[Del]

The Numbers for the 2.7 Eco showed up yesterday. 325 horsepower and 375 lb-ft of torque, max tow rating of 8,500 lbs and a 2,250 lb payload cap.

I think this will eventually find its way under the hood of the transit, especially in one of the wagon models, this will be a lovely powerplant...

Ford Announces 2.7L Ecoboost Powertrain Details | The Truth About Cars

 

[ted]

those are some great numbers, at least I think they are

 

[tmillar]

325 hp and 375 torque sounds great. I think that a max tow rating of 8,500 lbs is sufficient.

When would we see it actually get put into a wagon model?

 

[Chance]

120 HP per liter seems fairly typical for small turbo engines with direct injection.

The news release also covers power and tow ratings for the the new 3.5L naturally-aspirated V6 that replaces the present standard 3.7L. That's the one I'd like in a Transit. Standard tow rating is higher and I'd expect fuel economy to be equal or better than that of 3.7L. The main differerence seems to be a reduction in cylinder bore diameter to that of the 3.5L EcoBoost's.

 

[mogulman]

I think pairing the 2.7L EB with the new 10 speed transmission could be a great product offering.

 

[Del]

I just personally think the 2.7 would be better in the wagon and the transit in general because it seems to be a less stressful application than in a half ton...

 

[ted]

stress is a killer, i worry what will happen to these cars with engines that take on a ton of work for what it is, wouldn't like to own one of them after their warranty period is up.

 

[Chance]

From an engine mechanical "stress" standpoint, is a 2.7L turbo gasoline engine that different than a diesel?

Sprinters ran for years with small 2.7L turbo diesel, and similarly, +/- 6-liter diesels run up to 30,000 pound GCWR or higher, so it seems to me that if the engine is built heavy duty from onset, a 13,500 pound GCWR load shouldn't be that bad.

Also new 4-cylinder Sprinters have GCWR above 15,000 pounds out of 2.2 liters if my memory serves me right.

 

[Del]

From an engine mechanical "stress" standpoint, is a 2.7L turbo gasoline engine that different than a diesel?

Sprinters ran for years with small 2.7L turbo diesel, and similarly, +/- 6-liter diesels run up to 30,000 pound GCWR or higher, so it seems to me that if the engine is built heavy duty from onset, a 13,500 pound GCWR load shouldn't be that bad.

Also new 4-cylinder Sprinters have GCWR above 15,000 pounds out of 2.2 liters if my memory serves me right.

but doesn't petrol have to work harder than diesel to achieve the same level of work? Its my understanding that diesel is more energy dense than petrol...

 

[ted]

It could be bad or could even be something that we don't have to worry about, that's was just what I think about it, which may prove or has already proven to be wrong.

 

[Chance]

but doesn't petrol have to work harder than diesel to achieve the same level of work? Its my understanding that diesel is more energy dense than petrol...

Not sure how you define "work harder". If you have two engines of same displacement with same gearing in otherwise identical vans, they would have to produce the same power at the same RPM to motor the van down the road at the same speed.

Same horsepower and same RPM means same operating torque, so if both engines were same size that suggest same average cylinder pressure. In other words two identical Transits with same 3.73 gearing as an example, cruising at 70 MPH require the same average cylinder pressure whether 2.7 liter engine is diesel or gas (unless of course one shifted to different transmission gear).

Diesel and gasoline engines exhibit different cylinder pressure profiles but I wouldn't necessarily assume diesel has the advantage. In the past diesels we all loved had to be built much heavier because combustion was abrupt -- hence that diesel knock sound. Newer engines have sophisticated fuel injection that minimize that pressure surge, but for the most part it seems to me that Diesel engines are still built heavier.

So if a brand new gasoline engine was designed for diesel-like operation, what would keep engineers from making it beefier to last under higher stresses? I've never been a fan of taking a car engine and mounting a turbo on it to increase power and torque and calling it good. I know they get all kinds of upgrades but it's not the same as a new design. And personally I think that may be why the 2.7L EcoBoost doesn't have an aluminum block. Starting from scratch like if it were a PowerStroke diesel the engineers can beef it up as needed.

Not suggesting it won't be crap because it may be, but I wouldn't personally rule it out based on small size alone.

 

[hammerdown]

But the 2.7 CDI Benz motor is an inline-5. More durable design from the get go. Also, diesels are built for the much higher compression ratios required for compression ignition. 16:1 and up.

I think mazda has the lowest compression diesel ever, at 14:1.

 

[sosmercford]

Re: the Mazda Diesel......sure taking them along time to bring it to market. I think they have decided it's not worth it because the cost to make it legal was becoming too expensive and it wasn't going to provide enough gains for folks to justify the extra cost. Initially I was excited about it because they said they could meet the US requirements without a bunch of technical "add-ons".....but I gather that didn't work out. Too bad. Mazda builds nice stuff.

 

[hammerdown]

That little CX-3 with AWD and a 2.0 diesel would be a sweet ride. Correct though. We'll never see it.