2.7l eb vs. 3.5l eb dimensions?

[csj]

Just curious, if I wind up eventually getting a Bronco, the 2.7l eb is looking OK, supposedly it will be able to be modded a bit as well, just wondering how the 3.5l eb dimensions match up? The 3.5l eb in the raptor seems to be working out pretty well. Just wondering.

Sponsored

 

[Laminar]

It's hard to get a good comparison as some measurements include the turbos in the overall width, but turbo locations are dependent on application.

Something to note, though, is that the 3.5 EcoBoost started out as a naturally aspirated V6 that Ford later threw some turbos onto. It's an open deck design, all aluminum block, forged crank but powdered rods and hyper pistons.

The 2.7/3.0 Nano engines were designed from the ground up to be turbocharged. They're a partially closed-deck design with a CGI main block and aluminum webbing structure. This makes it MONUMENTALLY more sturdy than the 3.5's block. Look into the really high horsepower 3.5 builds like what Livernois is doing - they machine out the top part of the 3.5 block and press in their own plate to make it a partially closed deck design.

The 2.7/3.0 are that way from the factory. And their cylinders and main structure are CGI like a diesel engine - made to take extremely high cylinder pressures and punishing forces of a high horsepower turbocharged engine for hundreds of thousands of miles. I'm usually a "no replacement for displacement" guy but the structure of the 2.7/3.0 lets it take a whole lot more boost and abuse than the 3.5 can.

Ford ditching the 3.5 in the Explorer and using the 3.0 with this new generation signals their plan going forward.

I would be absolutely stunned if the 3.0 didn't make its way into the Bronco in the next couple of years.

 

[csj]

Great reply Laminar, thank you. I'm not familiar with the 2.7l at all, but I've been reading a bit, and it is a very interesting design. I'd also normally say a 2.7l is way too small, but maybe it'll be fine.

 

[Funkdoobiest]

Great reply Laminar, thank you. I'm not familiar with the 2.7l at all, but I've been reading a bit, and it is a very interesting design. I'd also normally say a 2.7l is way too small, but maybe it'll be fine.

I was surprised at how good the 2.7 is in my F150. I don't miss a V8 at all except for the tow rating. My F150 went into the shop for a week and they gave me an F150 with a Coyote as a loaner and I couldn't wait to get my truck back. I can't explain why exactly but the 2.7 is a lot more fun to drive. Considering the Bronco doesn't tow much no matter what engine you throw in it I really think the 2.7 is a phenomenal engine for it and I can't see why any other engine would be better.

 

[BuckWildOffRoad]

Great reply @Laminar . As a person who would have also preferred a v8 (which I always knew we wouldn't get from factory) I am personally ok with the 2.7, and I agree about the 3.0 nano. I believe they warthog version will likely get a 3.0 with the hybrid / generator functionality like the new f150. At that time I will likely get a used one, but I'll be keeping my first edition. I am actually already looking for 3.0 ecoboost motors to possibly build for my Bronco. It's a 86mm stroke and 85mm bore (which I would see how big I could bore it). Add a new high output fuel pump and bigger turbos and wham! Likely over 500hp reliably on pump fuel.

 

[Laminar]

Here's the cool thing - since Ford went with dual injection, you don't even need to touch the HPFP anymore! Just upsize the port fuel injectors and let 'er eat!

 

[nelson]

Here's the cool thing - since Ford went with dual injection, you don't even need to touch the HPFP anymore! Just upsize the port fuel injectors and let 'er eat!

Because the turbo is so small you run out of air at around E30 at sea-level. Faster at elevation.

 

[Spooled]

The 2.7/3.0 Nano engines were designed from the ground up to be turbocharged.

Despite this fact, people will still say, "I don't want a high stressed small engine in my SUV/truck". It ain't high stressed. It was literally designed to be a tough little bastard.

 

[Laminar]

Because the turbo is so small you run out of air at around E30 at sea-level. Faster at elevation.

I'd love to see a citation on this one.

 

[Spooled]

I'd love to see a citation on this one.

Agreed. The more ethanol, the more aggressive the timing curve can be. There are definitely gains to be had from E30 to full E85. peak CFM flow from the turbo is just one part of the puzzle.

 

[Laminar]

Aww, you changed your avatar pic. I always like looking at that TT V8.

 

[Spooled]

Aww, you changed your avatar pic. I always like looked at that TT V8.

haha yeah that's just my favorite bronco pic at the moment. I'll change it to a different engine bay pic when that "new avatar pic" feeling wears off haha

 

[nelson]

How do you want me to provide a citation with a conversation I had with Mike @ 5 Star tuning? He says:

congrats on the bronco we have 5 on the way LOL , for tuning info see more about the capability here https://5startuning.com/got-2018-f150-2-7l-ecoboost/
91-93 octane tuning yeilds great results on a stock 2.7L but the stock turbos run out of air and HP at about E30 mix fuel , its not until you add larger stock location turbos that you can finally unleash the 2.7L
400 rear wheel HP on 87 octane and over 500 rear wheel HP on E50
thanks
mike

 

[csj]

I was originally wondering whether a used Raptor 450hp 3.5l eb would fit in to replace the 2.7l; that would seem to be a lot easier than trying to fit a Ford v8 in. (I don't think there's even room in the new Bronco engine bay to fit a v8, without some major changes to the front structure?) But it sounds like there already is a variety of aftermarket parts for the F150 2.7l, so there will probably be a lot of upgrades available for the Bronco 2.7l, maybe even a "performance" tune from Ford itself, similar to the Ranger? ( A quick search found "CR Perf." (?) replacement 2.7l turbos for around $3300; that's not too much, plus a few other parts such as a tune I assume would be necessary.) I'm starting to warm up to the notion of the 2.7l, it sounds like it can make some decent power w/o a $20k or $30k motor replacement project.

Sponsored