Fuel Economy Update for February - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,137
edited March 2015 in Ford

imageFuel Economy Update for February - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

2015 Ford F-150 fuel economy for February.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • john_in_tcjohn_in_tc Member Posts: 28
    Does anyone see a pattern here? Both trucks in the long term test fleet, the Ford F-150 and Chevy Colorado were supposed to get an average of 20 mpg. Both are averaging 16! It looks like the EPA posted mileages developed by the manufacturers is very optimistic if not fraudulent.
  • jstrauch81jstrauch81 Member Posts: 64

    Does anyone see a pattern here? Both trucks in the long term test fleet, the Ford F-150 and Chevy Colorado were supposed to get an average of 20 mpg. Both are averaging 16! It looks like the EPA posted mileages developed by the manufacturers is very optimistic if not fraudulent.

    I think it has more to do with Edmunds driving habits than the vehicles themselves. I have a 3.5 ecoboost identical to their truck for the most part, and I easily achieve (without trying) better MPG than Edmunds does DAILY.

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,457
    Some of it likely has to do with heavy traffic and a bunch of different drivers.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512

    Does anyone see a pattern here? Both trucks in the long term test fleet, the Ford F-150 and Chevy Colorado were supposed to get an average of 20 mpg. Both are averaging 16! It looks like the EPA posted mileages developed by the manufacturers is very optimistic if not fraudulent.

    Forget EPA. One truck here weighs 4500 lbs. and its powetrain is capable of accelerating to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds.

    The other truck weighs 5150 lbs. and its powertrain is capable of accelerating to 60 mph in 6.4 seconds.

    How likely is it that they'll both average 20 mpg?

    Both vehicles will be used for towing. Both are still very new.

    For what it is, the Chevy is doing pretty well. For what it is, the Ford is doing awesome.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    "averaged 16.3 mpg over about 1,700 miles of mixed driving"

    99% city and 1% highway is considered mixed driving too. How about some more details? Recent history of this truck also tells us that at least one of your editors may have left a sledgehammer on the gas pedal.
  • greg128greg128 Member Posts: 472
    edited March 2015
    The Edmunds 2014 Silverado averaged 17.4 MPG. with a 0-60 time of 6.8 secs. That is without a turbo like the Ford which will probably affect engine longevity and without the high probability of paint problems with the aluminum body. There have been many reported problems with paint bubbling and delamination with aluminum body panels especially with Mustang hoods and Expedition tailgates. I work with Body Shops and see it all the time. It is also prevalent in Plymouth Prowlers.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    The Silverado averaged that over almost 25k miles, over 13 months. The F150 has not quite 3k miles on it. Two thousand of the Silverado's first three thousand miles was road trip, and the pattern continued...that's how it got 25k on it, in a time period most of their LT vehicles would have gotten maybe 21.5k.

    And the turbo-engines-are-complex deal is overdone. There's cylinder-shutdown hardware in the heads and the fuel-injection system of the Silverado's 5.3, and it all has to be controlled by the ECU, which is major-league number-crunching. The Ford doesn't have that complexity - it runs as a V6 all the time. Is that a reason to avoid the Silverado? Of course not - that's how GM (and Ram, too) is solving the upcoming fuel economy mandates, and turbocharging smaller, multivalve engines is how Ford is doing it.

    It all adds complexity - pick your poison. Both strategies seem to work.

    I can't speak to any aluminum-related issues - have not heard of any with the F150.
  • actualsizeactualsize Santa Ana, CaliforniaMember Posts: 451
    N
    baggs32 said:

    "averaged 16.3 mpg over about 1,700 miles of mixed driving"

    99% city and 1% highway is considered mixed driving too. How about some more details? Recent history of this truck also tells us that at least one of your editors may have left a sledgehammer on the gas pedal.

    Not even close. I drove it on a 557-mile tank this month. I drove from Santa Ana to Yuma, Arizona and back on the freeway at 65 to 70 mph. There was a little bit of dirt road driving (40 miles, maybe) but no hill climbing and no low range. The entire trip was completed on one fill thanks to the optional 36-gallon tank I spec'd out, but it consumed 32.959 gallons in the process. That works out to 16.9 mpg for a tank that was 80% freeway (at reasonable speeds) 10% dirt roads (ditto) and 10% city. That's terrible, as far as I can tell.

    And we're not all leadfoots around here, as much as all y'all like to think otherwise. And many of our editors live miles away and drive the same freeway-heavy route as me. We have flexible hours, so people tend to avoid the worst of the commute traffic, which means most of us are driving in conditions between wide open and bumper-to-bumper. My freeway commute has some traffic, but it moves along at 40 to 50 mph in a slow-and-go fashion, which is actually good for mpg. In those conditions I've set some the longest EV range segments in the electric vehicles we test, gotten the best hybrid mpg tanks.

    Not as many as you think live on the densely populated west side, and those that do shy away from the trucks in our fleet because of parking and LA County's penchant for social engineering through miniature parking spaces.

    So, yeah, this isn't the wide open spaces of the midwest. But that's why we compare our year-end and monthly summary results to EPA combined instead of EPA highway. It fits our driving mix almost perfectly. With our usual crew of drivers and the same basic mix of driving the F-150 2.7-L EBoost is currently falling far short of EPA city, let alone EPA combined. My single tank two weekends ago is testament to that. And a different 2.7-liter EB F-150 has done poorly on our evaluation loop, a course where most cars fall between EPA combined and EPA highway. A loaner Ford press truck both fell short of EPA city out there.

    I've been holding this back because of our F-150's low mileage. But it's past break-in now. That 16.9 mpg weekend should have been over 20 per the window sticker and the way I drove it.

    Meanwhile, I drove the Ram the weekend after the F-150. I didn't drive as much freeway, but my weekend average was running at 23.1 mpg (per the meter) before I had to have it towed to the dealer. OK, it's a diesel, but that number was just above the truck's EPA combined rating over a route that had a higher percentage of city miles mixed in. I lost the opportunity to calculate that chunk of fuel economy data when they drained the remaining fuel from the tank.


    Twitter: @Edmunds_Test

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTMember Posts: 16,289
    It's to the Ram's credit that it does so well on mileage with so few miles. My experience is that it can take a long time for vehicles to break in. Break in to be able to use max power is different than broken in as far as fuel mileage goes. There's a lot of drivetrain stuff that needs to break in. I've had quite a few Fords over the years and they loosen up by around 10k. Usually mileage continues to rise as the miles pile up. The first year I had an AWD Fusion, rated @27 highway, I couldn't break 25 for a tank. By the 3rd year, it could beat it by a bit over a total multiple tank fill up road trip.
    The 4WD Explorer I had for over 12 years, got it's best mileage at 120k (about 10% over the EPA Highway rating). It never had a tune up. The only parts touched on the engine were a PCV and the serpentine belt tensioner pulley.
    These were not DI engines, so I'll find out that goes as time goes on.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT
  • scjbuffaloscjbuffalo Member Posts: 2
    The fuel economy numbers Edmunds are getting may make sense given the fact that it is a 3.73 axle and 4WD. I have a Super Crew with a 2.7L, 2WD and 3.31 axle and am getting a little better than 20 in town and slightly over 22 on the highway and yes, these are hand calculated. The value on the instrument display has been high and low at different fillips. Looking at what others are getting on Fuelly.com and here, there appears to be a reduction for having 4WD. I would imagine that the axle also reduces milage an additional amount, particularly if driving at highway speeds, since you will be running at higher RPM for a given speed, once in 6th gear. All of this data is helpful to others looking at buying vehicles but to take one source of data and assume that it is what every configuration will get would be a mistake. This article had me second guessing buying a new F150 but thanks to Fuelly, I was convinced I would get better MPG due to the differences in configuration. Net sum, always check multiple sources. By the way, the Dodge Ecodiesel seems to be consistently around 22MPG.
  • nissanrulenissanrule Member Posts: 5
    edited March 2015
    I average 17 mpg in my 2015 Nissan Xterra! Can't believe this ripoff Ford ($51K are you serious!) is only 16.
  • d_d_in_kyd_d_in_ky Member Posts: 7
    I have a new 2015 F150 4x4 with 3:55 gears and here are the readings from the two trip odometers for our vehicle, The first (Trip 1) I reset the day I picked up the truck from the dealer fresh off the delivery truck It reads. 2567.5 miles, used 126.1 gallons for 20.4 mpg with a run time of 56:59 . The second trip odometer was for our weekend trip to see the grandkids 992.4 miles, 45.5 gallons and 21.8 mpg, run time 16:38. I use cruise control on most divided highways set at 71 to 76 mph. Without the cruise I find myself doing 80 mph on the interstate (I-75 through Ohio). I would say 90% of the mileage is highway. We don't do performance testing like the folks at Edmunds so I haven't push the truck's limits yet with hauling or towing.
  • yayhelicoptersyayhelicopters Member Posts: 1
    I am reading all of the comments bashing the fuel mileage, but please consider the time of year that this test is being accomplished. It's in the winter/early spring time frame and the fuel is still a "winter blend", so fuel economy is going to be worse. I have a civic I have used for commuting over the last 4yrs covering just shy of 100,00 miles, and religiously, the mpg will drop from 37-38mpg in the late spring/early fall, to 34-36mpg from Oct.-April-ish. I use an app to track the mpg, and always fill the tank until I can see it. I know some will say I'm comparing a civic to an F150, but I'm not, just the gasoline blends that the refineries push out.
  • jeepsrtjeepsrt Member Posts: 88
    I have a Ford Raptor SuperCrew with the 6.2 and should get 11 city 14 highway. I regularly get 13 city-14 mixed driving-and 16-17 highway and that's in Colorado living in a very hilly area. I have to think with so many different drivers this thing is driven like a rental.
  • sdasda Indian Land, SCMember Posts: 4,708
    Trailer towing is not the best condition to maximize gas mileage. I bet the majority of owners will never tow, and their gas mileage will be higher as a result.

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

Sign In or Register to comment.