2.7 vs coyote power curve

evoaire

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
15
Location
VA
Vehicle(s)
maybe a bronco
So I’m trying to figure out if the power curve on the 2.7 is linear. As I’m thinking a linear power curve is what’s desired in off road conditions. Also how it compares to the coyote. Advantage/disadvantage?
 

MaverickMan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
33
Location
96708
Vehicle(s)
96 bronco sport 91 comanche eliminator 93 v8 zj 80 amc eagle 85 cj7 laredo 79 ford quadravan(inoperable due to tragic fire)
I cant say that i have much experience with these modern engines. The newest car ive ever had was my 96 bronco. But honestly the ford modular engines are so big i dont want to deal with one in anything smaller than a full size truck since even then they make a cramped engine bay. The more compact 2.7 is fine by me considering they can push close to 500hp with minor mods. So can a coyote but will likely cost more as an option so no big deal. The one thing i do know about coyotes is that they are not known for their torque. If we ever get a v8 in the bronco I would hope for a aluminum godzilla as the last internal combustion engine before we switch to electric.
 

Dads_bronze_bronco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
162
Reaction score
203
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
08 JKUR / 00 TJ

RupertH

Member
First Name
Rupert
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
22
Location
West
Vehicle(s)
Mostly
Something is wrong with those Ecoboost graphs... Look at the crossover.
 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
665
Reaction score
1,548
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI

Jalisurr

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
636
Reaction score
1,312
Location
Vancouver,BC
Vehicle(s)
'97 Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution, '09 Corvette Z06, '08 ZX-6R
Vehicle Showcase
2
Crosses over at ~5252, what am I missing?
Except it doesn't, it's crossing over at ~4600. I think their rpm scaling is off.

1584900608895.png
 
OP

evoaire

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
15
Location
VA
Vehicle(s)
maybe a bronco
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #7
So it looks like the 2.7 and 3.5 are more sooted for low end torque. When compared to the coyote. Now the coyote was built for other benefits. But given the option between the two, you might think the 2.7 was the better option. But before I could conclude this, I’d also want to know about its longevity, cost of owner ship, maintenance difference, how long those turbos last, difficulty rebuilding them or replacement, where and Tare on engine from the turbos.

I’m still in the camp of the v8, only because of the unfamiliarity with turbos. More learning to be done.
 

Spooled

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
42
Location
78121
Vehicle(s)
2017 F-150
We really shouldn't even be comparing the 2. There is a 0% chance the Coyote will be offered in the Bronco. It's a 90* V-8 with dual overhead cams. The heads are pretty massive and the engine itself is wide. It's not fitting in the ranger platform (modified or not). The Ecoboost V6's are 60* V and are more compact. If Ford announces the Coyote as an engine option, I'll eat a bat from Wuhan.

The 2.7 is stout. We would be lucky to get it. It out performs what is currently offered in the Bronco competitors by a large margin.
 

Shane

Well-Known Member
First Name
Shane
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
53
Reaction score
103
Location
out on Olympic Peninsula, WA
Vehicle(s)
2001 F250 SD 4WD 7.3l
I’m hoping for the 2.7 as well. Well built engine from what I read back when it came out. Stout and economical, with good power. Fords turbos have been quite reliable over the past several years, ecoboost-wise. The 3.5 has been out for some time, in all kinds of applications. Oil-fed, water-jacketed, and plenty of torque at different altitudes.
These engines have been out long enough to be considered proven to me, with many, many miles on them. Easy (relatively) to tune too. They haven’t been perfect, but I’d go with the 2.7 in a heart-beat. 2.3 has been good as well, but I’m really hoping for a 2.7 option in a lower-trim Bronco. Please, Ford?
 

BONESTOCK

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
249
Reaction score
206
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
'94 Lightning w/TKO swap, '04 Procharged Mach 1, '13 F150 RCSB 5.0L, '61 Falcon
We really shouldn't even be comparing the 2. There is a 0% chance the Coyote will be offered in the Bronco. It's a 90* V-8 with dual overhead cams. The heads are pretty massive and the engine itself is wide. It's not fitting in the ranger platform (modified or not). The Ecoboost V6's are 60* V and are more compact. If Ford announces the Coyote as an engine option, I'll eat a bat from Wuhan.

The 2.7 is stout. We would be lucky to get it. It out performs what is currently offered in the Bronco competitors by a large margin.
You SHUT your mouth! That's dirty talk! Oh and be ready to record you eating bat.....from Wuhan!
 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
665
Reaction score
1,548
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI
Except it doesn't, it's crossing over at ~4600. I think their rpm scaling is off.

1584900608895.png
Ah, I think I was looking at the other graph, my bad.
 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
665
Reaction score
1,548
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI
Also, are we getting the aluminum block 2.7 TT or the iron block?
 

Jalisurr

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
636
Reaction score
1,312
Location
Vancouver,BC
Vehicle(s)
'97 Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution, '09 Corvette Z06, '08 ZX-6R
Vehicle Showcase
2
Which is one of the reasons I'm still hoping for the 3.0 in the high performance Bronco. Aluminum block and more power
 

frinesi2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
665
Reaction score
1,548
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
'96/'97 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L, '92 Mitsubishi Pajero 2.5TD, '15 VW Golf TDI
Did some searching and it looks like they're 2 piece cgi and aluminum, unless this graphic is wrong?

leavetheironon-inline2-photo-587199-s-original.jpg
 








Similar threads




Top