Anyone towing with this engine in a crew can pick up?

Interested as well.

Ford has done well with the ecoboost motors, I think GM could do well with their version, toned down performance when compared to the ecoboost, but economy that it cant achieve.

No one is towing very much with it.

It is more powerful than the 4.3L V-6 brick that should have been retired years ago but that isn't saying much.

20 mpg city, 23 highway and 21 combined isn't going to win any awards and it isn't going to win any fans.

Now if they would have put it in the Colorado they might find some uniformed people to give it a go.

I thought Ford was the only one making pickups out of cans

310 hp and 348 foot pounds of torque from 1500 rpm.... that's almost the same horse power and torque figures as the 6.0 v-8 from a few years ago oh yeah and the torque came in at a 1/3 of the rpm.

It beats the pants off the 4.3, not that the 4.3 was bad to begin with, it lasting as long as it did speaks for itself. Some independent tests have shown better than 23 hwy. If you care at all about fuel consumption I think it would be easy to get better than 23 in one. I have seen a few on the road, I do wonder how many have been produced. I would bet the typical 2.7 buyer isn't the kind to get on media outlets and talk it up.

I don't think your giving nearly as much credit as it may deserve.

I am glad that GM is finally coming out with some new engines since the "current" lineup of gas engines is a decade passed their life.

I just don't think the 4 cylinder is going to fly in a full sized truck but the Bowtie lovers will buy them no matter what.

We get 20-21 in the city in our 2017 F150 SuperCrew FX4 3.5L Ecoboost and 25-26 on the highway.

We have gotten 27 on a long trip out to West Texas but that is flat lands out there for the most part.

The 2.7L Ecoboosts is a few MPG's better than that but they are V-6's.

Looks like the 2.7L I4 will be the upgrade option for the Cadillac CT4-V which would be a great platform for it.

Curious, are those numbers you claim your getting from an ecoboost while it was towed behind something else? with a 50 mile per hour tail wind? or driving 50 mph?

So the GM 2.7 only gets 23 hwy but the ford 3.5 gets 27?

The City numbers are driving whatever the speed limit is when the traffic allows.

There are a few places were we actually are able to do 55 around town but most is just your everyday stop and go.

Just remember we don't live in DFW or Houston.

The 27 we got was at 75 mph, no tail winds, and it was almost flat the whole 10 hour trip to and from Amarillo.

Like I said most highway miles aren't near that flat so it drops in the 25 range most of the time.

The secret to keeping the numbers up on an EcoBoost or any other Turbo engine is to keep the Turbo(s) from spooling up.

If you are relying on the Turbo to get the vehicle moving and keep it moving then the MPG's will be down.

Our truck has the 10 speed transmission and 3.55 rear end gears and if I put it in Sport Mode the MPG's drop considerably.

In Sport Mode it will stay in 7th or 8th gear up to 60 MPH and as you are aware it revs each gear higher which I am sure kicks the turbo's on frequently.

My 2.7l ecoboost is pretty dang stout. It has better numbers than the GM but I bet their little turbo gives the 5.3l a run for the money while towing a load.

Do it again or it didn't happen.... my bet is it didn't happen lololololololololol

Id love to see the two torque curves overlaid, I bet you're right. Many of the reviews I have read and watched on them also indicate it performs better towing than the 5.3, which I would expect with almost 350 foot pounds available from 1500 on up. The 5.3 doesn't make peak torque till 4000+ rpm.

Not ready yet, thankfully as id like to give them a few years, but it is an option I am considering to replace my wifes ride.

It happened twice. Once going to Amarillo and once coming back to East Texas.

At 75 MPH it is turning 1600-1700 RPM's in 10th gear.

There are guys on the F150 Forum that get better mileage than we do so it isn't a fluke.

The 2.7 guys are getting over 30 on the highway.

Like I said there are plenty of people who keep the turbos spinning so their mileage is a lot less.

My work truck is a 2014 F150 3.7L naturally aspirated V6 with 3.31 rear end and I have only gotten 19 MPG twice on the highway in the 5 years that I have had it.

Seems like people don't like doing it any more these days, but I call a spade a spade. If your going to claim and stand by you get 27 mpg on the hwy out of your 3.5 eco running 75 mph without a hell of a tail wind, being towed, all down hill, etc. I will call you a liar.

27 is by far the highest MPGs I have ever seen any brag about getting with a F150 EcoBurst. I think he meant to type 1 instead of 2.

No I meant what I typed.

We got 17 pulling the Ranger at 75 on a 5-1/2 hour trip from the other side of Austin back to Lufkin.

Just because a Tundra doesn't get 17 on the highway empty doesn't mean others do not.

2020 GMC / Chevy are starting to deliver a 3.0 Diesel Duramax that puts out 280hp and 460lb/ft of torque. All the reviews are great but its only available in the higher trim packages. This motor without a trailer/freight is getting 30mpg. There's a lot of talk of this motor going into a Tahoe/Suburban. 30mpg in a tahoe / suburban is pretty friggin amazing.

I'll just put this right here:

3.5 Ford Fuel Mileage

Isn’t the gm a four cylinder? If so no way I’m buying that for a full-size truck pulling anything.
Heard they were having hell selling them. Leave it to gm to come out with a product nobody wants.
JD

Yeah its a 4 cylinder and its a turbo. It produces way more low end power than the NA v8's and many report it tows better. Seems it gets better fuel mileage empty too. I will be looking at one in a few years when we get rid of my wifes current vehicle. Im sure they aren't for everyone and I wouldn't want one for a hot shot rig, but for what most people use a pickup for it will do more than enough.

Same problem ford faced and still does with the ecoboost a bunch of no nothing idiots saying what? I and buying a 6 in want v-8 power all the while the v-6 made more HP more torque and had a much better power curve.

I've been a GM guy my whole like and I'd like to say that the new Silverado and Sierra are butt ugly. Never thought I'd say this but the Dodge Ram is a better looking truck and the Ford since they got rid of the big frown on the grill is the best looking truck out there. That being said I'd still buy one of those ugly Sierra;s before anything else.

I'm old school, sometimes to my own detriment, but I'll stick with my V-8. I've always been a fan of the least amount of moving parts possible. But the reality is, none of these new trucks will be on the road in 40yrs like so many 80's model Chevies still are. So sad even our vehicles are disposable now.

I had an '84 Chevy truck. It wasn't all that. Back then, we hoped we could get 100k miles without needing a rebuild. Now engines hit 3-400k miles all time and have 2-3 times the power while doing it. I hardly think we're taking a step backwards.

I’m glad my Tundra with its supercharged 5.7L iForce doesn’t get 17 mpg. I didn’t buy it to be cheap at the pump. I bought it cause it’s fast, fun to drive, and pulls a boat great. It also has the best brakes of any truck in its class. By far the best brakes. You gotta stop when your truck is fast.

Did you buy it like that or did you put an aftermarket supercharger on?
How much MPG does it get? How much HP/TQ?

I love Tundras and I think they are the best truck out there hands down.

It used to be you could get a SC put on at a Toyota dealer and still get factory warranty but I believe Toyota/TRD discontinued that program. I think Magnuson have the product to sell to those that want a SC for the Toyotas..I believe it is around 5-6K to have one installed. I think around 510+hp with good ecu tuning and equivalent torque gains..no use asking mpg when stock even LOL..mine gets 17 on hwy stock