Started By
Message

More 2015 F150 news - Ecoboost engine delivers low fuel economy

Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:14 am
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:14 am
quote:

2.7L EcoBoost V-6: This all-new F-150 pickup engine is compelling for several reasons, particularly the “hybrid” block construction that uses compacted-graphite iron for the upper part and aluminum for the bottom, as well as aluminum heads with integrated exhaust manifolds.

There are lots of interesting technologies onboard, from the fracture-split connecting rods and variable-displacement oil pump to the structural die-cast front engine cover and deep-set fuel injectors capable of four spurts per combustion event.


But there’s a big problem: The observed fuel economy is not that good. The EPA says this engine should get 26 mpg (9 L/100 km) on the highway with 2-wheel drive. Our 4x4 supercab never got close to that, even under a light foot.


quote:

Several editors drove the truck for 253 miles (407 km), and the trip computer displayed a low of 17.6 mpg (13.3 L/100 km) and a high of 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km).


quote:

This engine has impressive power and torque (325 hp and 375 lb.-ft.[508 Nm]). But heck, we’ve driven 5.0L V-8 F-150s that delivered better mileage.


LINK
This post was edited on 1/8/15 at 11:16 am
Posted by PapaPogey
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2008
39512 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:16 am to
I can say the same about my 13
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
66763 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:20 am to
So who came up with that 29 number?
Posted by Road Tiger
SW Landmass
Member since Oct 2014
834 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:21 am to
quote:

The observed fuel economy is not that good


This is my shocked face

Posted by LSUGUMBO
Shreveport, LA
Member since Sep 2005
8526 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:24 am to
My '13 Ecoboost has gotten 14.5 in town at best- usually around 13.5. I know that the 20" wheels and 4x4 have something to do with that, but it's a far cry from the 17 that the sticker showed
Posted by bayou choupique
the banks of bayou choupique
Member since Oct 2014
1818 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:31 am to
quote:

My '13 Ecoboost has gotten 14.5 in town at best- usually around 13.5. I know that the 20" wheels and 4x4 have something to do with that, but it's a far cry from the 17 that the sticker showed


I get better than that in the same truck but 5.0. Just saying
Posted by PapaPogey
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2008
39512 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:34 am to
But the Ecoboost will drag your 5.0 around the block
Posted by LSUGUMBO
Shreveport, LA
Member since Sep 2005
8526 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:35 am to
quote:

I get better than that in the same truck but 5.0. Just saying


Yeah- there's definitely a little buyers remorse in my last post. I test drove both, but the Eco had a little more pep to it. And it only had 10 miles on it when i drove it for the first time!!!
Posted by swanny297
NELA
Member since Oct 2013
2189 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:35 am to
quote:

I get better than that in the same truck but 5.0. Just saying


I get better than that in my 5.7 Hemi..Just saying

ETA - for all the Ram fans/haters out there....
This post was edited on 1/8/15 at 11:36 am
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
66763 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:36 am to
Somebody should be held responsible for that.

It's bullshite that they (whoever they is in this case) can slap an unattainable number on that sticker and get no repercussion other than some upset customers.

I would instantly loose my job for a mistake like that.
Posted by PapaPogey
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2008
39512 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:37 am to
That's pretty bad. I was getting around 16-17 before my 35s
Posted by jordan21210
Member since Apr 2009
13386 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:40 am to
Yeah, Wards called out the entire Eco lineup. Not sure how they get their EPA numbers.
Posted by CP3
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2009
7406 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:43 am to
quote:

BourgsTheWord


I cant wait to drag you around the neighborhood with my 5.0
Posted by KingRanch
The Ranch
Member since Mar 2012
61611 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:44 am to
I'll take two
Posted by jordan21210
Member since Apr 2009
13386 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:45 am to
quote:

I cant wait to drag you around the neighborhood with my 5.0



It's a trap!
Posted by PapaPogey
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2008
39512 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:47 am to
Posted by Jack Daniel
In the bottle
Member since Feb 2013
25490 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:47 am to
So a truck doesn't get the advertised fuel mileage?
Posted by jordan21210
Member since Apr 2009
13386 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:50 am to
quote:

Posted by Jack Daniel
So a truck doesn't get the advertised fuel mileage?




All the other trucks don't put "Eco" in the names of their un-economical truck engines. That being said, Wards mainly called out the smaller Ecoboost engines, not the 3.5/6 found in the F150.
This post was edited on 1/8/15 at 11:52 am
Posted by rattlebucket
SELA
Member since Feb 2009
11455 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:55 am to
My company car 2010 Fusion without ecoboost avg'd 30 mpg. My 2013 Fusion with same driving habits with ecoboost gets avg 24 mpg.
Posted by LSUGUMBO
Shreveport, LA
Member since Sep 2005
8526 posts
Posted on 1/8/15 at 12:06 pm to
I just think they should do tests for each engine, wheel size and drivetrain- I know it would create more work but it would make the results a little more accurate- I'm sure the 2wd ext. cab with 18 in wheels on it gets 17 in town and 23 on the hwy
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram