I certainly won't be doing anything faster and we'll plan our trips/routes accordingly...

There are two things that would help the Frontier. One is to improve the transmission. Our 2010 Frontier's 5 speed transmission could use more gears which would help in cases where it kicks down on uphill climbs. Sometimes, 3rd gear isn't sufficient and it kicks down to 2nd (I think), and the RPMs climb into the screaming range. The second is a turbocharger. Putting a  turbo (or super) charger on the engine would really help in the mountains.

The Escape we used to have had a 2L Ecoboost engine and six speeds. In the mountains, it performed better than the 4L naturally aspirated V6 in the Frontier. Specs for the 2016 Ecoboost are 240 hp @ 5500 rpm and 270 ft-lbs @ 3000 rpm. The Frontier is rated at 261 hp @ 5600 rpm and 281 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpm. While it seems like the Frontier is better, that is at sea level. When accounting for the 3% power loss per 1000 ft, it isn't hard to see why the turbocharger just works better. At 6,000 ft, the 18% power loss in the Frontier is felt while the turbo engine still acts like it was at sea level.

I just looked and the specs on the 2020 Frontier were better with a 9 speed transmission and 310 hp @ 281 ft-lbs or torque, but I could not find out the rpms at which those numbers were generated. It is, however, still naturally aspirated and would have the same power loss at altitude that the current Frontiers have.

Originally posted by StephenH I've been thinking about it. The question would be whether to get the 2.7 or the 3.5.

If you have the do-re-mi, to get the 3.5 eco, it'd be nice, but we're very happy with the 2.7 and don't feel the need for more power.  We also have no plans for a heavier trailer in the future, so getting a bigger engine would be a waste of my Social Security check.

In fact, after looking into this a bit more and watching a couple of videos polling Ford service techs on what they would pick, I think I'd personally go for the old school 5.0 V8. The techs picked that over the 3.5 eb by about 4 to 1. Not one picked the 2.7 as their favorite engine. These guys have to maintain this stuff after all. 

I'm not a big fan of turbos myself. I keep my stuff forever and maintain it myself as much as possible. The normally aspirated V8 is long time proven tech and doesn't have all that plumbing to break. It has the same fuel economy as the 3.5eb and more hp if I ever needed it.  If I lived and drove all the time at high altitudes maybe I'd get a 3.5 eb but there's nowhere to go in the East where I'm ever over 4000 ft so its not an issue.  Its also $600 cheaper than the 3.5eb. 

Anyhow while I like the F150's I'm not in the market for a pickup so it doesn't matter, just my opinion. 

As for whether the 3.5 is better or worse than the 2.7, that's not the point and I could care less.  The 2.7 meets our needs to tow a trailer in the same weight class as the 190 series and does a good job.  It has plenty of reserve power where we travel in the Sierra Nevada mountains and is comfortable and economical.  For others, they'd find the larger engine much more satisfying.  

We each have our preferences for what works for us.  You chose what worked best for you.  More than one person can be "right" at the same time.  

With any given engine, selecting a lower gear and reducing speed while climbing will improve cooling. With your previous tow vehicle insufficient cooling was your limiting factor so I suggested you try that. I know there are some reports of both 2.7 and 3.5 eb engines overheating while towing uphill, don't know if that is a general problem or not but lets assume not, it is poor engineering to have an underdesiged cooling system. A larger engine will turn at lower rpm to generate the same hp so will suffer less wear over time, that is not a temp issue but it is an engine longevity issue. 

I just pointed out that I have been happy with our new truck.  It won't work for others. Some people put catsup on their scrambled eggs while others put spicy salsa.  

Both the 2.7L EB and the 3.5L EB produce close to full torque at less than 2,000 RPM. Neither of those engines is going to be "screaming" towing a trailer less than 7,000 lbs. The main attraction of the 3.5L is that it will have better engine braking than the 2.7L, and that it could handle a 10,000 lb trailer. The 2.7L will give a bit better fuel economy, and when unloaded, it's hard to tell the difference between the two.

I will say that our 3.5L laughs at mountain passes. No screaming involved.

The peak torque & horsepower do not tell the whole story. You need to look at the torque and RPM curves. At 2,000 RPM both of those engines are head and shoulders above a 5L V8. They are different animals than what you might be used to.

I think perhaps you mistook me raising some additional points for consideration with implying that those considerations would inevitably result in a different decision for everyone. That isn't the case, as said, I would personally pick the 5.0 which wasn't even on the original list of choices. The opinions of the maintenance techs who work on these things count for a lot in my book. Others can disagree of course. 

Not sure what you mean by how these decisions effect the rest of us? 

5.0 395 hp. 2.7 eb 325 hp. 3.5eb 375 hp. So nope, the 2.7 is not more powerful than the 5.0. It does generate its peak hp at a lower rpm though. 5k vs 5750. 

As to off the line low rpm torque, the 2.7 gets great reviews for not having turbo lag, in fact it is apparently quicker on the boost than the 3.5.  I probably have a lighter left foot than even lostagain, so to me that's not important. I baby my stuff. I keep my Prius in ECO mode all the time which makes it less responsive (ie, it feels really gutless) but allows me to be precise and gentle about how much torque I'm applying. 

So I'll still go with what has the lowest anticipated maintenance cost that meets the requirements. Simpler is better in my opinion. I could invoke the old adage "there is no replacement for displacement" but of course its not true. Turbos can certainly substitute. But if the replacement involves more complex engineering and lower reliability, and if high altitude driving isn't a requirement then why would I? Others my choose differently. 

Since we will never tow a trailer heavier than the one we have now and we have a towing capacity, at least as claimed by Ford, that is 3000# over our greatest trailer load, the truck will work really well for us.  Like I say, some would be happier with the Kenworth Montañero, probably one of the toughest and strongest conventional transport tractor ever.  We don't hear any engine screaming as we climb up to the beautiful hidden campgrounds in the Sierra Nevada.  It's a comfortable drive both up and down.  Glue Guy is right about the reduced engine braking of the 2.7 as compared to the 3.5, but that is one of the compromises we chose make; catsup or spicy salsa.  

When I worked in the elevator industry, I heard many mechanics rave about old relay logic elevator controllers and bitch about the new computer technology they didn't understand and were forced to learn to keep working.  We all have a tendency to prefer the familiar over the new.  It's human nature.

Its not at all the same thing as substituting electronics for relay logic, that simplified the control systems significantly. Although in the early days of that transition microprocessors were pretty unstable, there was good reason to stick with relay logic to begin with. I've designed and installed both, for me the transition happened in the early 90's. If you have something really simple to do relay logic can still be the better choice.   

I'm not in the market for another tow vehicle, but my next passenger car will be electric for sure. But if I wait till the Prius wears out it'll probably be a long time before that happens....

As for the turbo boosted engines, they've been around for a very long time.  In fact, I had a Saab turbo that I put over 250K miles on with out a single repair and it would blow the socks off any comparable displacement naturally aspirated engine.

Again, it all boils down to catsup or salsa picante, each person has his own preferences and we should not have to defend what we like.  If you like your Prius, keep it until you run the wheels off as long as it fits your needs.  If you don't want an eco-boost engine, don't buy one.  You don't need to justify it to anyone. 

I've never looked once at an elevator controller, but I have designed, installed and maintained many control systems for complex solar and hybrid power systems. And ac motor drives are essentially inverters, which I am quite familiar with. If you read what I wrote you would notice that I said microprocessor controllers are more reliable than relay logic, not less. We agree! That was not always the case, of course, in the early days as with any new technology microprocessors were unstable and suffered reliability issues. And turbos are in no way analogous to microprocessors, they are inherently less reliable than normally aspirated engines while microprocessors are inherently more reliable than relays, for the same reasons. Less moving parts undergoing less mechanical stress.  

As for Saabs, I had an old 1969 95 (normally aspirated) for awhile. Nice car to drive but very quirky. Got rid of it when the timing chain started to make noise and I realized the entire drivetrain had to be removed from the vehicle to get to it. Not good. I'm glad you had good luck with yours but Saabs in reality have only a middling reliability record. Owners are a loyal bunch though, they were often called Snaabs back in the day . 

... and I still say for practical purposes that the 2.7L EcoBoost has more useable torque than a typical 5-liter-ish V8. Gander at the torque curve of the 3.5L EcoBoost versus a "higher horsepower" V8. At 1500 RPM the EcoBoost is generating 200 more ft-lb of torque than the V8. The V8 doesn't catch up until it's turning at 4700 RPM or so. That lower RPM torque curve is way more useable than the one in the V8. In other words, the V8 is screaming, and the EcoBoost is just toodling along. The 2.7L EcoBoost has a similar torque curve as the 3.5L, just a little lower. It still beats the V8 at 1500 RPM by almost 150 ft-lbs.

Normally aspirated V8's are proven. They are simple beasts. Those reciprocating parts don't fail much, pressurized engines have much higher stresses. Old tech isn't inherently a bad thing, so I don't take being labelled as 20th century as the insult I expect was intended.  I would choose an old 1950's design normally aspirated Lycoming aircraft engine over a new high rpm blown Rotax too. Why? Because my life depends on it working and giving me fair warning when its getting tired.  

It's not the weight.  It's the wind resistance.  I can pull it easily at lower speeds and then to 55-60mph.  Once the wind resistance kicks in...there is just nothing left without hammering on the gas pedal.

You're right about wind resistance being the biggest horsepower consumer when towing at a steady 60 m/h. I've run the numbers and about 60% of the demand is air drag at 60, flat ground, no wind. The other 40% is rolling resistance which is proportional to rig weight. With my rig I'm at about 44 hp total, 27 aero, and 17 rolling. mpg about 13. 

That's cruising on flat ground. Climb a 10 degree grade at 60 and suddenly there is an additional roughly 150 hp requirement, for a total of close to 200 hp. Accelerating from 50 to 60 in 10 seconds requires a similar additional hp. These numbers are what they are due to weight, not aero drag, you have to convert fuel into energy and store it in the mass of the rig. Then you get to waste all that stored energy heating up your brakes later. 

See where I'm headed with this? It's climbing, passing, and accelerating that demands gobs of power, and that is because of weight. Just cruising along doesn't require that much, even dragging a trailer. Either tolerate slowing down on hills and slower acceleration rates (like semis do), tromp on that right pedal, or get more hp under the hood. There ain't no replacement for displacement (unless you like turbos) 
 

So, for those who are risk averse to new engine technology, the old V-8 5L Vi-VCT is a sensible choice to tow in the 190 series weight class.  You pay with reduced fuel economy and lack of torque, but you gain in feeling more secure with engine technology that has been around for decades.  For those who are less risk averse, the ecoboost engine can be a good choice.  It offers a tremendous amount of hp in a small package, has torque and performance characteristics like a diesel, and is more fuel efficient and quiet.  

If you were to tow in identical conditions, either in the mountains or with high winds, I think the ecoboost or a turbo charged diesel will out perform the old naturally aspirated engines in every aspect, but that is nothing more than an opinion which, if you also have a buck, might get you a small coffee at McD's.  [Maybe someone should organize a test our here in NV where we have plenty of wind and high mountain passes.]

I have about 2000 miles on my new truck [dang you pandemic!, I've now cancelled 2 camping trips].  Without counting the 430 mile Las Vegas trip, my average mileage, according to the onboard computer, is 24.1.  When the towing trip from Las  Vegas in a windstorm is counted in the equation, the computer says my average mileage is 20.  That ain't bad.  And I expect the mileage to improve when I install the tonneau cover today.

Once again, there is no "right" answer to the question of which engine you should choose.  It's a matter of personal choice: bacon cured with salt and smoke or maple sugar and smoke.  Both taste really good in the early morning cooked over an open fire.

I own a hybrid drive vehicle, which is a much more advanced drivetrain than any of the alternatives we are discussing here. It is the most efficient gasoline powered vehicle on the planet and has a normally aspirated engine. If Toyota had a hybrid drivetrain better optimized for towing I would have that in my Highlander right now. I will happily purchase an EV as my next passenger car. Both hybrids and evs are compelling in terms of reliability and efficiency. 

OTOH there is nothing inherently more "advanced" or compelling to me about turbocharged engines, they have been around forever. They have their pros and cons. I don't drive at high altitudes so there is no compelling reason for me to have one. I simply prefer normally aspirated engines for the limited time remaining before battery technology reaches the point where internal combustion engines are no longer being sold. 

I'm not in the market for a pickup at this point anyway, my normally aspirated V6 SUV and utility trailer combo serves my needs much better. And I personally hope not to ever have to buy another ICE vehicle. But, the electric F150 is apparently coming in 2022. How about 1 million lbs tow capacity? I might sign up for that..... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFHgoon7lg - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFHgoon7lg

I think it is time to cease this turbo vs normally aspirated debate, it is obviously a sore point with some ecoboost owners and is going nowhere. Enjoy your turbo boost and be happy!

Nice marketing demo, but the comments highlight that the physics of that video are not that impressive. My Frontier could probably do the same thing. The Escape I used to have could probably have also towed that train. My beef with electrics is range. When we go to visit our daughters out west, I need something that can go without having to stop for hours of recharging every couple of hours. I don't see ICE's going away any time soon. Hybrids would be more of a solution until some form of energy storage can be made that overcomes the limitations of current battery technology that provides for high energy density and very fast recharge times.

An alternative might be inductive charging so that as a vehicle operates, it could charge from the roadway, but just imagine the difficulty of incorporating inductive charging into the millions of miles of highways we already have.

There are no specs yet for the F150 ev but some of the other ev pickups and SUV's have claimed ranges of around 500 miles. Cutting that in half or a bit more than half for towing (which we all see is about right) would still be around 250-300 miles range which would be OK (my Highlander's range is about 260 towing) with sufficient level 3 DC fast chargers, which take around 30-40 minutes. I'm OK to stop and rest for 30-40 minutes after driving 200 miles. That network isn't there yet except maybe Tesla's proprietary one is getting close, but its getting built out pretty fast. Gas fueling has only had about 100 years to get there after all. Will it be there in 2022? Not likely for most RV'ers but probably yes for most drivers who will be getting better range. By 2025? Probably yes for almost everyone, and by then there should be some nice used EV SUV's and pickups available. That's why I don't expect to have to buy another ICE, as long as my 2012 Highlander can go for another 4 or 5 years I should be good. 

Forget in road inductive charging, that is far more expensive infrastructure to build out than a level 3 network. Battery cost is dropping fast so its not like 500 mile range EV's are going to be a lot more expensive than gassers in a few years, 260 mile passenger cars like the Chevy Bolt are already down around 23-25K. I'd buy a Bolt tomorrow if my Prius became a problem, but I'd rather wait till Chevy puts nicer seats in the Bolt next year.....

The OP may wonder what sort of wasps nest he uncovered!

Just for the record, virtually all class 8 OTR semis that have been made in the last 30 years or so are using a turbo charged 6 cylinder inline diesel engine (various brands) other than the occasional experimental hybrids or electric prime movers...etc....but pretty much all commercial OTR class 8 units hauling freight...more or less. Probably 99.999 percent. Just sayin.

But that is a larger, relatively slower turning turbo with well-proven technology, and equipped with engine braking.

My primary concern with the new generation of gasoline turbo engines in trucks used for towing:

How effective is the engine braking? 

OTR trucks running turbo engines nearly always have some sort of engine brake.

I've not heard of such a thing on gasoline turbo-equipped engines, unless they have some sort of automatic exhaust brake. When coasting down a long downhill grade with a 5,000 or 10,000 pound trailer pushing the entire rig towards the lowest point on the road on a long steep grade, you WANT at least SOME engine braking so your disc brakes and electric trailer brakes dont turn into red-hot smoking pools of useless molten metal. 

Normally aspirated engines always have a good amount of engine braking on tap, available by simply downshifting one or two cogs. Turbos do not. Not unless that engine has some sort of supplemental system for engine braking. I do know that some gasoline turbo equipped engines have variable valve timing, and that may be able to be used as an engine brake. But I have heard no mention of it, nor have I driven a gasoline turbo engine in the mountains with a heavy trailer.

After all, when pulling a trailer in the mountains, GO power is nice, but WHOA power is a necessity.

Or so it seems to me.

(BTW I have about 3 million miles of diesel truck driving experience, including all US mountain ranges...so I know a bit about the topic of pulling heavy trailers in the mountains)

Tow/haul mode is the setting that enables the vehicle ECM or PCM to make use of different shift points, but that in itself does not slow the vehicle during a descent. Its the performance of the engine when the fuel flow is cut to zero (or nearly zero) and the intake or exhaust air to or from the engine (or its individual cylinders) is reduced or restricted, that actually provides 'brake horsepower'...which is what actually retards engine RPM.

This is also a test.

I think what you are missing in your point is that we don't need to have enough level 3 charging stations to replace all the gas stations immediately. Put another way, your are likely right that it will take 25 plus years for the entire fleet to be converted to electric (if it ever does). What we need to have by 2025 is sufficient charging stations dispersed adequately to get everyone to consider an EV at their next purchase. There will be early, middle, and late adopters that will spread out the transition, and even then only when they need to change. A vehicle isn't a cell phone, most folks aren't going to have the dough to dump a perfectly good vehicle just because they want the coolest new thing. 

Not true at all about the hybrid. The hybrid drive has far less moving parts than a normal auto trans, about 10%. It is basically a planetary gearset with the two motor/generators integrated into the transmission allowing them to rotate in both directions under electronic control to create a continuously variable trans. It sounds complex and the software is, as are the various power flows, but the rotating hardware is dead simple. BTW there is no starter in a Prius, one of the motor-generators does that job, another simplification. 

 Also, it babies the ICE, which is allowed to warm up while the motors drive the car, and the ICE is never hammered. You can flog a Prius on mountain roads and the motors take the beating, the ICE torque demand and rpm changes are always muted. Takes some getting used to the sounds but it works just fine. And, to podwerk's point about braking, you can normally drive so you hardly use the friction brakes, the motor/generators do all the braking while recharging the battery. 

That is not the case with long downhills with the standard non plug in Prius though, once the small battery is recharged there is no place for the energy to go except engine braking, (there is a selection for that on the "shifter") which isn't great, because the engine is quite small. That's where pure EV's with big batteries come in. If you look at the youtube report on the Tesla X towing on the Ike Gauntlet it is the only vehicle they ever tested there that needed zero friction braking. Just set the cruise control and watch the charge level go up. 

Anyhow the proof is in the pudding with the Prius, they routinely go half a million miles in taxi service, which is rough for any vehicle. Many places you go now its hard to find a taxi that isn't a Prius. They replaced the Crown Vics, another solid and reliable vehicle, but not nearly as durable as the Prius. And yes, being the conservation guy I am I waited for the gen 3 Prius before I bought mine.  

As for the F150 EV, there is zero reason to think that if the vehicle empty goes 500 miles on a charge that it will only go 150 towing. Do the math. If you get 24 mpg empty and 14 towing in the gasser, a ratio of 58%, then we should see the same ratio on the electric version. Same aerodynamics and rolling resistance so same hp demand, whether it is coming from an electric motor of an ICE. We have no idea what Ford will actually produce, but something around 40-50% range reduction should be expected when towing, just like with an ICE. 

Makes sense to me. Even after EV's eventually take over the new car market, there will still be plenty of classic ICE vehicles out there and interested groups that will keep them on the road.  

We don't do any long distance travel other than by air anymore. Now that we're off the Outer Banks most of the camping we do will be within a couple hours drive in the Appalachians. So, electric should work for me pretty early. But not yet, WV for example is still pretty much a blank spot on the map of level 3 charge stations. That being said, most families have at least two vehicles, so why not electric for the daily driver and ICE for long distance and towing? Charging at home is super convenient and would be nice right now during Covid too.