[snakebitten]

Not exactly an answer to the question, but I spent a small fortune sound-proofing-deadening my truck.
Absolutely eerily quiet.

If the oem glass was a source for noise it'd be really obvious now. But it isn't.

So even if I don't have proof that it's quieter than other glass, I'm not willing to find out for sure.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

Keep doing what you're doing!

I think you are the perfect ecoboost owner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

Great review.
My only disagreement, and it's minor, is if the 302A package was expanded to include numerous items that it currently doesn't, then we risk price creep that COULD potentially erode the incredible "sweet spot" that I've always considered that truck to be.

Or put another way, an XLT Crew 2WD 302A 2.7 truck IS the most truck for the money I've ever seen. And it's also right in the heart of what Ford often offers the most incentives for the dealer to work with on pricing.

If they could add even MORE features to the 302A without messing that sweet spot up, then yea, great.

But I'm leary.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

I know it's a mess and you'd rather not have the washout, but dang if it doesn't look like a fun day of "repair".

Trucks, tractors, equipment........ Mud boots and gloves...... Some folks never get to experience it.

Yes, wheel well liners shield that gap

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

I've read on Facebook Group that the throttle body gets replaced often when this happens. I don't see the connection myself.

Please do report back.

Our trucks are one big computer with 1000 data points

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

When on I-10 between Kerrville and Junction. I set my cruise on 82mph and get passed by others going way faster... probably close to 100.

That's why the truckers call I-10 in Texas The Superslide.

At least they did back when cb radios were all the rage in cars.

I'm on I-10 a lot. All my life. Even as a toddler standing in the front seat of a station wagon.

It's definitely a "get there from here" thoroughfare! But who can be surprised when they realize it's a 1000 mile route just in the lonestar state.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

We have 2 2016 2.7's

My son gets his serviced at the dealership. At one of his oil changes the dealership reported that he had a leaking oil pan and changed it at no charge.

He swears he never saw a drop on the ground.

I'm guessing he's had 2 or 3 services since. No issues.

The other truck was mine for the first 27,000 miles. It's my nephews for just short of 2 years now. He's never mentioned a single issue of any kind. That truck did about 12,000 miles of RV towing when it was in my possession. An absolutely amazing truck.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

Welcome to the forum ?
I know the question isn't directed at me but I can tell you from being on forums like this one since before the 2.7 Eco came out, it is probably going to end up being the most reliable of all the 12th and 13th generation Ford F150 engines. It will certainly use alot less gas than the V8's while doing the same work.

I'm pretty sure it already has proven to be the most reliable F150 motor.
Honestly, I don't even think it's close.
That motor is gem.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

Other than the the run of noisy wastegates and the ridiculous faulty cam phasers, the current 3.5 is both amazingly popular and close to being sorted.

I could be wrong of course, but I think Ford considers the F150 Ecoboost 3.5 as a big hit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

Agreed and of course that’s the engine I think they should continue with or a higher HP version of it. It just seems to me that with the exception of the 7.3 Godzilla most things Ford has done recently has been smaller, more tightly wound albeit higher HP very efficient engines. I can see them doing the same in the F150 line as they march to a future of an all electric line up. I’ll leave now before I’m booed off of the stage.

You brought up an interesting point that I left out of my consideration.

If the near furture really is a hybrid based drivetrain, a smaller Ecoboost could easily match the current 3.5 output. And be more efficient.

Not less expensive though.

So no, I'm not going to boo you off the stage. Lol

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

It's an awesome thread.
The defacto 2.7 thread, in my opinion.

Did you ever think?



Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

Why did Ford suddenly without explanation change the spec from 5-20, which came in the truck when we purchased it, to 5-30?

I agree that Ford knows their own products and engineering, but that change speaks volumes in so many different ways.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

The rumor is they changed the spec due to fuel dillution in the early years. But I’m curious if they maybe changed the spec to hit the 10,000 oil change Interval.

I'm only guessing, but I believe it must have been a very difficult decision in the conference room at Ford. Uncomfortable even. At the very least it's egg on some groups face?

I also don't think it is as simple as one single aspect of whatever data they were responding to. Fuel dilution probably was one aspect for sure, but only one.





Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

I'm betting that 150 mile run helped a lot though.



Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

If you do keep it, just drop to a 3000 mile interval and see how it reports.

How consistent was the miles on that oil VS other intervals? Was there more short trips? More percentage of miles below fully warmed up fluids?

And yea, you can switch to a different viscosity of oil. It's not the end of the world to run 0-40 in these motors.



Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

GET WELL

You must outlast the truck. Or at least put another 111k on it.

I hope you aren't offended in the humor. I couldn't be more sincere. Believe me.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

Great news!

Based on length of battle, sounds familiar to my bout. Longest 14+ days. Plain miserable.

So glad to hear you got up off the mat.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[snakebitten]

I've owned both and the thing that sticks out in my mind is that the 2.7 made like 90% of its max torque at an unbelievable 1800rpms. That's just insane compared to anything I had ever owned that didn't burn diesel.
The 3.5 I think matches it at around 2400?

 

[snakebitten]

I read just last night the 2.7 makes max tq at 3000 RPM but maybe it was a different tune in a different vehicle.

Look closely..... Lol

Ford says it makes 90% of its max torque at 1800
(I read this in 2016 and might be off by 100rpms?)

That's my whole rant regarding chasing "Max" numbers, especially with the chant for dyno graphs to backup someone's claims.
The real world experience while sitting in the vehicle is the only real world you can experience. Can feeeeel.

So your question was teeing it up for my point perfectly. Max torque is on a graph.
90% torque at 1200rpms less than max has already happened to you in the seat! Which one do you think you could describe by just driving the truck?

I just don't think anything happened at 3000rpms that you would notice. But at 2000 you already said "Holy COW" 🤪

 

[snakebitten]

I didn't think the 3.5 dyno torque curve showed it at 90% that early. I mean 1700rpms.

I thought it reached that at somewhere around 2200 or so. Still amazing, don't get me wrong. But later than the 2.7

Which might explain the phenomenon of the 2.7 feeling quicker out of the hole. Cuz technically it's hitting hard earlier.