EcoBoost V6 Still Worth Bragging About - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test
Edmunds.com
Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
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.
Tagged:
0
Comments
Which 20 mpg truck is 7 years old?
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.
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.
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'll be hanging on to my 09 for a lot longer if this is the future.
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.
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?