Home » 2015 Ford F-150 » 2.7 Liter EcoBoost vs Chevy 5.3 V8 on dyno

2.7 Liter EcoBoost vs Chevy 5.3 V8 on dyno

Monday, March 2nd 2015. | 2015 Ford F-150, Reviews

We’ve looked at the 2.7 liter EcoBoost V6 quite extensively, we’ve looked at a dyno run and we took a look at towing efficiency. We also weighed the pros and cons of selecting the EcoBoost for your new 2015 Ford F-150. We’ve also had it going head to head with Ram’s new EcoDiesel 3.0 V6, when keeping in mind the price premium we be for diesel fuel and a diesel engine option, the EcoBoost came out ahead, convincingly, not only in dollars per mile, but also in performance. Now I’d like to see how it does against GM’s bread and butter V8, the 5.3 liter EcoTec3.

2015 Ford F-150 Davis Dam

2015 Ford F-150 Davis Dam

Let’s start with numbers, the EcoTec3 5.3 liter V8 is rated at 355 horsepower and 383 ft-lb’s of torque and the EcoBoost 2.7 liter V6 is rated at 325 horsepower and 375 ft-lb’s of torque. Looks like the 5.3 liter has it beat right? Not so fast. When we look at dyno numbers from a recent test 5-star tuning conducted the EcoBoost comes out ahead. With the GM 5.3 liter coming in at ~245 horsepower and ~265 ft-lb’s of torque and the Ford 2.7 liter coming in at ~260 horsepower and ~325 ft-lb’s of torque. Take a look at the chart below, Ford is in red, GM is in green.

Ford 2.7 liter EcoBoost V6 vs GM 5.3 liter V8 stock dyno chart

Ford 2.7 liter EcoBoost V6 vs GM 5.3 liter V8 stock dyno chart

So that’s 15 more horsepower a whopping 60 more ft-lb’s of torque in favor of the Ford as measured on a dyno, this means these numbers were measured at the rear wheels, rather than at the crank, where manufacturers like to get their power ratings. This really has me questioning why, from the factory, a GM 5.3 liter is rated higher than a Ford 2.7 liter EcoBoost. Could it be that the Chevy has much more driveline loss (transmission, rear axle)? Maybe something about this test wasn’t as apples-to-apples as it should have been?

2015 Ford F-150 2.7 Liter EcoBoost Twin Turbo V6

2015 Ford F-150 2.7 Liter EcoBoost Twin Turbo V6

So to see if these numbers make sense, let’s take a look at some other tests. Motor Trend has tested both of these trucks in the sprint from 0-60 mph, both loaded and unloaded (7,000 pound trailer). The Chevy 5.3 does this in 6.9 and 19.5 seconds respectively. The Ford does this in 6.5 and 16.2 seconds. That’s .4 and 3.3 seconds faster than the Chevy, looks like that corroborates 5-star’s dyno numbers! Let’s look at something a little more real-world, 45-65 mph performance, loaded and unloaded again, Chevy: 3.6/15.5 seconds, Ford: 3.2/9.4 seconds. The Ford sets itself apart even further here.

2015 Ford F-150 2.7 liter EcoBoost information

2015 Ford F-150 2.7 liter EcoBoost information

Finally, let’s take a look at mpg’s, the Chevy is rated at 16 city/22 highway, the Ford is rated a little higher at 18 city /23 highway. But Motor Trend also got some real world numbers here, with Chevy doing 13 mpg city and 19 mpg highway and the Ford coming in at 17 city, 22 highway. That’s 4 miles per gallon better in the city and 3 more on the highway! That, along with superior performance sure has me sold on the 2.7 liter EcoBoost over the 5.3 liter EcoTec3 from GM!


f150 ecoboost vs silverado 6 2 dyno, 2 7l ecoboost heads, gm 3 5 vs 3 6, ford 2 7 ecoboost power curve, silverado 5 3 dyno chart, hemi vs 5 3 2017, gm 5 3 vs ford 3 3 ecoboost, gm 5 3 vs 2 7 ecoboost, ford ecoboost torque curve comparison, 2 5 vs 3 exhaust dyno
Cat : 2015 Ford F-150, Reviews, tags: , , , , , , ,


Related Post

  • Pingback: 2015 F-150's 2.7 EcoBoost Compared vs. GM & Ram | Ford F-150 Blog()

  • Pingback: 2.7 Liter EcoBoost V6 Tuned by 5-Star | Ford F-150 Blog()

  • Pingback: Ford F-150 vs the 2014 Chevy Silverado | Ford F-150 Blog()

  • Pingback: HP/Torque Curves - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums()

  • Pingback: Dyno: 2.7 Liter vs 3.5 Liter EcoBoost | Ford F-150 Blog()

  • Pingback: Discounts on 2015 F-150 with 2.7 EcoBoost | Ford F-150 Blog()

  • EB

    The Ford also weighs over 100lbs less. You can’t just compare performance times without considering weight.

  • Cole Younger

    The Ford engines almost half the size of the Chevy so your argument is invalid I could see if the were comparing the 5.0 or the 3.5

    • Teddy

      The story here is the fact that a 2.7 liter engine can hang with, and sometimes outperform a truck with a 5.3 liter engine. The very nature of this comparison is that it is NOT apples-to-apples. It’s a Ford vs. Chevy article, it’s a small vs bigger engine article and it’s VERY impressive that a mere 2.7 liter engine can accomplish the performance that it does.

  • Gregory

    The torque curve differences are huge. Look how weasley the NA GM engine is with respect to torque until the engine is screaming. The little EB engine starts strong and stays strong. The difference here is not so much about all-out performance, because they can both produce peak performance upon demand pretty quickly, but it has more to do about refinement and character. Ironically, the little DI twin turbo engine will have more of that big-engine feel, not strained, easy going in more driving situations; not having to gear down and rev to maintain speeds as in an incline with speed control on. I’ve not driven Chevy/GMC V8 except at work with a one-ton and a 6.2 that’ll barely move until engine revs fairly high. I personally hate that. Some drivers prefer it. Mostly Chevy drivers. By contrast, with EB power, my light-weight, standard cab, 2wd F150 can climb 5% grade most days with little wind, empty bed, at 1550 RPM with cruise on, and never shift down. On strong headwind days, it does shift down to 5th on my commute’s steepest/longest grade, but I’m still under 1900. I’ve got the highest gearing (3.31 rear axle ratio). My sons Ram Hemi will do the same thing with the same configuration, but it’s constantly running higher RPM with 3.92 rear axle ratio. My preference is easy going, diesel-like character without that diesel-engine price premium and elaborate exhaust treatment systems that are usually required for good low-end torque. Many Americans like the same thing; although some don’t realize that it’s the higher torque down low that they like; they assume it’s high peak horsepower that they want, as that is what is normally advertised. But it’s actually good low-end and flat torque with at least adequate power that alot of us equate with luxury, refinement, and richness in automotive engineering. We like our vehicles to get up and go, which is almost 100% horsepower doing that for us, but we also like our vehicles to accelerate decently w/o alot of fuss. EB 2.7 does both rather well, but do the former very often and you’ll pay for it at the pump even more than an NA engine.

    • Brian Combat Chief

      lol, as I military member using both trucks to tow our RHIBs around I call BS. I am a ford mustang drag racer and the 5.3 is a way stronger than the wimpy ecoboost, the ecoboosts we have are all 2015 to 2017 and spend a great deal of time in for warranty. And notably the ecoboost cannot pull a 8800lb RHIB out of the water where as our GM 5.3 have no issue at all. So as I impartial ford racer I will have to side with the gm, much better truck, much better interior, and they actually show up for work whereas the ford like to show up for maintenance calls.

      • Brian

        even better you wankers have a 4.3 Silverado on that dyno lol, no other dyno in the USA comes in under 305 hp on a weak 5.3 to the rwhp but funny your numbers match exactly the new 4.3 numbers on the dyno, I thought this thread was curious, guys as said before im a ford guy but the 5.3 has all but the 3.5 ecoboost spanked

      • gregsfc

        Spoken by a by a truly-biased downsized turbo hater who has a goal of spreading misinformation with only the motivation for this being the confusing part, as there is nothing in reality that indicates anything even close to reality regarding Ford’s 2.7. Some muscle heads prefer to see small block V8s reign forever, and will make up untrue flaws to make their make believe world believable, so maybe that’s the motivation.

        I agree with the positives mentioned regarding the 5.3, but the 2.7 is still fairly new; there are little if any reported problems with this engine from a materials or design standpoint, and the so-called poor performance is an outright lie. We’ve all seen the videos and some of us have driven these trucks., and tow with them. Engine related problems have been very low, but the military must have gotten all the few bad ones. I mean, just look at the dyno. The 2.7 starts out with great torque all through the range. How could it even be possible that it can’t pull something out ofthe water. Don’t you think, if this were true, customers everywhere would be complaining about not being able to use his/her truck as advertised!