Performance Tested - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
edited February 2015 in Ford
imagePerformance Tested - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

We brought our 2015 Ford F-150 to the track to find out how well the new turbocharged 2.7-liter V6 moves the full-size pickup.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • gslippygslippy Member Posts: 514
    Wow, that's quick. You're moving a 5160-lb vehicle with a 164 c.i. engine a quarter mile in 14.7 seconds - amazing. And the brakes are impressive, too. Three cheers to aluminum!
  • barryhuberbarryhuber Member Posts: 14
    6.4 seconds? Good heavens.
  • jstrauch81jstrauch81 Member Posts: 64
    3.5 EB is even better, love my truck.
  • allthingshondaallthingshonda Member Posts: 878
    Ford has done a great job with their EcoBoost engines. The 3.5 EB has been on the market for a while and has proven to be a durable reliable engine. The 2.7 EB is tiny engine with amazing performance. Unless GM does something quick their full size trucks are quickly becoming irrelevant. They have gone as far as possible with pushrod engines and it's time to move on. The entire truck engine line has to go.
  • markinnaples_markinnaples_ Member Posts: 251
    That's amazing performance, but as for the end of the pushrod V-8, I just don't see that happening. And, everytime someone predicts the end of the pushrod design, GM finds a way to draw out more power and get better gas mileage (I had a 99(!) Vette convertible with a 6 spd that got 30 mpg on the highway).
  • sharpendsharpend Member Posts: 177
    Yes, it's pretty quick but then again it's only getting 15.1 mpg so far.
  • chol92594chol92594 Member Posts: 208
    I was a little skeptical about such a small engine being in a full-size truck, but those are pretty impressive numbers. Unless you're regularly towing some heavy cargo, the 2.7 V6 should be more than enough for most people. If not, there's still the fantastic 3.5 V6. For most people, I don't think the V8 is really worth it, especially when you consider the added weight.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    sharpend said:

    Yes, it's pretty quick but then again it's only getting 15.1 mpg so far.

    I don't consider 1,139 miles a real good statistical sample...especially not the first 1,139 miles.
  • d_d_in_kyd_d_in_ky Member Posts: 7
    Under the vehicle Specifications I don't see the "Axle Ratio"stated. If I am correct, the test truck is running a set 3.73 gears. This would support the performance numbers... acceleration and fuel economy.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    d_d_in_ky said:

    Under the vehicle Specifications I don't see the "Axle Ratio"stated. If I am correct, the test truck is running a set 3.73 gears. This would support the performance numbers... acceleration and fuel economy.

    Not really...the Mustang GT is also running 3.73 gears, but with a 275/40-19 tire, that means 86.4 inches of travel per tire rev. The F150 has 275/65-18s, which travel almost 101 inches per rev. That means almost 20% longer effective gearing.

    With a tire 32.1 inches in diameter, a 3.73 is not what you would call performance gearing.
  • dgcamerodgcamero Member Posts: 148
    markinnaples_ said:

    That's amazing performance, but as for the end of the pushrod V-8, I just don't see that happening. And, everytime someone predicts the end of the pushrod design, GM finds a way to draw out more power and get better gas mileage (I had a 99(!) Vette convertible with a 6 spd that got 30 mpg on the highway).

    Your Vette convertible got an easy 30 mpg on the highway all day long because it was a relatively light, aerodynamically shaped vehicle with a small frontal area because it was not equipped with pedestrian safety system and was running probably about 1250ish rpm at 70mph in 6th gear on the highway. GM also more than likely leaned out the AFR on the highway because emissions regulations weren't as tight in the late 90s. Not that I think that's not a feat, but automakers are cracking the code on turbocharged vehicles...I bet GM will have a turbo V6 eventually.
  • allthingshondaallthingshonda Member Posts: 878
    .I bet GM will have a turbo V6 eventually.

    GM has a great twin turbo V6 but I'm sure they are still trying to figure out how to drop it in the Silverado without being accused of copying Ford.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    edited February 2015
    Now repeat the acceleration tests towing say 3,500 pounds and 5,000 pounds. Then do a fuel economy test on your usual loop and then something with some elevation gain.

    0-60 times are fine, but Ford's sales pitch has been V8 power and V6 economy. It doesn't seem to me that Edmunds has seen the fuel economy end of that pitch be true in the real world for other EB vehicles it has had.

    Too much of Edmunds LT test mileage is done with an empty truck or at best a light load. The Ram had a couple of recent long hauls pulling small racing cars, and that provided some really useful data points on towing performance and economy. I hope you find the time to do the same for this truck because it is the kind of info that a truck buyer really needs and can't get from an extended test drive.

    A month ago Car & Driver had a comparison test of the Tahoe with the 5.3 V8 vs the Expedition with the 3.5EB and the final results were interesting. From a power perspective the EB engine made for superior towing performance, but when it came to gas mileage it just wasn't any better than the conventional V8 in the Tahoe.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    It would be great if it had better performance AND better fuel economy, but better performance and comparable fuel economy still sounds like progress to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles