Not sure how similar they are, but the 2nd gen 2.7 in my F150 is a monster - smooth, powerful, and way underrated from Ford. I wish there was room in the miata engine bay to fit it.
Not sure how similar they are, but the 2nd gen 2.7 in my F150 is a monster - smooth, powerful, and way underrated from Ford. I wish there was room in the miata engine bay to fit it.
In reply to morello159 :
it is a monster, isn't it?
No relation engine family wise, but the first time I drove one, I was two parts impressed and one part shocked.
morello159 said:Not sure how similar they are, but the 2nd gen 2.7 in my F150 is a monster - smooth, powerful, and way underrated from Ford. I wish there was room in the miata engine bay to fit it.
You should try it in a Fusion. 
AngryCorvair said:In reply to alfadriver :
the 3.7 in the current MKZ is shockingly powerful and smooth. coworker has one. he also has a lead foot. we always nominate him to drive to lunch.
That's also the engine in the "Interceptor Utility" - the only way to get a 3.7 in the Explorer chassis.
They scoot. Customer bought one at auction.
Tom_Spangler said:morello159 said:Not sure how similar they are, but the 2nd gen 2.7 in my F150 is a monster - smooth, powerful, and way underrated from Ford. I wish there was room in the miata engine bay to fit it.
You should try it in a Fusion.
...which weighs 4200lb with the 2.7 package.
That's a little depressing.
In reply to Knurled. :
Wow, that's only 500lbs less than my 2wd F150. Does the 2.7 share architectural similarities with any other engines? There's guys running just a tune and e30 making over 400whp. I would totally listen to a presentation by the engineer(s) who designed this thing - they must be extremely proud.
Sorry to derail the thread- back to your regularly scheduled swap talk.
Ford muddled the engine architectures by calling multiple different designs "EcoBoost" (and multiple different "Duratec" as well) but, near as I can tell, the 2.7 was expanded to 3.0 and 3.5, but the 3.7 is a different family from those. (Having not owned a V6 Ford newer than a 1998 Ford Taurus with the Vulcan engine, I'm not fully caught up on the modern stuff.)
Edit: or maybe not. This is all so confusing. The Cyclone page links back to the EcoBoost page. So is the Cyclone just a non-turbo version of the EcoBoost? I'm not sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine#V-type_six-cylinder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cyclone_engine
The 2.7 is not only unrelated to any other Ford engines, it doesn't even really have an architecture similar to modern engines - it is something goofy/weird/cool like a separate aluminum cylinder block, and iron main webs/saddles. Kind of like how most pre-WWII V engines were made, except there is only one cylinder block, not one for each bank. Or separate jugs.
In reply to slowbird :
Actually, the 3.5l EB engines are very close to the base Cyclone V6. It's very much based on the Cyclone architecture and design. NA PFI came first, with intake cam phasing, turbo DI came next with intake cam phasing, almost the same time, the 3.7 NA PFI with both cams moving was next, and then the truck DI turbo with twin cam timing. Since then, the PF-DI version of all of them have come out.
Weirdly enough, the 2.7 isn't related and was originally for the aluminum truck. The fact that it came out, along with a big number of other di-turbo engines is really, really frustrating to me. it was supposed to be an era of reducing powertrain count, and it was an explosion of it. I can't honestly tell you all of the 6 cyl displacements- but I think there's 2.7, 3.0, 3.3, 3.5, and 3.7. Crazy, and a massive waste.
Like the opposite of Chrysler going from almost 10 V6's down to a couple when Fiat stepped in. 2.7 and 3.5 with and without turbos should be enough, right?
In reply to Knurled. :
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but it sounds cool and weird.
In reply to alfadriver :
Like I said, highly confusing. 
Regardless, I want to get a crappy Vulcan V6 and put a bunch of turbos on it and call it "EcoBoost 0.5" because that's what kind of sicko I am. 
Knurled. said:...which weighs 4200lb with the 2.7 package.
That's a little depressing.
It is, but it still moves along just fine. It's a great DD with some scoot, and can still approach 30mpg on the freeway if you're nice to it. But I'm not gonna lie, it'd be nice if it was a few hundred pounds lighter.
In reply to slowbird :
Just post which head gasket you will use for that EB 0.5. So that we can all buy stock since you will use a lot...
In reply to alfadriver :
I was thinking a thin film of JB Weld in place of a gasket, and then just never remove the heads again. What could possibly go wrong? 
Does the 2.7 at least use the same bellhousing of the 3.5? A 2.7 in a RWD manual application would be really cool.
Tom_Spangler said:Knurled. said:...which weighs 4200lb with the 2.7 package.
That's a little depressing.
It is, but it still moves along just fine. It's a great DD with some scoot, and can still approach 30mpg on the freeway if you're nice to it. But I'm not gonna lie, it'd be nice if it was a few hundred pounds lighter.
So will my Volvo, and it is a much simpler engine. Only one turbo, no direct injection, and you can check the oil level without having to wait fifteen minutes! 
(Seriously what is up with that?)
If going the 3.8 v6 instead get a Buick 31/3.8 v6 turbo it use a built 200r4 transmission and have a miata grand national.
In reply to MotorsportsGordon :
The GN 200-R4 is a different beast from the plebe 200-R4. I wouldn't say there's a lot of "you can't get there from here" but a 200R4 upgraded to GN specs (read: not the poster child for the derogatory term "slushbox") is not very cheap. And they have their limits. After 550whp or so most people just decide that power is more important than highway pleasantness and they they chuck the 200R4 and go with a built TH350. And before that, you're replacing most of the internals anyway.
I used to have datalogs of built 200R4s slipping at random in 3rd gear...
There's also a lot of "can't get there from here" with a 231 vs. a turbo engine. The late blocks, cranks, and rods are the same, but that's it. Given the number of holed pistons I've seen in GNs, and given that GNs had better pistons than 231s got, I wouldn't want to put a turbo on a 231...
In reply to Knurled. :
Yea, I was under the impression the Supercharged 3800 in front of a v6 Camaro 5sp was the hot budget setup. (I'd still take the Honda J 35 tho)
You'll need to log in to post.
