Engine Looks Ugly, Performs Well - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

Engine Looks Ugly, Performs Well - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

If appearance counted, the engine in our 2015 Ford F-150 wouldn't score many points. Thankfully, it's more impressive in the areas that do count, like horsepower and torque.

Read the full story here

legacygt

It is time for Edmunds (and other publications) to do some real reporting on the EPA fuel efficiency numbers for these cars. There is nothing wrong with this engine in a vacuum but in the context of the EPA test and CAFE numbers we need to call Ford's Ecoboost push what it is: It is a cynical approach to "beat" the EPA test while delivering real world efficiency that may actually be worse than a naturally aspirated engine alternative. Ford and other manufacturers have discovered that smaller turbo engines do well on the EPA test cycle but it has become clear that these engines don't deliver anywhere near the EPA numbers especially when they are put into larger, heavier vehicles. I wonder how a similarly configured F-150 would do with Ford's naturally aspirated 3.5L under real world conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if it did better. This is a big problem and the only repercussion is a note buried somewhere within each review recognizing the disappointing observed fuel economy. But when you put all the reviews together you see a trend. (Remember your long term Ecoboost Explorer?)

This is a real issue and it has real repercussions. Consumers suffer because they don't get the efficiency they expect. The environment suffers because consumers are making choices based on numbers that may be more inflated than other options. Competitors suffer because they are competing based on EPA numbers that may be lower on paper but better in the real world (e.g., Mazda who doesn't offer a large truck but has pursued different approaches to fuel economy that result in real world performance much closer to EPA numbers than turbo engines do). Other technologies like diesel that deliver real world efficiency in line with EPA numbers suffer because they are being shopped against powertrains like this one with inflated numbers.

Please Edmunds, go find an F-150 like this one but with the 3.5L and drive the two trucks on the same routes for a couple of days. Then let us know what you find.

adamb1

I agree. I have not been able to achieve the advertised fuel economy in my '14 Fusion Titanium with 2.0T engine. To do so requires driving like you have an egg on top of the pedal. It's just not realistic. I love the car. It's the best family car I've owned to date. But, for comparison purposes, it gets the same mileage per gallon as my wife's '09 Mazda 6s GT with a 270 hp 3.7L V6.

aspade

We know exactly how the NA 3.5 would do, it'd be an utter dog in an empty truck let alone hauling or towing. That 3.5 is exactly the comparison to make too, because a NA engine as powerful as this one would be down 4-5 mpg on the all important CAFE tests and can't be sold in a volume product for much longer.

Yeah Ford is gaming the test, we know it and they know it, but at least their gamesmanship is satisfying to drive. The villain here is the EPA with their incompetent testing procedures and unreasonable mileage goal posts.

legacygt

Turbos are not magic. There are some real benefits and I tend to like them but the horsepower/torque numbers don't come from nowhere. To deliver that power the car forces more air and more fuel into a smaller engine. So as the turbo spools up the smaller engine starts to consume fuel as if it were a larger engine. This is fine. But car manufacturers are gaming the system here. They are putting undersized turbo engines into many cars. The EPA test cycle must allow for very easy acceleration and lots of travel at constant speeds. This allows those cars to go through the test without dipping into the turbos too much. This is not realistic, especially when the engine is undersized). Most driving requires regular acceleration and people drive their cars because they need to get someplace. I would bet that manufacturers are calibrating powertrains to ace the EPA test yet still deliver a satisfying drive (as it appears the 2.7 ecoboost does). But this is dishonest and alarming.
I would love to see Edmunds get four similarly optioned F-150s, each with one of the four engine options. I'd be curious to see which ones do best on an absolute basis and which comes closest to the EPA numbers.
My bet would be that the order of most fuel efficient would be:
3.5 naturally aspirated
2.7 ecoboost
3.5 ecoboost (maybe very close to the 2.7)
5.0 naturally aspirated

My bet would be that the order of closest to the EPA efficiency numbers would be:
3.5 naturally aspirated
5.0 naturally aspirated
3.5 ecoboost
2.7 ecoboost

For context, my last car was an 05 Subaru Legacy GT Wagon. That car had a 2.5L Turbo. You could take advantage of the power and torque if you wanted. The car was fun and fast. But you could also drive it in a relaxed but realistic way and easily meet the EPA numbers.

dgcamero

legacygt said:

It is time for Edmunds (and other publications) to do some real reporting on the EPA fuel efficiency numbers for these cars. There is nothing wrong with this engine in a vacuum but in the context of the EPA test and CAFE numbers we need to call Ford's Ecoboost push what it is: It is a cynical approach to "beat" the EPA test while delivering real world efficiency that may actually be worse than a naturally aspirated engine alternative. Ford and other manufacturers have discovered that smaller turbo engines do well on the EPA test cycle but it has become clear that these engines don't deliver anywhere near the EPA numbers especially when they are put into larger, heavier vehicles. I wonder how a similarly configured F-150 would do with Ford's naturally aspirated 3.5L under real world conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if it did better. This is a big problem and the only repercussion is a note buried somewhere within each review recognizing the disappointing observed fuel economy. But when you put all the reviews together you see a trend. (Remember your long term Ecoboost Explorer?)

This is a real issue and it has real repercussions. Consumers suffer because they don't get the efficiency they expect. The environment suffers because consumers are making choices based on numbers that may be more inflated than other options. Competitors suffer because they are competing based on EPA numbers that may be lower on paper but better in the real world (e.g., Mazda who doesn't offer a large truck but has pursued different approaches to fuel economy that result in real world performance much closer to EPA numbers than turbo engines do). Other technologies like diesel that deliver real world efficiency in line with EPA numbers suffer because they are being shopped against powertrains like this one with inflated numbers.

Please Edmunds, go find an F-150 like this one but with the 3.5L and drive the two trucks on the same routes for a couple of days. Then let us know what you find.

Fuelly owners are reporting 18.61 mpg with the Ecoboost 2.7, 15.93 mpg with the 'Gas' (Ecoboost) 3.5, 16.8 mpg with the 'Flex' (N/A) 3.5 (albeit with only 5 vehicles, and it's not extremely clear which 3.5L is Ecoboost and which is not meaning there could be an extra margin of error), and 16.4 mpg with the 5.0. FWIW the GM twins are reporting 16.7/16.8 average overall on the 2015 Silverado / Sierra. It seems the 5.3 and the 6.2 get about the same mpg, but there's not much to go on.

This, to me, means the Ecoboost 2.7 really does deliver good power with little fuel economy penalty. The exhaust manifolds are liquid cooled, meaning they do not have to keep the air:fuel ratio very enriched under boost. The 3.5 Ecoboost does not currently have liquid cooled exhaust manifolds, meaning it does have to enrich the air:fuel ratio considerably more under boost to avoid overheating the catalytic converters. Either way, the EPA tests obviously do not get into boost situations at all, and this results in overly optimistic fuel economy estimates for turbocharged vehicles. Additionally, I wonder if the CARB or PZEV emissions Ecoboosts are naturally going to get worse fuel economy by default, because they will tend to enrich the air:fuel mixture earlier under load in order to preserve the catalysts for the required 150k miles? That'd be a complicated test to setup, but one where it'd be interesting to see the results.

allthingshonda

Comparing the NA 3.5 V6 to this engine is not an equal comparison. It doesn't have the power or capability of the 2.7 turbo. What is fair is comparing the 2.7 turbo to GM's 5.3 V8. They have similar performance numbers, payload and towing capabilities and ironically the same fuel efficiency. All manufacturers have a different approach to truck fuel efficiency. Ford likes small turbo charged engines, Ram is betting on the diesel and GM is sticking with V8s with cylinder deactivation. Ford's approach doesn't get close to achieving the numbers that the EPA come up with. Ram meets or exceeds the numbers but the cost of fuel, maintenance, and DEF cancels out any savings you get with the excellent fuel economy. GM seems to have the best approach. Their old 5.3 usually meets the numbers the EPA comes up with. My job uses Chevy trucks and when they're on the highway with no load they will usually run in 4 cylinder mode and show economy in the low 20's. Lean into the accelerator (lean a lot cause the transmission hates to downshift) and you get V8 mode with that deep V8 engine growl. As good as the 2.7 is a V8 it is not.

reminder

Simple physics. Heavy objects take more energy to move than a lighter counterpart.
More air...more fuel...more power...less MPG.
Forced induction is a terrific way to get high HP in smaller packages, but it's difficult to have your cake & eat it too.

dgcamero

allthingshonda said:

Comparing the NA 3.5 V6 to this engine is not an equal comparison. It doesn't have the power or capability of the 2.7 turbo. What is fair is comparing the 2.7 turbo to GM's 5.3 V8. They have similar performance numbers, payload and towing capabilities and ironically the same fuel efficiency. All manufacturers have a different approach to truck fuel efficiency. Ford likes small turbo charged engines, Ram is betting on the diesel and GM is sticking with V8s with cylinder deactivation. Ford's approach doesn't get close to achieving the numbers that the EPA come up with. Ram meets or exceeds the numbers but the cost of fuel, maintenance, and DEF cancels out any savings you get with the excellent fuel economy. GM seems to have the best approach. Their old 5.3 usually meets the numbers the EPA comes up with. My job uses Chevy trucks and when they're on the highway with no load they will usually run in 4 cylinder mode and show economy in the low 20's. Lean into the accelerator (lean a lot cause the transmission hates to downshift) and you get V8 mode with that deep V8 engine growl. As good as the 2.7 is a V8 it is not.

According to Fuelly, the 2.7 is getting ~1.9 mpg better than the 5.3...which is nothing to sneeze about...and compares reasonably well to the 2 mpg spread the EPA says the two engines should achieve in combined driving.

g35buf

ECO what? I like small turbo 4s but basically here I'm getting V8 performance and mileage...A little better low end with the turbos but not the benefit of a silky smooth V8 that can lope along in day to day driving...I'm really missing Ford's ECO-point on this. My inlaws Ford Escape with the 1.6T ECOBoost even gets worse mileage than my wife's VW Tiguan with the 2.0T...and the VW power plant is much more refined. Ford is the new GM and Hyundai when it comes to EPA estimates...Seems like Honda, VW and a few others are the only honest ones on mpg...

carguydaryl

There is one thing you all are not talking about here... Ford isn't necessarily being dishonest or trying to screw customers, they are applying one solution to the increasing pressure of fuel economy standards forced down the throats of manufacturers and consumers by the GOVERNMENT with outdated not very realistic/flexible (to changing technology) testing and metrics.

Americans still want large cars with lots of power, it seems no matter the price of fuel. The government is trying to sway the market otherwise, and the automakers are figuring out how to sell what the customers want. Its not so much dishonesty as coming up with creative ways to provide large vehicles to the public with lots of power. Think about it, these "gimmicks" allow the automakers to still plow tons of trucks, SUV's, large cars into the market that people want to buy.

I'm kind of tired of the whole "people are being dooped" argument on these cars with newer technology. maybe the first buyers of ecoboost engines have something to cry about, but mostly its buyer beware and do your research. 9 times out of 10, you aren't going to overcome physics when buying a large car (diesel excluded, but with its own tradeoffs) Most people I talk to still think good gas mileage is based on how many miles they get to a tank and most people that I know that own ecoboosts like them because the power is more immediate, is not affected by our higher altitude and the shear force of the boost is kind of intoxicating. Most of them knew that they didn't hit the MPG numbers before they bought it and they'd get the same mpg as v8's for the most part. They all like the "whoosh" feeling of the motor. I have one friend that gladly gets 15mpg in his 3.5 f150 but he also bought the truck because of how it puts the power down and that its unphased pulling a 6,000 lb trailer.

Looking at it from this perspective, the one getting dooped is the government. Ford is figuring out a way to still give people a "V8" truck if not more complicated but more consistent power, with the same if not slightly better gas mileage, and the government thinks they are winning this stupid MPG war. In this case the consumer still wins because they get the power/size car they want, and ford wins because they still sell vehicles by the boat load. You think about it, we went through all this with the hybrids which are very sensitive to how you drive them and require a whole new way to drive to maximize and hit their mpg's.

Just another way to look at this whole thing.

allthingshonda

Some people have a real disdain for anything government but government does play an important role. If it wasn't for fuel economy regulations, and safety regulations do you really think those multi billion dollar corporations would spend the money engineering the technology? The CEO of Ford and CEO's of every car company in the world earns their paycheck by making the shareholder wealthy. Not anything wrong with that but it's the truth. Fuel prices have dropped because of the laws of supply and demand. Due to increased fuel economy of today's vehicles the supply of oil is now greater than the demand for it. Other than complying with government regulations there really is no reason financially why Ford or anybody else would invest in powerful fuel efficient engines.

Turbocharging is an old technology that's been around for decades. Yet, very few car companies spent the money to invest in using the technology. Turbos, intercoolers, upgrading the strength of components, electronics and more costs far more than just making a bigger NA engine. European and Asian companies have always offered powerful small fuel efficient engines. Not because they're better at engineering but because their high taxed fuel prices forced them to. In the 90's when the Taurus and Accord battled for best selling car Ford powered the Taurus with an iron block 3.0 V6 that made 140 HP. That's just 10 more HP than the 2.2 liter all aluminum 4 cylinder in the Accord. And because the Accord was lighter and had a OHC 16 valve high revving engine the Accord was faster than the Taurus. Fast forward 25 years and stricter fuel economy standards and a Ford Fusion makes 180 HP out of a 1.5 turbo 4 which is only 5 less than the Accord's 2.4 litre 4 cylinder. GM, Ford, Hyundai, BMW, VW and everybody else is suddenly in love with turbocharging. Well in fairness VW has offered small turbo engines for years. Ironically Saab, who embraced the idea of small fuel efficient turbocharged engines years ago, is now out of business.

major_zero

'13 4x4 Super Cab - 5.0L V8. 16.5 mpg all day long with Goodyear Duratracs (in my mind, they are gumbo monster mudders). I only mention the tires because the mpg took a digger after I got them ('twas 17). And I'm only posting this because when I was shopping for a new F150, I was so enticed to wait for the new small displacement turbo mills because of the "what if I could drive a full-size rig and get corolla mileage?". But the practical side of me said "how much will it cost if if your turbos break at 175,000 miles?" This really drove me crazy. Old tried and true or new and potentially better. I was also scared of the aluminum body (I'm cheap!). So I got the 5.0 (I told you I was cheap) and I'm so happy I did. It gets up and goes and It sounds so great; really, really, great. Well my glass is empty; gotta go.

yellowmiata

I always enjoy a small smile when someone complains about the "government." (Or GOVERNMENT as carguydaryl notes above). The first three words of the United States Constitution are "We the People..." In other words, WE are the government. If one doesn't like what's happening in OUR government, organize, speak out and vote! Recognize that living in a diverse community means compromise, and if enough like minded people elect their representatives, the government will represent the WE people.

Back to the issue at hand: one thing that smaller turbo-ed engines also bring to the mix is lighter weight. Less mass = less inertia to overcome when accelerating = slight fuel savings. I agree with others that acceleration, power, torque, etc. don't come for free. It takes energy to create acceleration regardless if its with a big-honkin' V8 or a tightly wound FI engine. One benefit of the FI engine is that feather-pedaling the throttle can keep gas consumption down at the expense of acceleration.

I will be interested to see how turbos hold up after 200k of tough truck miles.

atc25

One important thing not mentioned about the lack luster economy, is this 2.7 has spent a lot of its Edmund's life towing substantial loads. I'm actually quite impressed with mpg numbers after towing so much.