Ford Transit USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If only 20% of this turns out to be true, I'm sold.

Let's give a thumbs up to Ford. All the way from those beloved old Econolines, to the way they behaved themselves during the financial meltdown of 2008....and now what is arguably the most progressive power plant out there.....Ford is America's Spirit.

Ford EcoBoost F150 v6 448AA - Episodes 1-5 - YouTube
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
If only 20% of this turns out to be true, I'm sold.

Let's give a thumbs up to Ford. All the way from those beloved old Econolines, to the way they behaved themselves during the financial meltdown of 2008....and now what is arguably the most progressive power plant out there.....Ford is America's Spirit.

Ford EcoBoost F150 v6 448AA - Episodes 1-5 - YouTube
Its 100% TRUE, THIS IS FORDs FLAGSIP engine
I will be 1st to "back up the 3.5l eco in a street fight"
Good video,shows some of the tooling we built for Ford @ CEP (Cleveland engine plant) we did CEPs dynos and coldtest stands, I worked on the tests for the GDI and turbo tests. When you look @ that dyno power plot its ALL about "power under the curve"
There are towing concerns here with the Transit and unitbody, "the engine is not going to bust, you may rip the body in two.
Met Edsel Ford 2nd he said we did this all "with no taypayer money".
I am not union,but want to say that my TRANSIT is built in AMERICA, by AMERICANS. Another reason to pick the 3.7L or 3.5L eco over the diesel.
GO FORD, GO AMERICAN WORKERS!

VanMan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I just don't need the power of the 3.5L ecoboost. What I would like to see is the 2.7L ecoboost and the improved MPG efficiency. Have this as an option in the wagon version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
one of the best engines from ford.
2.7L ecoboost, START/STOP is going into the alum. F150 first. 300hp
Ford guys (engineers) told me that buyers get bored with something after 3 years.
So F150 is "greatest pick up ever" to Ford and BUYERS (sales #s)
Then Transit and everyhing else will get it. More gears in autotrans. You can "see" how Ford is making this happen and meet CAFE.

If you think the the 3.5L eco is fancy, the 2.7L eco is MORE. (being built in Lima,Ohio engine plant)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Since I don't plan to tow much (even if I did my boat only weighs 3,500 lbs) the 2.7 might just be the one for me. More mpg's is seductive.

Reckon it will be strong enough for a conversion van with Quigley IFS 4WD conversion?

Hope they run the same endurance test as the video. Come on Ford you can do it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
I read the 2015 aluminum F150 which is to get the 2.7 eco first completed/finished the BAJA race and they installed the windshield in it and drove it back to Dearborn.
This engine I expect to end up in the Transit and many other Ford vehicles.
It just won't be till a few years. The F150 will prove it out 1st.
A Quiqley coversions last worry will be a 2.7l eco. engine which is rated @ 300hp, Cop car AWD sho's 3.5l eco are almost 400
The trend is smaller ecoboost, more gears in the auto trans.
If you want it now (2015) and can use a F150 which will be aluninum cab/box
The 2.7 is the next BIG THING for Ford. Please look into it. Will have better everything.

VanMan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Its 100% TRUE, THIS IS FORDs FLAGSIP engine
I will be 1st to "back up the 3.5l eco in a street fight"
Good video,shows some of the tooling we built for Ford @ CEP (Cleveland engine plant) we did CEPs dynos and coldtest stands, I worked on the tests for the GDI and turbo tests. When you look @ that dyno power plot its ALL about "power under the curve"
There are towing concerns here with the Transit and unitbody, "the engine is not going to bust, you may rip the body in two.
Met Edsel Ford 2nd he said we did this all "with no taypayer money".
I am not union,but want to say that my TRANSIT is built in AMERICA, by AMERICANS. Another reason to pick the 3.7L or 3.5L eco over the diesel.
GO FORD, GO AMERICAN WORKERS!

VanMan
Cool, because my Ford Transit Connect was built in Turkey, by Turks, the new TC is built in Spain by Spaniards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
Unfortunately a lot of marketing speak in the video. Too many "simulated" and "equivalent" references for my personal taste. The 3.5L engine is no doubt powerful but I don't need that much power.

I don't have the need to pay more for an engine that will burn more fuel than the standard engine, which already has plenty of power for my needs.

The 2.7L is all new and cast iron which I like better for a turbo truck engine. And it should have lower fuel consumption than the 3.7L standard engine. Whether the lower fuel consumption can pay for the added capital cost of the 2.7L is anyone's guess at this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
Unfortunately a lot of marketing speak in the video. Too many "simulated" and "equivalent" references for my personal taste. The 3.5L engine is no doubt powerful but I don't need that much power.

I don't have the need to pay more for an engine that will burn more fuel than the standard engine, which already has plenty of power for my needs.

The 2.7L is all new and cast iron which I like better for a turbo truck engine. And it should have lower fuel consumption than the 3.7L standard engine. Whether the lower fuel consumption can pay for the added capital cost of the 2.7L is anyone's guess at this time.
This forum is working out for alot of people to make a clear pick on what they need. The 2.7L eco is better in alot of ways, but you will have to wait to get it in a Transit.
I am buying it (3.5L eco) because I have my "fingerprints" on it and know what it is.
There is no argument with what your saying,if you want a Transit now, this is what you can get.
A few years, I exspect it as the Top Transit engine w/ have(more gears) auto (2.7L eco) Yes,I can see thru the marketing hype, Ecoboost has turned out better for Ford than planned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
Based on most of the members comments, the 3.7L is going to win in the sales/happy customer ratings. I am 1st to defend the 3.5L eco as MY pick. My requirements are different than many others. I feel this van will drive/perform with 1/2 of the eco's Full power fine.
Yes,I have drove old F600 inline 6 cylinders with maybe 150hp max. they did fine.
I am buying mine for private use and will pay the extra for it. Its going to use more fuel than the 3.7 unless I try very hard to beat it, I think I can, but won't be any fun to drive it that way.
Unless you want the excess power, 3.7L is the best/lowest cost overall. Many Sprinter people here want a change from all the diesel hassels/Benz service issues/etc.
Buy the 3.7L and Dont worry/be happy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
EcoBoost technical data that has been published shows that for same engine displacement the naturally aspirated engine gets better MPG than the turbo version. The same technical report suggested that for EcoBoost technology to save fuel the engine's displacement has to be reduced so that power output is similar.

So basically the new 2.7L EcoBoost V6 will have about the same power rating of around 300 HP as the naturally aspirated 3.7L V6. For the new 2015 F-150 the displacement will be reduced from 3.7 to 3.5 liters, but the comparison should hold. And it will be quite interesting to see the differences between these two engines in the new F-150. In time they will both likely make it to the Transit.

Personally I'd take the slightly larger NA engine unless fuel economy of the EcoBoost of equal power is much higher.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
And I agree with everything you are saying. For the Transit now, the 3.7L n.a. engine is going to be the best overall from a cost/operating cost standpoint.
I am (myself) not ready for the 2.7L eco yet, the START/STOP tech. needs to be proved out by someone else (new F150 guys).
I won't be suprised with the operating costs of the 3.5L eco. This is the most de-tuned version so far (in Transit van). The others are more,cop car ones almost 400hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
If, and until Ford lightens the Transit package and GVWR, I would not expect to see the 2.7L in this vehicle. The issue becomes brake mean horsepower efficiency. For a large frontal area vehicle like the transit, you need a large amount of HP to push the air out of the way at typical travel speeds. For forced induction gasoline engines, the brake mean horsepower efficiency is lower at higher boost pressures, meaning if you have to put the engine in high boost mode (as would be necessary to move the air at freeway speed, or tow up a hill), the engine will be less efficient than a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine designed for that load.

The gains in efficiency from forced induction are generally realized when paired with a vehicle that can cruise at highway speeds (or typical engine loading levels) when boost is minimal, thus creating a situation where you have available power when needed, but it isn't needed for normal driving.

You will see the 2.7L ecoboost across the sedan/crossover vehicle line up long before it makes it's way to the Transit, if ever. It simply makes more sense in those applications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
If, and until Ford lightens the Transit package and GVWR, I would not expect to see the 2.7L in this vehicle. The issue becomes brake mean horsepower efficiency. For a large frontal area vehicle like the transit, you need a large amount of HP to push the air out of the way at typical travel speeds. For forced induction gasoline engines, the brake mean horsepower efficiency is lower at higher boost pressures, meaning if you have to put the engine in high boost mode (as would be necessary to move the air at freeway speed, or tow up a hill), the engine will be less efficient than a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine designed for that load.

The gains in efficiency from forced induction are generally realized when paired with a vehicle that can cruise at highway speeds (or typical engine loading levels) when boost is minimal, thus creating a situation where you have available power when needed, but it isn't needed for normal driving.

You will see the 2.7L ecoboost across the sedan/crossover vehicle line up long before it makes it's way to the Transit, if ever. It simply makes more sense in those applications.
Those plus sides of that engine paired with how much lighter those passenger vehicles are and it makes for a killer combo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
If, and until Ford lightens the Transit package and GVWR, I would not expect to see the 2.7L in this vehicle. The issue becomes brake mean horsepower efficiency. For a large frontal area vehicle like the transit, you need a large amount of HP to push the air out of the way at typical travel speeds. For forced induction gasoline engines, the brake mean horsepower efficiency is lower at higher boost pressures, meaning if you have to put the engine in high boost mode (as would be necessary to move the air at freeway speed, or tow up a hill), the engine will be less efficient than a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine designed for that load.

The gains in efficiency from forced induction are generally realized when paired with a vehicle that can cruise at highway speeds (or typical engine loading levels) when boost is minimal, thus creating a situation where you have available power when needed, but it isn't needed for normal driving.

You will see the 2.7L ecoboost across the sedan/crossover vehicle line up long before it makes it's way to the Transit, if ever. It simply makes more sense in those applications.
Makes sense except you are probably overestimating how much power is actually needed to push a van down a level road at highway speed.

In the 50 to 60 horsepower range at typical RPM associated with van gearing, the required torque is less than 150 lb-ft. And that would be well within the efficient range of a 2.7L EcoBoost. In fact, with gearing alone the difference between 3.5 and 2.7 could be offset at highway speed -- although there would be no point in it.

If Ford thinks it will work in a F-150 then the same engine will work just fine in a Transit -- particularly the low roof models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Makes sense except you are probably overestimating how much power is actually needed to push a van down a level road at highway speed.

In the 50 to 60 horsepower range at typical RPM associated with van gearing, the required torque is less than 150 lb-ft. And that would be well within the efficient range of a 2.7L EcoBoost. In fact, with gearing alone the difference between 3.5 and 2.7 could be offset at highway speed -- although there would be no point in it.

If Ford thinks it will work in a F-150 then the same engine will work just fine in a Transit -- particularly the low roof models.
I calculate 60 HP at 65 MPH assuming a flat interstate, low roof, and a .55 Cd and 15% driveline losses, which is a standard assumption. 75 HP for the high roof. I don't have an actual Cd for the Transit, it is probably slightly less.

Regardless, 75 HP is likely right on the edge of where the 2.7 boost curve kicks in. What isn't factored is any incline adds significantly to power requirement. Assuming you are driving with the van at its GVWR and no trailer, a low roof shorty will need 120HP to maintain speed at a 3% grade, which is very common, even in flat states. At 7% grade, which is as steep as interstates can get, you need 190HP to maintain speed. That assumes no wind either. Ad a head wind... more power. Higher roof... more power. Towing... more power.

I guess what I'm saying is that the 2.7 would be great for a smaller lower GVWR vehicle... Real world usage of the Transit will dictate that the engine will be well into its boost curve a significant percentage of the time; thus minimizing any fuel savings. But for fuel savings, there is no need for such a complex and expensive engine. That said, it will probably perform very well in the entirely unrealistic EPA fuel economy circuit and will give Ford a great marketing nugget for the new F-150.

Caveat: for city usage, the stop/start feature on this engine would likely be of benefit for a local delivery van used at lower speeds... I could see significant fuel savings under that scenario. BUT...Its academic, they aren't putting that engine in a transit any time soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
But with the two gasoline engine choices that will be available, am I correct to assume that at 75mph cruise mid or tall roof the 3.7 will burn less fuel per mile than the Eco?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
I calculate 60 HP at 65 MPH assuming a flat interstate, low roof, and a .55 Cd and 15% driveline losses, which is a standard assumption. 75 HP for the high roof. I don't have an actual Cd for the Transit, it is probably slightly less.

Regardless, 75 HP is likely right on the edge of where the 2.7 boost curve kicks in. What isn't factored is any incline adds significantly to power requirement. Assuming you are driving with the van at its GVWR and no trailer, a low roof shorty will need 120HP to maintain speed at a 3% grade, which is very common, even in flat states. At 7% grade, which is as steep as interstates can get, you need 190HP to maintain speed. That assumes no wind either. Ad a head wind... more power. Higher roof... more power. Towing... more power.

I guess what I'm saying is that the 2.7 would be great for a smaller lower GVWR vehicle... Real world usage of the Transit will dictate that the engine will be well into its boost curve a significant percentage of the time; thus minimizing any fuel savings. But for fuel savings, there is no need for such a complex and expensive engine. That said, it will probably perform very well in the entirely unrealistic EPA fuel economy circuit and will give Ford a great marketing nugget for the new F-150.

Caveat: for city usage, the stop/start feature on this engine would likely be of benefit for a local delivery van used at lower speeds... I could see significant fuel savings under that scenario. BUT...Its academic, they aren't putting that engine in a transit any time soon.
I'm not following your initial argument that the 2.7L is too small to ever be used with a Transit.

You estimated a loaded van up a 7 percent grade only needs 190 HP, so how is that a problem for an engine that should be around 300 HP?

Beyond that, demographics of van owners are significantly different than pickups. They tend to be less aggressive as drivers go. This means less interested in power and speed.

Most important, Sprinters are sold with less than 200 HP. ProMaster diesel have less than 200 HP, and the diesel Ford Transit around that same level of power. When looking at all these vehicles, I have a hard time with a 300-HP engine not being large enough. The Sprinters, with least power, have the highest GCWR of up around 15,000 pounds.

And for what it's worth, any modern engine in the 2.7L size range should be able to make much over 75 HP without needing boost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
If, and until Ford lightens the Transit package and GVWR, I would not expect to see the 2.7L in this vehicle. The issue becomes brake mean horsepower efficiency. For a large frontal area vehicle like the transit, you need a large amount of HP to push the air out of the way at typical travel speeds. For forced induction gasoline engines, the brake mean horsepower efficiency is lower at higher boost pressures, meaning if you have to put the engine in high boost mode (as would be necessary to move the air at freeway speed, or tow up a hill), the engine will be less efficient than a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine designed for that load.

The gains in efficiency from forced induction are generally realized when paired with a vehicle that can cruise at highway speeds (or typical engine loading levels) when boost is minimal, thus creating a situation where you have available power when needed, but it isn't needed for normal driving.

You will see the 2.7L ecoboost across the sedan/crossover vehicle line up long before it makes it's way to the Transit, if ever. It simply makes more sense in those applications.
I hope I did'nt start this,
This thing (Transit) is big, Bigger, BIGEST. The speed you drive at has a BIG EFFECT on DRAG. The smaller vehicles have to deal with this alot less.
The front may be aero, but the back is not
Who knows what the C/D of all the bodys are?
That member with the 2500 Sprinter cargo thats getting 25 mpg is driving @ 65mph. Go up to 80-85 mph (my driving speed w/good music on) and your MPG goes into the down big time.
SLOW down and find your speed with what you have is best overall.
I am still going to buy 3.5L eco, mid roof,lwb.
I have driven in the mountians out west, and the turbos will shine.
I am not daily driving mine, have a focus for that. But when I do use it,want to be able to enjoy it and if I need more power, just step on it.

VanMan
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top