Yeah, I'm still a few years out from needing a new truck, and I'm not opposed to a four cylinder, but I can't wrap my brain around buying a four cylinder that gets worse fuel economy than some current V8s.

That combined MPG is total crap and barely better than the V8

18 MPG seems to be the fleet average on Fuelly, too.

This engine is a regulation compliance exercise that has a laundry list of long term concerns, questionable market value, and zero benefit to the consumer.

My 3.5 ecoboost gets 660 miles out of a 30 gallon fill. That's combined and mostly city 22 mpg. Would also stomp all over the 2.7 Chevy.  Kind of a dismal showing by chevy.

With about 1/4 more displacement, one would hope the Ford has more power.  Now do the Ford 2.7 and compare apples to apples.

Agree.  If it got close to 25mpg I could see a use case but it not 19-20mpg.

This motor is supposed to replace the 5.3 chevy which has even more displacement.  It's also in a 1/2 truck like the 3.5 ecoboost.  Comparison is valid, smaller engine for fuel economy ends up getting worse mileage and power.

The 5.3 hasn’t gone anywhere and is still available.  The 2.7 is simply another entry level choice just like what Ford offers with their 2.7.

The 2.7 was built to replace the 4.3 v6 engine, which it did. The 5.3 is still their best seller. You'll see the 6.2 be discontinued in the 1500's before the 5.3.

I believe it replaced the 3.6l v6

In the mid size truck yes, in the full size it replaced the 4.3

After they decided to put the 2.7 in the Colorado/Canyon Mid Size trucks a few years later in the 2023 model. It was initially intended to replace the 4.3 V6 in the Full Size 1500's starting in 2019.

The Ford 2.7 still trashes this engine in terms of overall design.

The Ford 2.7 is a V6 with a compacted graphite iron block. The GM 2.7 is an I4 with an aluminum block.

The GM engine has cylinder deactivation. The Ford engine does not.

The GM engine is direct injection only. The Ford engine has dual injection.

The GM engine has a complicated active cooling system with an electric water pump and a series of electrical valves. The Ford engine does not.

The GM engine comes paired with the infamous 8 speed transmission. The Ford engine comes paired with the better 10 speed transmission co-developed by the two companies.

The Ford 2.7 also enjoys a reputation of being the most generally reliable engine under the hood of the F-150, and it's been that way for a long time now. The GM engine does not.

If you want to play with a turbo engine, the Ford is the better choice.

If you want a GM truck, the 5.3 is the better choice.

Does the block material matter at these power levels?

Does the cooling complexity address a potential problem, or is it needless failure prone tech for no reason?

Is the deactivation via sliding cam finally a good solution over lifter based shenanigans? (yes, better to just not have it)

Does block construction ever NOT matter?

Ford and GM both still use iron blocks for the V8s they put in their 3/4+ ton trucks despite those engines having lower output relative to displacement. This is done for durability/reliability.

A 2.7L engine in naturally aspirated form makes about what? 200/200 depending upon configuration? These engines are making 310+/400+, and they're being dropped in vehicles with 6,500+ pound GVWRs and 13,000+ pound GCWRs, so they'll be using those increased outputs. I would expect the CGI block in the Ford to have a big advantage in this application.

I think the GM cooling system is designed to help the engine hit ideal operating temperatures faster and to provide improved control over how much coolant flows through which part of the engine independently of RPM. This cooling system can, for example, run balls out while the truck is running low RPMs in traffic on a hot day. I'm sure that's helpful, but generations of engines have done just fine without that capability.

And, as you say, it's simply better to not have cylinder deactivation than it is to have any form of cylinder deactivation.

The biggest question is, why should a consumer choose the GM 2.7?

It only beats the 5.3 by 1.5 MPGs (at $3 a gallon, that's about $150 every 10,000 miles), and it's a little cheaper up front ($1,595), but that price difference gets you the V8 AND the 10 speed transmission.

If you're operating a fleet, you're buying dozens of units, and you're dumping them at 60k miles or whatever, I could see the math favoring the 2.7. The TCO math probably looks good. But for a consumer? The cost doesn't make enough of a difference, and there's too many trade-offs.

More torque than the V8 (5.3) , you don’t have to run premium gas (6.2) and it’s a little cheaper?


I rolled the dice, I just picked one up so we will see….

Personally, I'd pay the $1,595 just for the transmission upgrade from the crap 8 speed. The extra 45 horsepower, the V8 noises, the wide open industry support, and the resale value would just be free bonuses.

The turbocharged engine does have a torque advantage, but there's nothing I'd do with a half ton truck that couldn't be done easily with the 5.3's 383 lb-ft.

It’s not like aluminum block tech is something brand new.  Does Ford use an iron block because it’s better or because it’s cheaper?   Aluminum has its own advantages in terms of both weight and thermal performance which the GM engineers might have chosen for good reason on a turbocharged engine.  

Cylinder deactivation has thus far not proved to be a problem in the 2.7, but agree I’d rather not have it.

Likewise direct injection only hasn’t proven to be an issue on the 2.7 either except in theory on the internet.  Time will tell as more of these engines reach higher miles.  

As the other poster pointed out does the variable cooling address a performance aspect?   Possibly.  

The 8 speed transmission has been updated from years past.  Most of the issues were related to the type of transmission fluid that was being used on the older 8 speeds.  This change was made a long time ago.  

Regardless, no dog in this fight as I’d rather have a V8  in a pickup than a turbocharged engine regardless of what brand it is.  

It's not that simple.

in identical designs the CGI block would have a strength and stability advantage.  These are not identical designs.  You can make an aluminum block stronger than a CGI block if you design it to be that way.  8000 horse top fuel dragsters use aluminum blocks and rods.

The issue comes in when you design a block for use in a light weight vehicle, like a mustang or corvette and then drop it into a heavy application like a truck.  You designed it with weight savings in mind so it was just strong enough, and no more.  5.0s are notorious for having squirrely blocks. There is a a reason GM hung onto the iron block 6.0 for so long in trucks.  The LT engines were built to be light and don't like heavy towing type work.

The 2.7 was designed from the outset to be a turbo charged truck motor.  No reason it can't be or isn't every bit as strong as a CGI block and probably lighter to boot

Only one turbo to replace....vs the Ford 2.7 v6 . One aluminum head on an aluminum block is nice . The Ford v6 would have smoother power delivery under load due to more power pulses ...

I'd like a 3 liter inline-6 with a supercharger instead of turbo . No AFM .

Maybe I'm unreasonably cynical, but if a company's fix doesn't pass the sniff test with confidence or if the problem persists past year 3, I consider the system/component to be tainted until proven otherwise. That's where I'm at with the GM 8 speed.

That transmission had too many problems for too long, even after the fluid spec change, and GM has better transmissions in the corporate parts bin, therefore, I don't think it makes sense to buy it. And that's just based on reliability. That transmission also doesn't have a reputation as a crowd pleaser for driveability, either.