I love direct injection. I do a lot of trips in high-altitude, and the power loss is way worse for a non-direct injection engine. The DI stays strong in the mountains (the Turbo helps).
Carbon build up isnāt an issue if you add a catch can. And even if you donāt, just clean it every 100k miles...
I agree. The F-150 is just a beast in itself, and has great performance all around. It also has the 10R80 transmission, so it can handle more. If you drive aggressively, thereās no doubt in my mind that the 2.7 performs a lot better than the 2.3, especially with the 10R80.
Based on the engine...
I donāt need a lot of overhead, but anything less than 10% gets a little sketchy... especially when off-roading. Im sure if you donāt tune the 2.7, it wonāt be as much of an issue. But the lack of overhead does concern me.
^And this is my exactly why I switched to the 2.3L. Yes, there are other factors at play. But the main issue I was concerned with was torque rating. If anything, I hope youāre right, and the transmission can handle way more than itās rated. But I was just outlining what made my decision easier.
First off, nobody is outraged or complaining (besides you). This thread logically explains why I chose the 2.3L over the 2.7L. This is due to the torque rating of the 10R60. Yes, most car people research the transmission before purchasing. You donāt?
The transmission is called 10R60 because...
A Ford tune for the 2.3 wonāt even come close to the amount of torque the 2.7 has. If you donāt even understand that, then of course the logic is going to be confusing for you.