EcoBoost V6 Still Worth Bragging About - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

EcoBoost V6 Still Worth Bragging About - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

The update to Edmunds' long-term 2015 Ford F-150 includes driving experience details on the truck's new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6.

Read the full story here

emajor

How's the transmission response on this truck? Occasionally I drive a 2011-ish F150 with the 5.0 V8, and while the engine is plenty powerful the transmission completely kills it. It loafs just above 1000 rpm when underway to save fuel, then takes almost a full one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand to downshift when the throttle is pressed. Makes it feel completely gutless even though it isn't. I hate that transmission.

handbrake

"Our truck is rated at 20 mpg combined. I'll say that again: 20 mpg. Those are numbers worth considering when you remember that we're talking about a truck that's only seven years old. I've got children that are older."

Which 20 mpg truck is 7 years old?

yellowbal

At least the 7 year old truck's fuel economy rating is closer to reality. The EcoBoost says 20, but you're getting under 16mpg.

desmolicious

I don't understand this post. Is Josh now saying it gets 20mpg when Edmunds' own testing shows 16? Is he asking us to ignore those results?

bankerdanny

desmolicious said:

I don't understand this post. Is Josh now saying it gets 20mpg when Edmunds' own testing shows 16? Is he asking us to ignore those results?

Agreed, the rated MPG's is completely irrelevant if the F150 can't get it even when not towing. And given the Dodge's ability to hit and even exceed its rated MPG I am not inclined to cut the Ford even a little bit of slack. Finally the EPZ rating of the EB vs the Triton means zip if the EB can't get anywhere near its rated economy.

aspade

The rated MPG are very relevant, of course they're gaming the test but that gaming is what enables Ford to keep selling a powerful truck in the face of Obama's radicals at the EPA. Would you rather not game the EPA and have a weak NA V6, no throttle response, and a chin spoiler all the way down the curb? GM has a truck with your name all over it.

The honest V8 you actually want can't be sold for much longer. They'll hang on for a few more years at increasing sticker prices to keep the take rate down - Ford's 5.0 is already $800 more than the much more complex and expensive to build 2.7 - and that'll be it.

legacygt

It may be a fine engine. The issue is that consumers need to have good information to compare vehicles and, in this truck's case, the 20 mpg is not good information. In fact, it's very bad information. When you expect to go 20 mpg on a tank of gas but only go 15 your missing by 25%. What if the towing numbers were actually 25% lower than advertised. That would be a big deal. This is a big deal too.
Ford also offers the 3.5L ecoboost in the F-150. I wouldn't be surprised if that truck at least matched the 2.7L in real world efficiency and that one has even more torque and power.

jstrauch81

All the Ford bashers crack me up. In relative terms this engine gets great MPG for the power it produces and the experience. I agree with the above post in that the 3.5 get's better MPG due to having more power on tap. I recently hauled an ATV I purchased in the bed and achieved 17.3mpg with more power available than I could ever need on a daily basis.

jjacquot

I wasn't clear here. I'm trying to make the point that truck mpg has come a long way in a little time, which is probably what I should have said. 20 is a long way from the 14 mpg of a comparable truck from the same manufacturer only seven years ago. Yes, our truck isn't achieving it's rated mpg. And the 2008 F-150, which existed in an era of equally inaccurate EPA estimates, didn't either.

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone ignore our truck's mpg. I've been one of its most vocal critics. Rather, I'm pointing out that though it doesn't earn that rated mpg, it's more than capable of doing the work asked of a full-size truck.

handbrake

jjacquot said:

I wasn't clear here. I'm trying to make the point that truck mpg has come a long way in a little time, which is probably what I should have said. 20 is a long way from the 14 mpg of a comparable truck from the same manufacturer only seven years ago. Yes, our truck isn't achieving it's rated mpg. And the 2008 F-150, which existed in an era of equally inaccurate EPA estimates, didn't either.

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone ignore our truck's mpg. I've been one of its most vocal critics. Rather, I'm pointing out that though it doesn't earn that rated mpg, it's more than capable of doing the work asked of a full-size truck.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out where the praise comes from. Like I said earlier, I have an 09 F150 5.4 4x4 and get better mileage than this truck has shown in the time you've had it. The 5.4 is pretty much bulletproof and easy to work on and while it's not setting speed records, I can hit well over 600 miles in a tank of regular. My F150 actually has exceeded the EPA estimates (I was getting 21 mpg freeway before I put serious off road tires on it; I get around 19 now).

I'll be hanging on to my 09 for a lot longer if this is the future.

legacygt

jjacquot: You can't compare the 20 with the 14. Maybe the 14 was overstated too but by how much? I'm not sure but I doubt it was 33% overstated. The point is that undersized turbocharged engines in heavy vehicles aren't the win-win Ford wants us to believe. Yes they can give you nice torque and towing power from a smaller engine. But they don't drink like a small engine when they're in boost all the time. This is why I think the 3.5 ecoboost is probably a better match. It can stay out of boost more often and provides even more power when necessary.

jerrry44

on fuelly there are 16 f-150 pickups with the 2.7 liter ecoboost and their overall average is 18.2 mpg after 113 fillups. That isn't 20 mpg but it is not far off. There are a few that are averaging better than 20 mpg. If you go to the ford f150 online forums there is a 2.7 liter MPG/performance thread 60 pages long where you will be hard pressed to find someone on there complaining about the fuel economy of this truck with this engine. I find it kind of odd that edmunds can't get better than 17 mpg while nearly all of the owners on the f150 forum are reporting that it is getting pretty close to the epa fuel economy estimates.

500rwhp

handbrake said:

jjacquot said:

I wasn't clear here. I'm trying to make the point that truck mpg has come a long way in a little time, which is probably what I should have said. 20 is a long way from the 14 mpg of a comparable truck from the same manufacturer only seven years ago. Yes, our truck isn't achieving it's rated mpg. And the 2008 F-150, which existed in an era of equally inaccurate EPA estimates, didn't either.

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone ignore our truck's mpg. I've been one of its most vocal critics. Rather, I'm pointing out that though it doesn't earn that rated mpg, it's more than capable of doing the work asked of a full-size truck.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out where the praise comes from. Like I said earlier, I have an 09 F150 5.4 4x4 and get better mileage than this truck has shown in the time you've had it. The 5.4 is pretty much bulletproof and easy to work on and while it's not setting speed records, I can hit well over 600 miles in a tank of regular. My F150 actually has exceeded the EPA estimates (I was getting 21 mpg freeway before I put serious off road tires on it; I get around 19 now).

I'll be hanging on to my 09 for a lot longer if this is the future.

That's amazing, because my 2010 F150 never got better than 17.5 on a tank in it's life. With my 2015 and the 3.5EB, I get over 20 on almost every tank. The lifetime average on this truck is better than my best tank on my Triton equipped 2010. Oh yeah, and the new 2015 is crazy fast compared to the 2010. This is good progress.

legacygt

500rwhp said:

handbrake said:

jjacquot said:

I wasn't clear here. I'm trying to make the point that truck mpg has come a long way in a little time, which is probably what I should have said. 20 is a long way from the 14 mpg of a comparable truck from the same manufacturer only seven years ago. Yes, our truck isn't achieving it's rated mpg. And the 2008 F-150, which existed in an era of equally inaccurate EPA estimates, didn't either.

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone ignore our truck's mpg. I've been one of its most vocal critics. Rather, I'm pointing out that though it doesn't earn that rated mpg, it's more than capable of doing the work asked of a full-size truck.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out where the praise comes from. Like I said earlier, I have an 09 F150 5.4 4x4 and get better mileage than this truck has shown in the time you've had it. The 5.4 is pretty much bulletproof and easy to work on and while it's not setting speed records, I can hit well over 600 miles in a tank of regular. My F150 actually has exceeded the EPA estimates (I was getting 21 mpg freeway before I put serious off road tires on it; I get around 19 now).

I'll be hanging on to my 09 for a lot longer if this is the future.

That's amazing, because my 2010 F150 never got better than 17.5 on a tank in it's life. With my 2015 and the 3.5EB, I get over 20 on almost every tank. The lifetime average on this truck is better than my best tank on my Triton equipped 2010. Oh yeah, and the new 2015 is crazy fast compared to the 2010. This is good progress.

Thanks for this helpful perspective. While you're only one data point, this is what I've mentioned above in an earlier comment. I think the 3.5 ecoboost might be more efficient than the 2.7 because it's a better match for a larger vehicle.

fordson1

People are funny creatures - do you folks pay for "EPA gas," or just pay for gas?

Compare this vehicle to two others in the LT fleet with which it has some similarities - the Macan and the Colorado. The Macan has a 3.0L TT V6; the F150 has a 2.7L TT V6. The Colorado is a crew-cab pickup, as is the F150. All are AWD/4WD and have no traction issues.

F150 - 325 hp, 375 torque, 5,160 lbs., 1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 14.7 @ 92.3

Colorado - 305 hp, 269 torque, 4,486 lbs., 1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 15.6 @ 88.8

Macan - 335 hp, 339 torque, 4,315 lbs., 1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 13.8 @ 100.2

Remember - gasoline is power, power is gasoline. There is no free lunch. Want to go faster? That takes more power/gasoline. Want to drive a heavier vehicle? That takes more power/gasoline. Let's continue.

The Porsche and the Ford are obviously making very similar power, but the Ford is 850 lbs. heavier. The Macan has an extra ratio in the transmission - it's a 7-speed. The Porsche is EPA rated at a combined 19 mpg; the Ford is rated at a combined 20 mpg. WTF?

Regardless of the on-paper 20 hp difference between the Chevy and the Ford, the F150 is obviously making way, way more power in real life - even with an almost 700 lb. weight advantage, the Colorado is nowhere near as fast. The Ford is rated by the EPA at 20 mpg combined, and the Chevy is rated at...20 mpg combined. WTF?

The Ford is averaging 15.7 mpg. The Chevy is averaging 17.7 mpg. The Porsche is averaging 17.3 mpg. Gee - I dunno...I think they are ALL getting about what I would expect, given their respective weights and power. There is one asterisk, though...the Macan has done zero towing in its 20k miles at Edmunds, so I'm going to add 1 mpg to the Ford and the Chevy...and I'm being generous - I should add more - they have done plenty of towing. So the Ford goes to 16.7, the Chevy to 18.7.

My verdict - there is nothing ridiculous about the Ford's fuel economy, but its EPA rating is kind of ridiculous. The EPA ratings of the other two vehicles are much more realistic.

But going back to my original question...are you paying for "EPA gas," or just paying for gas?

d_d_in_ky

Just had my first Oil change on my 2015 at the 5000 miles. Truck is XLT 4X4 Super Cab, 2.7 Liter, Equipt Group 301A 265/70R 17 OWL All Terrain GoodYear 3:55 Ratio Regular Axle . Computer states 20.8 mpg for the distance. About 70% highway with some towing 3800lbs boat & rock hauling done locally. I am very happy about these results. Do wonder about Edmunds results being so sub 20 as they are.

greenpony

Small turbocharged engines can achieve their EPA ratings. They can also give you good power. But you can't do both. The problem with the EPA rating system is that it tests vehicles only under relatively light load. If you drive your vehicle like that, you can hit the EPA numbers. But once you start towing, or accelerating heavily, or idling a lot, or driving at high speed – your engine may be totally capable, but it will also suck gas.