|
|
#57 | |
|
Iron fist, lead foot
Drives: 2003 Mustang Cobra Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
I'd imagine that the EB2.7L will come in number wise, just under the now defunct 3v 5.4L V8. Which by no means is a HUGE set of numbers... but, it should still be just as capable as that engine. Now, will people pay, what I will guess will be, the same price as a 5.0 for the mpg increase if the EB? Well that's up to the market to decide. I can say personally, that as an owner of an '06 F-150 FX4 that's equipped with the 5.4, if the 2.7 offers comparable performance but much better mpg than 12ci/16hi/14co; then I will be very tempted to replace my aging truck with a nano-EB equipped one.
__________________
'03 SVT Cobra-SC4.6L V8 || modded with mods'n'stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Drives: 2002 ws6 Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: manitoba
Posts: 1,202
|
fact is for nearly 40 years ford has been WAY behind in engine technology, fuel economy, power and general engineering. they basically almost caught up to GM for a year or two and the pro ford nonsense is through the roof.
fact is that GM has more powerful, better fuel economy engines and their trucks have always been engineered with the KISS method and it has always served them well in the long run. fords are complexly engineered and are almost impossible to keep running off warranty, but they throw 2 turbos on a v6 and almost everyone loses their minds over it, even though it's a status quo engine at best.
__________________
Bolt on 2002 ls1 Trans am--- 11.5 @ 121 (1.72) 2000 da
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|