Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

A Slow Month, But Still Not Hitting Fuel Economy Target - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited May 2015 in Ford

imageA Slow Month, But Still Not Hitting Fuel Economy Target - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

this long-term update to Edmunds 2015 Ford F-150 SuperCrew details the truck's fuel economy for April 2015 and updates its lifetime total mpg.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • kirkhilles_kirkhilles_ Posts: 151
    I'd be curious to see what a Tesla Truck could accomplish while towing. Its been said a million times, but needs repeating. The Vette averaged 18.3 MPG.
  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    Stayed local, where the traffic is awful, BUT is still not meeting fuel economy targets?

    How about, stayed local, where the traffic is awful, AND THEREFORE is still not meeting fuel economy targets?
  • hacefriohacefrio Posts: 29
    fordson1 said:

    Stayed local, where the traffic is awful, BUT is still not meeting fuel economy targets?

    How about, stayed local, where the traffic is awful, AND THEREFORE is still not meeting fuel economy targets?

    Not sure I follow, fordson. Are you making an observation about the truck or peddling a word choice? What makes you certain that the F-150 accumulated its miles in awful traffic, by the way?
  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    I am saying that because you stayed local, as opposed to out of town where traffic is a bit easier, you were probably doing a lot more crawling, stop-and-go, etc. than you would had you taken the truck out of town, on the highway or rural roads This would contribute to lower mpg. And yes, I am making an assumption that right around your home office, you will be in heavy traffic a lot, unless all of the 530 miles were driven at night.

    Does not seem logical to me to say, in effect, "even though we were in heavy traffic with lots of stop and go for the month, the truck still did not improve its fuel economy." Well, of course it didn't, under those conditions. Plus he did some towing with it.
  • tlangnesstlangness Posts: 123
    "Locally" for us can mean all sorts of different things. Some editors live five miles from the office, others live 50 miles away. Some arrive at 5am and others leave the office well after dark. His note that "Accordingly, our best and worst fills remain the same" is pretty much the same as you saying "Therefore is still not meeting fuel economy targets." As a matter of fact, "Accordingly" and "Therefore" are listed as synonyms in the Merriam-Webster thesaurus.

    Don't worry though, I'm sure I'll get the chance to hyper-mile the F-150 at some point.
  • jstrauch81jstrauch81 Posts: 64
    fordson1 said:

    I am saying that because you stayed local, as opposed to out of town where traffic is a bit easier, you were probably doing a lot more crawling, stop-and-go, etc. than you would had you taken the truck out of town, on the highway or rural roads This would contribute to lower mpg. And yes, I am making an assumption that right around your home office, you will be in heavy traffic a lot, unless all of the 530 miles were driven at night.

    Does not seem logical to me to say, in effect, "even though we were in heavy traffic with lots of stop and go for the month, the truck still did not improve its fuel economy." Well, of course it didn't, under those conditions. Plus he did some towing with it.

    Thank you for your common sense, it makes me happy.

    #1. A trucks main selling point shouldn't only be fuel economy.
    #2. It is OBVIOUS that if you are driving in stop/go traffic for the most part, your MPG will suffer. Especially with this engine as it will essentially always be in boost.
    #3. I don't get awesome mileage with mine when driving in SF for example. However where I live (very little traffic, highways) it is EASY to obtain good MPG out of this motor.

    It's a tradeoff.. do you want stellar MPG all the time? If so, probably not the truck for you. If you want to have a towing beast (3.5 moreso) while still having the ABILITY to get great MPG? Then yeah, this is probably for you.

  • legacygtlegacygt Posts: 599
    I feel like there's post after post like this and I regularly comment about how upset it makes me with Ford, the EPA and CAFE. I like turbos. I appreciate the ecoboost lineup. I have no problem with torque. But, when Ford puts these smaller turbo ecoboost engines in larger vehicles they are doing it to improve their CAFE number and that's it. They know that the F150, when configured this way is much less of a CAFE hit and they get to slap a big mpg number on the window sticker and in ads. And they also know that the F150, when configured this way will not get anywhere close to the EPA numbers. They also knew this about your long term Explorer with the 2.0L ecoboost.

    Some cars really see efficiency gains from turbo engines but they tend to be smaller cars. First the weight savings of the engine is a higher percentage of the overall vehicle weight. Second, when driven conservatively, the turbo doesn't spool up as often so the engine consumes fuel like a smaller engine rather than a larger one. However, when you put a smaller turbo engine in a larger vehicle you lose both of these benefits. In real world driving they may have some fuel efficiency gains but not as much as the EPA test which must allow cars to accelerate 0-60 in 2 minutes or something.

    There are people who might want this engine in their F150 for a variety of great reasons and that's fine. But there are some people who really want the best fuel economy they can get. And Ford and the EPA are essentially lying to these people. It's unfair to them and its bad for the environment. There are other trucks (and possibly other F150s) that would be more fuel efficient in the real world.

  • jjacquotjjacquot Posts: 16
    Fordson,

    I stated clearly that the towing was in May, not April. You've based that criticism on a fabricated false conclusion,

    Furthermore, you've created a textbook straw-man fallacy in your representation of my position in this post. I said only that the truck's best and worst fills and its best range remained unchanged for April. I said nothing about WHY its fuel economy fell short. Please don't put words in my mouth. What's more, your assertion that the truck fell short of its EPA estimate because it was driven in stop-and-go traffic is also false. It doesn't matter how the miles were accumulated. The F-150 has missed its EPA fuel economy estimates during all of its first 6,900 miles -- city driving is just the latest example.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,077
    I'm actually shocked at the low numbers. We have a 2008 F-250 with the V10, and it consistently gets around 12 MPG, Obviously, it was not purchased with fuel economy in mind. But it's an awfully long, heavy beast, and it's not doing THAT much worse than your F-150. Prior to that, we had a late 90's Silverado 1500, and got 14-16 MPG. I wonder what's gone wrong with the "improvements" on this truck?

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    jjacquot said:

    Fordson,

    I stated clearly that the towing was in May, not April. You've based that criticism on a fabricated false conclusion,

    Furthermore, you've created a textbook straw-man fallacy in your representation of my position in this post. I said only that the truck's best and worst fills and its best range remained unchanged for April. I said nothing about WHY its fuel economy fell short. Please don't put words in my mouth. What's more, your assertion that the truck fell short of its EPA estimate because it was driven in stop-and-go traffic is also false. It doesn't matter how the miles were accumulated. The F-150 has missed its EPA fuel economy estimates during all of its first 6,900 miles -- city driving is just the latest example.

    Mmmm...I think I based my comment on the title of the post, not your statement about best and worst fills, which should be obvious since I quoted the title. And while an assertion that the truck fell short of EPA ratings because it was driven in traffic may not be strictly true, I think it's pretty obvious that the DEGREE to which it fell short would be affected by the driving mix, which is what would be most pertinent to most readers. I think you're parsing your wording in order to make a very narrow point.

    It's been established many times that you folks don't publish your posts in realtime, so you saying on May 7 that you towed "last weekend"does not definitively establish to any of us readers that you are talking about May 2 and 3, rather than April. I don't believe any of us will be surprised if your towing comparisons with the Ram, which will come over the next few days, have a lower odometer reading than the 6908 you show in this post.

    You guys get together and do some shots this a.m.? You're kinda punchy.
  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    legacygt said:

    I feel like there's post after post like this and I regularly comment about how upset it makes me with Ford, the EPA and CAFE. I like turbos. I appreciate the ecoboost lineup. I have no problem with torque. But, when Ford puts these smaller turbo ecoboost engines in larger vehicles they are doing it to improve their CAFE number and that's it. They know that the F150, when configured this way is much less of a CAFE hit and they get to slap a big mpg number on the window sticker and in ads. And they also know that the F150, when configured this way will not get anywhere close to the EPA numbers. They also knew this about your long term Explorer with the 2.0L ecoboost.

    Some cars really see efficiency gains from turbo engines but they tend to be smaller cars. First the weight savings of the engine is a higher percentage of the overall vehicle weight. Second, when driven conservatively, the turbo doesn't spool up as often so the engine consumes fuel like a smaller engine rather than a larger one. However, when you put a smaller turbo engine in a larger vehicle you lose both of these benefits. In real world driving they may have some fuel efficiency gains but not as much as the EPA test which must allow cars to accelerate 0-60 in 2 minutes or something.

    There are people who might want this engine in their F150 for a variety of great reasons and that's fine. But there are some people who really want the best fuel economy they can get. And Ford and the EPA are essentially lying to these people. It's unfair to them and its bad for the environment. There are other trucks (and possibly other F150s) that would be more fuel efficient in the real world.

    There are many people who will buy this truck because it's exactly what they need. But for lots of other buyers, if they "really want the best fuel economy they can get," maybe they would be better off with a vehicle other than a half-ton pickup with a super-powerful engine.

    I think Ford was smart - they are kinda gaming the EPA, but to the customer base for this F150, it's like those people reading the criticisms that the Mustang GT with the performance pack rides too hard, or that the BMW i3 when running on the range extender will hardly make it up a hill...they don't give a damn, because they didn't buy this truck for its fuel economy, the Mustang GT for its ride, or the i3 for its hill-climbing power.

    Even within the half-ton pickup category, there are horses for courses. The Ram diesel gets way better fuel economy than the F150, but in exchange for that, the truck is way slower, with way lower towing and hauling ratings. Both are excellent choices, depending upon who you are.

    And I fully expect Josh Jaquot to say just that in his comparison of the two, even though it will kill him to agree with me.

  • wesgardenwesgarden Posts: 1
    Almost 7000 miles and the best tank of gas hasn't even managed to get to the city MPG rating. Looks to me like the 2.7 EcoBoost is all Boost and no Eco.
  • carguydarylcarguydaryl Posts: 27
    wesgarden said:

    Almost 7000 miles and the best tank of gas hasn't even managed to get to the city MPG rating. Looks to me like the 2.7 EcoBoost is all Boost and no Eco.

    That or that's how the staff is driving it. They should have two lights on the dash based on where your foot is into the pedal. It flashes a nice green "ECO" when driving conservatively and then flash a "ALL THE BOOST" when driving even remotely aggressively.
  • jaro360jaro360 Posts: 5
    fordson1 said:


    legacygt said:


    Even within the half-ton pickup category, there are horses for courses. The Ram diesel gets way better fuel economy than the F150, but in exchange for that, the truck is way slower, with way lower towing and hauling ratings. Both are excellent choices, depending upon who you are.

    I think the Ram is a great comparison for this truck. I don't think it has "way lower" towing and hauling ratings, 8100 vs 7550. Sure its a difference but it's very comparable. Speed is also not my objective when towing, just the occasional pass in the fast lane.
  • s197gts197gt Posts: 486
    motortrend's long term 2012 ecoboost 3.5 got 14.4 mpg during its stay (28k miles); rated 15/21/17. great engines but they are not "eco" at all.
  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    jaro360 said:

    fordson1 said:


    legacygt said:


    Even within the half-ton pickup category, there are horses for courses. The Ram diesel gets way better fuel economy than the F150, but in exchange for that, the truck is way slower, with way lower towing and hauling ratings. Both are excellent choices, depending upon who you are.

    I think the Ram is a great comparison for this truck. I don't think it has "way lower" towing and hauling ratings, 8100 vs 7550. Sure its a difference but it's very comparable. Speed is also not my objective when towing, just the occasional pass in the fast lane.
    Fair enough - but I think the Ford will do better with 8100 than the Ram will with 7550. And the payload difference of I think 1640 to around a thousand for the Ram is pretty big.
Sign In or Register to comment.