As we prepare for the arrival of the all-new, next-generation Ford F-150, rumors about the new truck are picking up steam. Naturally, many of said rumors aren't just related to the way the truck will look (it's expected to take design cues from the Atlas concept shown above), they're tied to what's going to motivate the Blue Oval mainstay, with Ford's EcoBoost range likely to play an increasingly key role. While we're still expecting the current 3.5-liter, twin-turbocharged V6 to retain its position as a premium alternative to Ford's naturally aspirated V6 and V8, a Canadian automotive news site is proposing that the Dearborn automaker is also preparing a new, more fuel-efficient downsized EcoBoost option.

Autos.ca is reporting that a new, 2.7-liter, twin-turbocharged V6 could find its way into the lighter, aluminum-intensive truck. The new engine supposedly makes use of asymmetrical turbos to generate 320 horsepower and 370 pound-feet of torque – substantially more impressive numbers than the current 3.7-liter base engine's 302 ponies and 278 lb-ft – while offering improved fuel economy and emissions. The new 2.7 EcoBoost (internally dubbed "Nano") isn't expected to supplant the naturally aspirated V6 as the F-150's base engine, it's expected to slot in above directly it.

Naturally, we're prescribing more than a few grains of salt to go with these rumors, at least until Ford debuts the next F-150 at the 2014 Detroit Auto Show, a reveal we'll be covering in a mere two weeks.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 118 Comments
      Avinash Machado
      • 11 Months Ago
      Sounds quite impressive.
      Andrew
      • 11 Months Ago
      NEW FORD FAIL-150 COMPLETE WITH SPLITTING SPARK PLUGS AND EXPLODING DIRVE SHAFTS BUT WAIT CALL IN THE NEXT 15 MINUTES AND GET FRAME BENDING ACTION AT NO COST. FORD WHERE QUALITY IS JOB 1!!!
        jaydez860
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Andrew
        I fail to see your trolling. The first is a problem that was fixed over 10 years and 2 generations ago. As far as i can find there has never been a problem with exploding drive shafts and the F-150 frame, since 2005 has been a step above the others
        KeithPJ
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Andrew
        Ford's been a different company since hiring Alan Mulally as CEO in 2006, maybe you've heard of him, he's the designer of the Boeing 777.
      That Guy
      • 11 Months Ago
      Should be enough to move the pop can around. But why make a truck with no capabilities? Funny how Ford goes from making the f150 far more capable than it needs to be (well, at least on paper, real life is different) to a f150 that won't be able to haul a load of tabs off the cans it was made from. And this is a obvious desperate move to try and regain Ranger sales. Looks like Ford was completely wrong when they said Ranger shoppers will just buy a Fiesta.
        19nomad56
        • 11 Months Ago
        @That Guy
        Just out of curiosity I picked a random older truck to see how this new one would compare. According to F150.net, (http://www.fordf150.net/specs/02f150.php) a 2002 F150 Supercrew 4X2 4.6V8 has 231 HP and 293 TQ and weighs 4655 lbs. This would be the mid level engine, as the V6 has 202/252 respectively. That would put the new 2.7T at +89 HP and +77 TQ over the 4.6 if the numbers are correct. If the new truck has lost 700 pounds, the power/weight ratio could be pretty significant.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 11 Months Ago
        @That Guy
        I don't understand how a stronger body and 370lbs of torque translates into 'can barely haul anything'; you must not understand a single thing about materials or power.
        j.ziraldo
        • 11 Months Ago
        @That Guy
        It can be a total waste of time and pixels to provide any argument to trolls like That Guy who seem to be employed to deride anything positive about Ford products, however their BS cannot go unanswered either. I don't see anything desperate in Ford's moves to shed any unnecessary weight from the F150 (the frame is just as strong as ever) and to provide more economical engine options to those who can use it. Ford brand and F150 sales increases prove that Ford is providing creativity and leadership to the industry, despite all the crying by trolls like That Guy.
      CoolWaters
      • 11 Months Ago
      As someone with an EcoFraud Ford Escape, now getting 18 mpg in winter, the EcoFraud Engines JUST DO NOT CUT IT.
        That Guy
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        Sucks being taken by what is nothing more than a marketing scam. Egoboost is a joke. Turbos put more air into the engine. More air-more fuel. It's not a hard concept. But seriously, you actually expected honesty from Ford? That days a lot about you. And you bought a POS Escape.....strike 2 lol
        JF1GE
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        yep, he design is not suited for fuel efficiency. It's a power booster designed to use More fuel and produce more power than the engine would normally be able to do.
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        [blocked]
          EZEE2
          • 11 Months Ago
          Dan is much friendlier and happier than Cool Waters. Cool was formerly known as 'Ford Perfect'
        cpmanx
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        How are you driving your Escape? John Voelcker is about as straight as they come, and when he tested the Escape with the larger EcoBoost he got 23.9mpg average. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1083750_2013-ford-escape-2-0-liter-ecoboost-gas-mileage-drive-report
          TrueDat
          • 11 Months Ago
          @cpmanx
          ya my buddy does nothing but city driving with his 2.0 ecoboost.. even he averages 23. ive heard people with the 1.6 getting around 25 and 26
        EZEE2
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        Cool? You bought a mean spirited heartless environment destroying FUV? I am so disappointed.
        JohnB
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        My wife has a 2013 with the 1.6L Ecoboost and in mixed driving she gets 26 (real numbers not what is on the display) and highway only it ranges between 29 and 34 depending if it is interstate or state highway which has a lower speed limit. These are numbers she averages right now. I don't know what you have for an Escape but the 2.0 and AWD will get less mpg's because of the extra weight, power loss due to friction, and parasitic drag from the extra components under the car. An AWD vehicle was never meant to get good mpg it was meant to provide more traction and a safer vehicle on slick roads. Also, I have a 2011 F-150 Platinum and I average 18 in mixed conditions, 15 city only and highway it goes from 21-26 again interstate and state highway. I've also pulled trailers grossing an entire vehicle weight of 18,000 lbs and I get the same mpg a 7.3l Powerstroke under the same conditions (both trucks are completely stock). People just don't realize with a boosted engine you don't drive it the same as a naturally aspirated, if you do MPG will be worse but fun factor will go up.
        Mike
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        I'm only getting 19 MPG using 93 octane in mixed driving with my 2014 Escape AWD 2.0 Turbo. If I do just highway driving I can get it over 21MPG but both are way short of the advertised numbers.
          TrueDat
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Mike
          youre a liar, lol..
          Jesse Gurr
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Mike
          Where are you that you get 93 octane? I have only seen 91 max at the pumps.
          KeithPJ
          • 9 Months Ago
          @Mike
          Ford tunes their Turbo engines for 87 octane, so you're wasting your money, however, Superchips is getting 40+hp in a 2.0L EcoBoost with just their tune using 93 octane, and that's what I suggest you do, you won't be disappointed.
      over9000
      • 11 Months Ago
      Ford Fusion ST
      Ok
      • 11 Months Ago
      At first glance, 2.7L seems ridiculously small for a full sized pickup. But you can't argue with the numbers, if they are accurate.
      rollie
      • 11 Months Ago
      Why not just put a few squirrels in a rotating cage under the hood. I can just see me hauling a trailer or plowing my driveway with something like this.
        montoym
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        Just 10yrs ago, the then-new 5.4L V8 made 300hp and 365lb-ft of torque and it seemed to move about the truck just fine. That was also the larger V8, there was also the smaller 4.6L V8 which made 231hp and 293lb-ft of torque. Just out of curiosity, how much power do you think is sufficient for your needs?
        2 wheeled menace
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        380ft-lbs of torque isn't enough? the 5.0 V8 from the late 2000's had that much torque. Would you have considered the 5.0L V8 a weak engine too?
        mitytitywhitey
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        My 1989 F250 has a whopping 205hp. Does what I need it to do.
      Timothy Tibbetts
      • 11 Months Ago
      Cool, then with the 700 pound weight loss I can still only get 14 MPG tops.
        CoolWaters
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Timothy Tibbetts
        Elon Musk, of TESLA, reports on batteries history: 20% more Capacity per year, at 80% of the cost of last year's batteries. Ford should be developing a HYBRID system that really delivers MPG, instead of the EcoFraud engines. There is only one great way to increase MPG, capture braking energy to use for Acceleration, only a HYBRID can do that.
          • 11 Months Ago
          @CoolWaters
          [blocked]
        2 wheeled menace
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Timothy Tibbetts
        I really think that you should take physics 101 again, Tim.
        Greg Aryous
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Timothy Tibbetts
        Get you foot out of ur mouth... I mean off the gas peddle;)
          CoolWaters
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Greg Aryous
          Don't be such girl. Only Batteries have the bang for the buck to get the job done. Look at the FACTS. Don't be afraid of a little battery, it's not scary.
      CEC
      • 11 Months Ago
      Why would Ford be dumb enough to spend hundreds of millions developing an all new twin turbo engine, when they could just develop a single turbo version of the 3.5, with similar power and fe, for a fraction of the price? I THINK Ford isn't dumb enough to do that.
        StaceyS
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CEC
        Yay! Development/engineering short cuts to short-term profits! Its the 1980s all over again! Small, incremental improvements of existing engines only goes so far for so long. Sometimes you just gotta pony up the big bucks and put new hardware out there. I don't see why Ford WOULDN'T consider developing a new, state of the art engine for their new star pick-up.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CEC
        Let's say that you run Ford, for a moment. You are going to design a vehicle and sell something to the tune of 5 million of that model. You can produce v8 power with a 2.7L engine that is 25% smaller than the 3.5L motor, which means that when you build these engines, the cost of materials is about 25% lower. It also means that you can get the weight of the car down a little, increasing the towing capabilities of the vehicle. What if, despite the added cost of the turbo system, you are producing the entire engine at a lower cost, and providing an overall better vehicle to boot, but charging the same money for the car? You'd be increasing your profit margins and getting a big edge on the competition in fuel economy, towing capacity, and acceleration, wouldn't you? It's a good thing that you are not running Ford.
          CEC
          • 11 Months Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          25% lower just because the engine is smaller? A twin turbo setup being lighter then a singlet turbo? You think a new more complicated motor would cost less to produce then an existing less complicated motor? Ford is lucky you don't run Ford. With thinking like yours they would be in the crapper again in no time.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 11 Months Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          The motor isn't really any more complicated to produce. But it does take significantly less materials to produce. Thinking like mine is the thinking that they are acting on today. You can argue with me, but you're still going to see a 2.7L turbo truck with an aluminum body produced. I guess they are going into the crapper, huh? because their ecoboost trucks are doing great. Everyone said they would be too complicated and awful last time, too.
        TrueDat
        • 11 Months Ago
        @CEC
        "twin scroll" and "twin turbo" are 2 different things... a twin turbo, like the 3.5, actually has two turbos, one feeding into the other.. a twin scroll turbo simply changes the way the exhaust is fed into a single unit. the 2.7 will be a twin scroll unit.
      mhart27
      • 11 Months Ago
      I hate to be a grammer nazi (actually I love being one) but this doesn't sound right: " it's expected to slot in above directly it."
        SquareFour
        • 11 Months Ago
        @mhart27
        I don't mind being a grammar nazi--proud of it, in fact--because ignorance is lame. That said, you misspelled grammar. ;)
          mhart27
          • 11 Months Ago
          @SquareFour
          Doh! Well I did say grammar and not spelling :)
        Jesus!
        • 11 Months Ago
        @mhart27
        I caught that too. The mistakes are so rampant on this site it doesn't even matter anymore lol.
      • 11 Months Ago
      [blocked]
        jebibudala
        • 11 Months Ago
        Better than steam powered turbos.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 11 Months Ago
        BMW uses this on their cars, and has for a while, as well as some other European auto makers. Works really well.
        montoym
        • 11 Months Ago
        Yes. It's similar to how the 4th-Gen Supra Turbo's 2JZ-GTE engine was plumbed. Smaller turbo to reduce lag on the low end and a larger turbo to keep up the pressure at the high end. It's not commonly used, but certainly not unheard of by any means.
          • 11 Months Ago
          @montoym
          [blocked]
      cmcgpgt
      • 11 Months Ago
      The 2015 f150 will have the 2.7 ecoboost. Part of the nano engine line. It will replace the the 3.7. Depending on the success there could more versions coming. This is from some tooling engineers from my local ford engine plant. Range of the nano family is 2.5 to 3.0 litres. These engines will make it across the ford line. The 2.7 ecoboost is currently being torture tested in some f150s around the states.
    • Load More Comments