There is now a twin turbo, six speed, six cylinder in my driveway . . .

Not a Supra.

2.7 Ecoboost Supercrew 4x4, Ingot Silver, with the Sport Appearrance package. The only thing that makes it look any different than the thousands of others that I see is that I had them remove the Sport decals on the back.

It is a good colour match for my M3

After 200 kms we are averaging just under 12l/100 km. On the 401 at 100km we got that down to 8.9l/100k. At a more realistic 120 km we were seeing about 9.5l/100k. That beats any other car I currently own. I "hyper miled" on the way to the cottage and saw 8.5l/100 km.

Google says that's 27.5 miles per gallon.

My friends were surprised I bought new. Me too. But there were few late model trucks for sale that weren't Rams. The Fords we found were all high mileage, and still pricey, or within 10 grand of what we paid. Apparently the high US dollar has killed the resale market for Canadians.

For or the first time I was also really concerned with the environmental costs of my choice. I recognize the irony, since I bought a full size truck as a DD. But that was my plan regardless, so the green factor was important. Kudos to Ford for earning my money with their R and D in the name of efficiency, and reduced carbon output. Every little bit helps.

The exhaust note sucks. The interior is huge. This new fangled Sync3 is uncharted territory for me. I thought the trip computer in the E46 was "high tech".

I am really liking this truck. In fact, I showed it to two other non truck people and at least one has signed an offer for one as of yesterday.

Rob

The title of yout thread got me excited like the words of no man before (assuming your male).
Nice truck. I'll be curious how it performs over the long haul (see what I did there?)

Put a trailer on it and go for a tow please,interested to see how it does as I'd consider one of these for my dd/medium duty tow rig.

I consider 6k medium duty btw.

Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

patgizz wrote: Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

You know, that's good advice regardless of the truck one is driving. . . .

@kevlarcorolla - the truck is rated to tow around 7800 pounds. That should cover both my cars if I need it to. I don't have a trailer, however.

patgizz wrote: Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

Or push your toolbox of the bedrail.

Those 2.7's are deceptively fast. I drove one side by side with a 5.3 Chevy and would take the ford from a dynamics standpoint period. Chevys are still better placed to munch miles, but the ford is no slouch

Modern pickups are pretty amazing "do everything" vehicles.

DrBoost wrote: The title of yout thread got me excited like the words of no man before (assuming your male). Nice truck. I'll be curious how it performs over the long haul (see what I did there?)

I will admit to expecting SHO or MkZ (MkS?).

The 2.7 F-150 fascinates me. It's one of those things that, if you told someone twenty years ago would be a thing, you'd be laughed out. A composite iron/aluminum small displacement twin turbo V6... in a truck? And it makes how much power and torque? And the truck is aluminum?

Remember 20 years ago, people were buying up the very last of the '96 F-150s because the concurrently produced '97s were too "weird" and the Mod motors felt like they didn't make as much power as the old pushrod engines, and if you wanted a six the 4.2 was a piece of junk next to the 4.9. Chevy was still making boxy 200hp SBC-engined trucks and the Corvette was still an LT1 powered C4...

Congratulations. They seem fantastic. I still worry about turbocharger life, and the engine shutoff (at stops) seems like starters would have to be very durable.

Though I definitely think the consumer wins when mileage requirements get more stringent, I would still have a hard time choosing this over a Coyote V8.

They're common enough that even if the turbos end up being crap they should be a relatively easy and straighforward replacement job.

I'm more worried about sludging up the top end due to blow by from the turbo DI and how most truck onwers treat their engines.

Watch out for the oil pan if you go rock crawling. We service a few of them at work and they seem to be well liked by the owners. im curious too see if they hold up as well as the 3.5 ecoboost has.

drdisque wrote: I'm more worried about sludging up the top end due to blow by from the turbo DI and how most truck onwers treat their engines.

We have a few 3.5-engined customers. Not many, but a few. We're paying close attention. All of them come in for 3k service with synthetic oil, though, so it is possible that our customers are "atypical"

Ready or not, this is the future, we need to be prepared to service it adequately as it gets more common.

Incidentally, I did a head recently on a 2.0 TFSI engine and the carbon was more than a port injected engine but not horrible. We also pulled the head off of an engine after doing one of our decarbonizing treatments and the carbon in the chambers and on the pistons was negligible and what remained quite literally wiped clean with a paper towel. (It had a burnt valve, not a blown headgasket, so it wasn't being steam-cleaned)

I still want a DISI Mazda for some reason, and I found a non-sunroof 6 locally for $10k and a sunroof car for $5k (decisions, decisions... I hate sunroofs but is saving $5k worth it?) and if I do buy one, I fully plan on pulling the intake, taking photos of the valves and ports, then putting it back together, doing our decarbonizing process, and pulling it apart again to see the change.

We recommend it every 50-60k on all engines and 15-20k on DI engines. Nobody's been unhappy yet, and on the non-DI engines we have turned engines that burned 4 quarts in 3000 to non-burners. (Including Saturns)

I am not too worried about the reliability . . . The Ford warranty seems very comprehensive.

RealMiniParker wrote:

patgizz wrote: Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

Or push your toolbox of the bedrail.

You know, both of those can be prevented by some spray-on bed liner.

patgizz wrote: Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

RealMiniParker wrote:

patgizz wrote: Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

Or push your toolbox of the bedrail.

Or get into an aluminum cage when someone lets a grizzly bear into the room.

Those commercials, and the wimpy dude who hosts them, have pretty much convinced me never to buy anything made by Chevrolet.

It's only a matter of time before Chevrolet figures out how to make trucks out of aluminum.

I think you'll like your Ford. My business has a 2013 F150 we bought new and have put over 120,000 miles on, without any problems whatsoever. Zilch. Just change the oil and buy tires. And my crews are not exactly easy on equipment. Our next work truck will be another Ford.

Terry

jstein77 wrote:

RealMiniParker wrote:

patgizz wrote: Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

Or push your toolbox of the bedrail.

You know, both of those can be prevented by some spray-on bed liner.

No, see, this is one of the major disadvantages of a spray-on bed liner. They may prevent paint chafing and the severe rusting that comes from that, but what they don't do is prevent damage. Drop-in bed liners generally have an air gap and close-knit, tall ribs, which absorb any localized shocks and prevent the bed from getting dented.

A one-two punch would be a spray-on with a drop-in over top.

WAKman wrote: It's only a matter of time before Chevrolet figures out how to make trucks out of aluminum.

Hummer H1s had riveted-aluminum bodies. I have a feeling some of the step vans were aluminum, too.

In reply to Knurled:

What's the treatment consist of? Is this an additive?

In reply to ZOO: From what I can see online, the 2.7 is available with final drives of 3.15, 3.31, 3.55, and 3.73. Which one do you have (that's giving you those fuel economy numbers) and would you have preferred one of the others?

OHSCrifle wrote: In reply to Knurled: What's the treatment consist of? Is this an additive?

Yes, what is the deal? I have an oil burning 215k Honda K in the wife mobile.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/08/05/gm-fullsize-trucks-aluminum/

Stealthtercel wrote: In reply to ZOO: From what I can see online, the 2.7 is available with final drives of 3.15, 3.31, 3.55, and 3.73. Which one do you have (that's giving you those fuel economy numbers) and would you have preferred one of the others?

I have the 3.55 locker because that's what was on the lot. The pickings are thinning rapidly, and this was close enough to what we wanted option wise. Not sure if I needed the locker, but I have it now.

Every 2.7 I looked at had the 3.55. I don't need the towing performance of the 3.73. I likely would stay with the 3.55 because it seems to offer the best of all the compromises.

3.55 ain't a bad gear at all for a medium duty PU, I would prefer it.

ZOO wrote:

patgizz wrote: Don't drop a bucketload of jagged rocks in the bed from 5 feet up

You know, that's good advice regardless of the truck one is driving. . . . @kevlarcorolla - the truck is rated to tow around 7800 pounds. That should cover both my cars if I need it to. I don't have a trailer, however.

Sure its rated for 7800 but how well does it tow it or the usual 4 to 5 k of trailer and small'ish car.