 500 ft lb and decent economy these days.

Alternately they couls add electric assist to keep turbo RPM up to get rid of the lag.

Ford makes great V6s for ages now and should have learned how to do amazing HO charged inlines from Volvo.

As others have mentioned, a twin scroll turbo pretty much addresses the issue of turbo lag.

The smaller scroll will spin sooner to provide boost lower in the rev range until the RPMS rise enough to get the larger scroll spinning.

The BMW X5 that the Bronco replaced had a inline 6 with a single twin scroll turbo. That was one of the best engines BMW built. Smooth all through the rev range with virtually no turbo lag, at least none that I felt in the nine years we owned it.

 

[ryanstroppe]

If the 3.0 is just a stroked 2.7, dropping one or the other makes sense, much like Ford dropped the 289 after they stroked it into the 302. Building 2 sets of cranks and rods makes no sense when so much can be controlled by the computer and tune these days.

To my knowledge the 3.0 is absolutely NOT a stroked 2.7. iron vs aluminum block, di combo with port vs di only. The 2.7 is supposed to be extremely durable and in stock form under tuned.

 

[TrailDamage]

To my knowledge the 3.0 is absolutely NOT a stroked 2.7. iron vs aluminum block, di combo with port vs di only. The 2.7 is supposed to be extremely durable and in stock form under tuned.

The 2.7 and 3.0 both utilize a CGI block core. Only difference being the bore

 

[ryanstroppe]

The 2.7 and 3.0 both utilize a CGI block core. Only difference being the bore

The 2.7L heavily utilizes compacted graphite iron (CGI) in its lower block for extreme strength, whereas the 3.0L uses an aluminum block with CGI restricted mainly to the upper crank area

Sponsored