Future of the 2.7L?

[TrailDamage]

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

The block skirt reinforcement is aluminum on both, in fact they're the same part number.

Sponsored

 

[timhood]

I could see Ford moving the 3.0 down to lower trims and dropping the 5.0 into the raptor to better compare with the jeep 392. The 2.7 was always the "tweener" engine between the 2.3 and the 3.0/3.5.
Pickups are going to be interesting though.... GM may take a big bite out of Fords lunch as personally, I'd take an updated 5.7 v8 over the 3.0 any day of the week.....even in a chevy lol...

Since the 2.3 is a 4-cylinder, isn't the 3.0 the "tweeter" engine between the 2.7 and the 3.5?

 

[timhood]

Yup, I never intend to put anything other than 87 in. I thought of trying it for one tank, but I might like it...

Bought mine 3 weeks ago and on my 3rd tank of gas. Tempted to try 92, but trying to resist. Seems great on 87.

Your math might vary based on the price difference between regular, mid-grade (or your own blend), and super, but I found that mid-grade returned the best $/mile rate. Going to super yielded the best MPG, but it didn't improve enough over mid-grade to overcome the extra expense. (I found it difficult to notice any improvement in performance, but maybe that's because the 2.7 in a 2-door is already pretty peppy.

 

[timhood]

The 2.7L NVH is absolutely off the scale too. The whole car shakes like a paint mixer.

The previous Big Bend with the 2.3L was completely indistinguishable from this once filtered through the god awful 10R60 transmission, except of course that the 2.3L doesn't vibrate the vehicle like a jackhammer.

I'm not going to argue about whether you were or were not actually driving the V6, but I will say that based on my experience, something doesn't seem right. The 2.7 is a full second 0-60 faster than the manual 2.3. And it doesn't vibrate (or shake) like a jackhammer.

So, assuming you actually did drive a V6, I think you drove one with two bad coils.

 

[huey]

Probably not for 27MY, but we’ll see

Do the 2.7 and 3.0 share the same engine mounts? They are basically the same block I believe. Either way I will check & see if anything pops up for a new engine mount on the frame, but if the mounts are common there would be no change there. Same goes for the trans mount, probably no change there either

 

[Ducati1098]

Do the 2.7 and 3.0 share the same engine mounts? They are basically the same block I believe. Either way I will check & see if anything pops up for a new engine mount on the frame, but if the mounts are common there would be no change there. Same goes for the trans mount, probably no change there either

Yes. They are the same.
Like @TrailDamage mentioned, aside from the actual bore, the blocks are identical.

 

[23OBX2.7]

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.

Super and turbo charged in my Volvo T6R had instant snap in low RPM while 2.7 has none between 800 and 1400.

 

[huey]

Yes. They are the same.
Like @TrailDamage mentioned, aside from the actual bore, the blocks are identical.

ok - thx for confirming
wont be able to give any insight then from the frame side

 

[GoHawks63]

@23OBX2.7 Well my other cars are both supercharged V8s. They never stop pulling.

 

[McG]

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

This is what I'm saying!! Most of what Ford's been working on recently is compact/high compression designs. This has really worked for them so there was little need to make an i6.


The 3.0 was used as a selling point for higher end models of vehicles. Now that market is essentially back to what it was in the 90's, it would make sense to just offer the same engine. I remember getting a peak at a list of engine upgrades for 2027 and it showed they were putting in port injectors into the heads of the 3.0, I really hope that is true and tuning would be more complicated but would expand possibilities. Essentially, they just made the 3.0 the new 2.7 if they do go this route. We may even see an HO version now so they can keep the jacked-up price of the Raptor.

Super and turbo charged in my Volvo T6R had instant snap in low RPM while 2.7 has none between 800 and 1400.

This is everyone's complaint about boosted American cars. I suspect it has to do with the transmission. Ford may be limiting the solenoids, so people don't just torque dump into the transmission burning up their clutch packs. I think this because in sport mode that tiny lag goes away, especially noticeable uphill.

 

[23OBX2.7]

@23OBX2.7 Well my other cars are both supercharged V8s. They never stop pulling.

Im mostly 0-30/40 and would take SC any day over turbo or hybrd with turbo just for the 800-2000 RPM benefit.

As it is, I just floor it all the time getting 13 MPG with 93. I have to say the new WIX airfilter that replaced a pretty clean Ford one seems to have made a slight difference.

 

[93_SVT_3503]

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.

Ford did Trademark the Mach 4 name late last year. I'd rock one!

 

[AZ_Liberty]

Ford did Trademark the Mach 4 name late last year. I'd rock one!

As long as it came with a 5.0 and manual I would as well.

 

[Oldhippie]

Ford did Trademark the Mach 4 name late last year. I'd rock one!

NO! JUST NO!

Sponsored