Helpful specs for those interested in the 2.7 EB F150

[Grassland]

I'm not here to hate on the EB trucks, I'm just here to point out some specs right from Ford i wasn't expecting to see in regards to the listed capabilities of the 2.7 EB trucks. Particularly the super cab 4x4 configuration.

Unless you have the 2.7 Payload Package, your truck is still limited to numbers nearly identical to the 3.3 base V6.
While hands down the 2.7 is going to blow the doors off the 3.3 towing and hauling the same loads, keep these numbers in mind if you are going to add a lot of weighty accessories to your rig. Payload limits are payload limits.

Having seen these capacities, I know I'll be selecting the payload package if i opt for the 2.7 EB engine.

 

[phsycle]

I thought it was pretty well known the 2.7 has a lower GV/GCWR (like the 3.3).

Both good engines but the 3.3 runs out of breath too quick for me up here in the mountains. 2.7 has power for days. Especially loaded down with people and gear. Towing....forget about it.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Having seen these capacities, I know I'll be selecting the payload package if i opt for the 2.7 EB engine.

I'm assuming the "payload" was calculated by taking the total GVWR and subtracting curb weight? Reason I say that is that according to the Intertoobz, the curb weight of the 2018 F-150 Supercrew short bed is 4,769 lbs.

Well, I had to get a weight slip to get mine registered and with the Leer topper (but basically nothing else as I deliberately removed all my tools and 'breakdown gear' prior to getting it weighed) my truck was weighed at about 5480.

Now, I don't really think a fiberglass topper weighs 711 lbs so I wonder how Ford fudges the "curb weight" numbers. Either way it's nice to know that with the 7000# payload package I still have nearly 1500lbs of usable passenger and cargo capacity.

 

[phsycle]

I'm assuming the "payload" was calculated by taking the total GVWR and subtracting curb weight? Reason I say that is that according to the Intertoobz, the curb weight of the 2018 F-150 Supercrew short bed is 4,769 lbs.

Well, I had to get a weight slip to get mine registered and with the Leer topper (but basically nothing else as I deliberately removed all my tools and 'breakdown gear' prior to getting it weighed) my truck was weighed at about 5480.

Now, I don't really think a fiberglass topper weighs 711 lbs so I wonder how Ford fudges the "curb weight" numbers. Either way it's nice to know that with the 7000# payload package I still have nearly 1500lbs of usable passenger and cargo capacity.

4,769lbs is dry weight, and probably doesn't factor in any options you have on your truck. This is why online specs for payload is so far off of actual.

I'm guessing your Leer weighs, what, 200lbs? So 1,700 lbs or so of payload. What does the sticker say in the door jamb? I'm guessing close to that.

 

[kahos]

Ford offers a number of frames for the F-150 (3?) and GVWRs. The base v6 /2.7 gets the thinnest of them all for applications where MPGs matter more than payload/ max towing numbers.

It's reflected in the configurations where you can/ can't get it.
IE you can get a supercrew 2.7 4x4 with the 5'5ft bed but going for the 6.5" forces you into 5.0 or 3.5l territory. It has little to do with the engine's overall performance, but more to do with segmentation / up-selling.

To me this thread is more about: FYI, specs/options matter and less about the 2.7l motor itself.

They've been sandbagging the 2.7 for years so that people will pay / feel good about their 5.0l V8s being an upgrade. Driving them back to back shows the 2.7 to be a better fit for a truck application than a high strung DOHC v8 borrowed from the mustang. The torque curve/ power delivery is pretty telling.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

They've been sandbagging the 2.7 for years so that people will pay / feel good about their 5.0l V8s being an upgrade. Driving them back to back shows the 2.7 to be a better fit for a truck application than a high strung DOHC v8 borrowed from the mustang. The torque curve/ power delivery is pretty telling.

The 2.7 destroys the 5.0 when it comes to towing. The 5.0 is only around because some people can't swallow the idea of having a V6 in a fullsize truck.

For 500.00 you can tune a 2.7 and then it becomes the motor that Ford should be selling...lol.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I'm not here to hate on the EB trucks, I'm just here to point out some specs right from Ford i wasn't expecting to see in regards to the listed capabilities of the 2.7 EB trucks. Particularly the super cab 4x4 configuration.

Unless you have the 2.7 Payload Package, your truck is still limited to numbers nearly identical to the 3.3 base V6.
While hands down the 2.7 is going to blow the doors off the 3.3 towing and hauling the same loads, keep these numbers in mind if you are going to add a lot of weighty accessories to your rig. Payload limits are payload limits.

Having seen these capacities, I know I'll be selecting the payload package if i opt for the 2.7 EB engine.

As someone with a 2.7, I can say that the payload/towing rating has everything to do with the frame and 8.8" rear end. The 2.7 is an amazing little motor.

I bought mine knowing the payload and towing ratings. Not everyone needs a heavy duty truck.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Ford offers a number of frames for the F-150 (3?) and GVWRs. The base v6 /2.7 gets the thinnest of them all for applications where MPGs matter more than payload/ max towing numbers.

Technically it's 4 frames:
The "Normal" F150
Heavy Duty Pay Load
Heavy Duty Pay Load + Max Tow
Raptor

The 2.7 geta the "thin" frame and it's more than sufficient for the average truck owner. The 5.0 and 3.5 with out the payload or max tow package also get that frame.

 

[Grassland]

Im rocking a 3.7 V6 without turbos on a fullsize truck, with larger tires and stock gears. Any of the optional engines produce a euphoric amount of power in my books.
Im sure the 2.7 is well beyond adequate for the average truck owner, as the average truck owner hauls air, kids, and groceries, or maybe a small trailer/boat, or a bed of tools on occasion.
The Expedition Overland guys are running Tacos on LT285/70R17 @ full payload or over, with 6 gears and a 3.5 NA mill. I'm sure weekender F150 guys can make due with any of the engines, including the 3.3.
Wasn't so long ago you needed 250/350 to do what the heavy halfers of today are doing. But if I was looking at a crew cab 6.5 box truck, i wouldn't waste my time with a payload F150 when for a few thousand more I could have a gasser super duty.
In any case, while the 2.7 is a hot rod, its not actually offering any more rated capacity than the base 3.3, which surprised me, as its talked up as the cats ass by Ford and on the Forums.

 

[phsycle]

. But if I was looking at a crew cab 6.5 box truck, i wouldn't waste my time with a payload F150 when for a few thousand more I could have a gasser super duty..

It does make sense to just go SD at that point. Size difference is negligible. Payload doubles. Although, if you are MPG conscious, you're still getting 22-24 in the F150 vs 16-18 in the SD (freeway).

 

[Deleted member 9101]

It does make sense to just go SD at that point. Size difference is negligible. Payload doubles. Although, if you are MPG conscious, you're still getting 22-24 in the F150 vs 16-18 in the SD (freeway).

Payload goes up...but fuel economy, ride quality, handling, and turning radius suffer. Plus the 3/4 ton cost more to buy and maintainence cost more as well.

I have a F150 as my personal truck and a GMC 2500 as a work truck... Unless it's loaded the GMC rides like absolute crap and typically gets 1/3-1/2 the fuel economy of a my F150. It has trouble fitting in a drive through and parking lots can be frustrating...lol.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Im rocking a 3.7 V6 without turbos on a fullsize truck, with larger tires and stock gears. Any of the optional engines produce a euphoric amount of power in my books.
Im sure the 2.7 is well beyond adequate for the average truck owner, as the average truck owner hauls air, kids, and groceries, or maybe a small trailer/boat, or a bed of tools on occasion.
The Expedition Overland guys are running Tacos on LT285/70R17 @ full payload or over, with 6 gears and a 3.5 NA mill. I'm sure weekender F150 guys can make due with any of the engines, including the 3.3.
Wasn't so long ago you needed 250/350 to do what the heavy halfers of today are doing. But if I was looking at a crew cab 6.5 box truck, i wouldn't waste my time with a payload F150 when for a few thousand more I could have a gasser super duty.
In any case, while the 2.7 is a hot rod, its not actually offering any more rated capacity than the base 3.3, which surprised me, as its talked up as the cats ass by Ford and on the Forums.

My 2.7 has zero trouble pulling a 7k travel trailer at 75 mph from FL to NM. It doesn't lose speed on hills/mountains and merges with no effort. It pulls the trailer far better than either of my previous Tundras ever could. It also gets drastically better gas mileage when empty and slightly better while towing (at a higher speed and with less effort).

 

[Deleted member 9101]

The Expedition Overland guys are running Tacos on LT285/70R17 @ full payload or over, with 6 gears and a 3.5 NA mill. I'm sure weekender F150 guys can make due with any of the engines, including the 3.3.

I have a buddy that has the 3.3 and he swears that it pulls his boat better than his 4.6 V8 did in his last F150.

 

[phsycle]

Payload goes up...but fuel economy, ride quality, handling, and turning radius suffer. Plus the 3/4 ton cost more to buy and maintainence cost more as well.

I have a F150 as my personal truck and a GMC 2500 as a work truck... Unless it's loaded the GMC rides like absolute crap and typically gets 1/3-1/2 the fuel economy of a my F150. It has trouble fitting in a drive through and parking lots can be frustrating...lol.

Yeah, that's true. You don't give up any cab space with the 1/2 ton, either.

We all have a threshhold of what is acceptable for us, whether it's power, room, capability, whatever. Guys load up a 22RE/3VZ up to the gills and feel just fine puttin around the globe. Others "need" 1000ft/lb monsters. I'm sure they're all justified in their own right. Good thing we've all got vehicles that fit our "needs."

 

[Grassland]

I've driven a few crew cab Long box trucks. They are indeed unwieldy in a city.