High Sierras Road Trip — Impressive Performance at Altitude - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

High Sierras Road Trip — Impressive Performance at Altitude - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

A group took our 2015 Ford F-150 up near Lee Vining, California and Mono Lake to do some hiking and backwoods exploring.

Read the full story here

oldguynow

This is pretty disappointing fuel economy. I just completed a 2,700 mile trip from NE Oregon to Yosemite, Mono Lake, back north through the Sierras, and the SE Oregon desert in my 1999 Silverado 5.3 liter V8 with 120,000 miles and averaged 18 MPG for the trip. I traveled freeways, highways, back roads and two hunderd miles of gravel. I have been pondering a new truck, but think I will keep old green for a while longer if this is all a new truck with an EPA rating of 23 mpg is capable of. The Ram Eco Diesel looks like it can meet the numbers far better than the Ford. Too bad, I own Ford stock.

jerrry44

Meanwhile owners on the ford forums are reporting fairly consistent MPG in the 20s. http://www.f150forum.com/f118/2-7-mpg-performance-284018/index60/#post4205790

cobryson

That forum post shows some people pulling off some astounding numbers, and far better than the Edmunds truck. Could it be the 91 octane fuel...or does this truck even want premium?

Might be time to take it in to the dealer, if you guys are really sure you aren't leadfooting it everywhere.

g_k1

Nice photos, but if you look at a map you'll notice that there's only one "High Sierra" (unless you count other countries, like Spain). It's "High Sierra."

jstrauch81

cobryson said:

That forum post shows some people pulling off some astounding numbers, and far better than the Edmunds truck. Could it be the 91 octane fuel...or does this truck even want premium?

Might be time to take it in to the dealer, if you guys are really sure you aren't leadfooting it everywhere.

It get's SLIGHTLY better MPG with premium, but I don't think it's worth the extra cost. It's Edmunds driving habits, I've been saying it from the beginning. It is not hard to get 20mpg out of this truck if you don't stab the throttle off/on.

handbrake

What we really need to see is a test where Edmunds gets four F150s, each the same configuration other than the engine. Put the 3.5 N/A against the 2.7, 5.0 and 3.5 TT in these otherwise identical trucks for the primary purpose of comparing actual fuel economy. Until we see that comparison, the variables of Edmunds' driving styles are too much of an unknown.

blackecoram

Yet their "driving style" doesn't hinder the Ram Ecodiesel's mileage...

nomercy346

Gotta hand it to GM for making the most fuel efficient (gasoline) trucks. Their NA V8s may not pull quite as hard as these ecoboosts but the real world mpg numbers are far ahead.
A 2013 Suburban we had as a rental got 20+ MPG on that exact stretch of Hwy and I don't drive for fueleconomy. You had to go closer to 90 mph to make it drop down to 17-18 mpg. (Not that anyone would ever do 90 mph on a public hwy) And that was with the old 5.3 in the previous-gen truck.

Don't get me wrong I really like the new F-150 but powertrain wise, I'd probably rather have the 6.2+8spd combo in a GM. Better sound, no turbos, same mileage and it's similarly quick...

legacygt

handbrake said:

What we really need to see is a test where Edmunds gets four F150s, each the same configuration other than the engine. Put the 3.5 N/A against the 2.7, 5.0 and 3.5 TT in these otherwise identical trucks for the primary purpose of comparing actual fuel economy. Until we see that comparison, the variables of Edmunds' driving styles are too much of an unknown.

Edmunds should absolutely schedule this type of test. I would not be surprised if the NA3.5 and Ecoboost 3.5 both outperform the 2.7 Ecoboost in real world efficiency. The 2.7 Ecoboost seems to be a great engine but it's not the magic bullet of power and efficiency that the EPA numbers would have you believe.

loogie

Am considering up grading my f150 a 5.4 w a 3.5tt for approx 50% towing but have a few concerns. Know advantages of turbo charging but am wondering about: timing chain stretching, oil dilution, oil changes at3-5000 mi, replacing plugs at 10k mi, catch cans, using premium fuel,etc. Most of these problems seem to be entered by owners in northern Climates( Wi, Mi, Mn,Dakotas) are these probe inherent to cold climates or new DI probs( aren't these engines 4-5 yrs old now). Mpg seems to be almost same on both engines, not expecting any increase towing anyway. We do travel to Tn, Nc, wy,mt, etc & while mtns are not a prob for 5.4 our experience a turbo in past seem to be under a little less strain.
Wondering if any real advantages other than torque? Thoughts, comments?

actualsize

Frankly I think the 5.0 would do better than the 2.7 EB. I do plan to find out.

nagant

nomercy346 said:

Gotta hand it to GM for making the most fuel efficient (gasoline) trucks. Their NA V8s may not pull quite as hard as these ecoboosts but the real world mpg numbers are far ahead.
A 2013 Suburban we had as a rental got 20+ MPG on that exact stretch of Hwy and I don't drive for fueleconomy. You had to go closer to 90 mph to make it drop down to 17-18 mpg. (Not that anyone would ever do 90 mph on a public hwy) And that was with the old 5.3 in the previous-gen truck.

Don't get me wrong I really like the new F-150 but powertrain wise, I'd probably rather have the 6.2+8spd combo in a GM. Better sound, no turbos, same mileage and it's similarly quick...

Take your GM truck to the altitude that they took the Ford and the power is not even close. The 2.7 would blow it away.