Fuel Economy Update for June - Long Highway Miles Nudge Average Lifetime MPG - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-

Edmunds.com

Fuel Economy Update for June - Long Highway Miles Nudge Average Lifetime MPG - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com updates the long-term fuel economy of the 2015 Ford F-150 and its 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 after 10,000 miles of driving.

Read the full story here

handbrake

In the last day I got a call from the Ford dealer that sold me my 09 F150. They wanted to offer me a "deal" on a new F150. I asked what they had and it was a new XLT 4x4 2.7. I was tempted given the price and trade in they offered, but the truth is that I like my 09 and its 5.4 V8 gets better mileage than the new 2.7. And the 5.4 has been 100% reliable. So I asked if they'd make the same deal on a new 5.0. No dice, they said. The $7500+ rebates were only on 2.7s....That says a lot.

legacygt

@handbrake you have a great point. For some reason every publication (including Edmunds) dances around the point you make. There are countless articles (and long term test blog posts) showing that the 2.7 ecoboost misses the EPA numbers. But what they don't really explain is how poorly it does relative to the other available engines. The 2.7 ecoboost's EPA numbers are much better than the other options but the real world performance might actually be worse (or only slightly better depending on which option you go with). This cannot be said often enough: THE 2.7 ECOBOOST IN THE F-150 DOES NOT EXIST FOR CONSUMERS. IT EXISTS FOR FORD. There is nothing wrong with the engine choice but it is intended to boost one thing and one thing only: Ford's CAFE number. They should be giving you deals on it because they're are the ones who benefit most.

legacygt

And to further the point regarding Ford's cynical use of small turbo engines in large vehicles we can compare the Chevy Colorado in the Long Term Fleet. I know it's a smaller vehicle. I know it's less powerful than the F-150. I will not compare the two directly but will compare how they are performing relative to their own EPA numbers. The F-150 is averaging BELOW its City rating. The Colorado is averaging ABOVE its City rating and approaching the combined rating. These trucks are both being driven by Edmunds so I imagine the conditions and driving styles are similar. My point is not about which car is better. My point is that Ford is gaming the system when it comes to their powertains and the EPA in order to boost their CAFE number, and in doing so they are misleading their customers. Are they the only ones? No. But they are worse than others. And they are now repeat offenders in the Edmunds fleet. The previous offense was the Ecoboost Explorer which only just met its City rating over its time in the fleet.

aspade

I don't agree with the venom towards Ford here. Of course they're gaming to meet the EPA's ever receding goal posts. That gaming is what it takes to sell you a big, powerful vehicle without paying CAFE penalties. In the real world 23 mpg is nowhere to be seen but 16 isn't bad. Edmunds other gas half tons have averaged 13-14.

Would you rather they did it the GM way with a 2" drop, snow plow sized air dam, 3.08 rear, and dead throttle response?

The honest V8 with an honest 15 mpg on the sticker can't be sold in a volume product much longer. For the couple years it has left Ford has one too.

nomercy346

That your best fill up is still at 19 mpg after you followed a Yugo for hundreds of miles on some deserted two-lanes is truly disappointing. If there was one big chance for that 2.7 to shine, this was it. Surprised how you could come in below 20 in those conditions.

No, thank you, 5.0 please! (or even better, a 6.2 Silverado)

legacygt

aspade said:

I don't agree with the venom towards Ford here. Of course they're gaming to meet the EPA's ever receding goal posts.

I get your explanation. But Ford's approach hurts customers and the planet while they get credit for helping both. If a customer is going to get 16mpg they should know they're going to get 16 and Ford should not get credit for 20. And customers should also know that they'd probably get just as good mpg if they picked the NA V6 or even Ecoboost V6 options because they are probably both better suited to real world driving in this truck.

quadricycle

aspade said:

I don't agree with the venom towards Ford here. Of course they're gaming to meet the EPA's ever receding goal posts. That gaming is what it takes to sell you a big, powerful vehicle without paying CAFE penalties. In the real world 23 mpg is nowhere to be seen but 16 isn't bad. Edmunds other gas half tons have averaged 13-14.

Would you rather they did it the GM way with a 2" drop, snow plow sized air dam, 3.08 rear, and dead throttle response?

The honest V8 with an honest 15 mpg on the sticker can't be sold in a volume product much longer. For the couple years it has left Ford has one too.

Sounds like Ford's F-150 gravy train is slowing down. If your biggest sales are in big, thirsty vehicles, it's hardly a surprise that CAFE is going to hurt you. You can't really feel sorry for them when they won't give us that sweet ROW-spec Ranger as an alternative...

I agree with @legacygt on this one, I don't like the way that Ford is treating their customers for CAFE numbers. By the way, Ford can earn credits towards CAFE by implementing fuel/energy saving technologies. Fun fact: According to the EPA, label fuel economy averages are 20-25% lower than in CAFE numbers. So it isn't like Ford's back is up against the wall.

kshankar

Just last week, rented a 2015 Expedition EL with the 3.5 Liter EcoBoost. With 5 adults and tons of luggage and driving on the highway got 16.3 mpg . The best was 17. Granted the car was loaded with people and stuff, not too bad. BTW, instantaneous power at any speed with the Ecoboost.

ctpaul

compare that mileage to the Colorado in the following post, Ford is about 2 MPG worse for a much more capable vehicle. Ford has oversold the mileage but it is pretty good for this type of vehicle. Both have EPA average number of 20, so far Edmunds has the Ford at 16 and the Colorado at 17.7 average. Doesn't the F150 over that much more performance and overall capability?

jerrry44

Owners on the f150 forums are saying this is the first time they have achieved the epa mileage with a pickup. There are 23 of these on Fuelly and 11 of them are AVERAGING 19 mpg overall or better with the overall average at 18.3. That isn't 20 but not bad at all. Those that say the 5.4 gets better mileage are ridiculous. The fuelly average for the 5.4 is 13 to 14. I don't understand how edmunds can't get better than 19 while owners with the same truck (supercrew xlt 4x4) are getting low 20s on tank after tank.

allthingshonda

aspade said:

I don't agree with the venom towards Ford here. Of course they're gaming to meet the EPA's ever receding goal posts. That gaming is what it takes to sell you a big, powerful vehicle without paying CAFE penalties. In the real world 23 mpg is nowhere to be seen but 16 isn't bad. Edmunds other gas half tons have averaged 13-14.

Would you rather they did it the GM way with a 2" drop, snow plow sized air dam, 3.08 rear, and dead throttle response?

The honest V8 with an honest 15 mpg on the sticker can't be sold in a volume product much longer. For the couple years it has left Ford has one too.

Have you seen the front of the F-150? What is that large low hanging black plastic under the front bumper? The 2.7 EB is a great engine and I would say it is as good or better than anything from Germany or Japan but it has to work hard in a big truck.

Where GM's 5.3 V8 give you smooth effortless acceleration at low RPMs, the little 2.7 turbo will have to reach further in the tach and turn on the boost to do the same. Simply put the 5.3 V8 is twice the displacement and has 2 more cylinders so it doesn't have to work as hard to do the same job. Put the 2.7 EB and 5.3 V8 on the highway and set the cruise at 70 and the 2.7 will have to maintain higher revs than the 5.3 V8 which will also switch to 4 cylinder mode while loafing along at an engine speed not much higher than idle. Who do you think will get better mileage? This is also why turbo 4s in in the Sonata and Fusion get worse fuel economy than the V6 in Accords and Camrys. Oh and you can't beat that V8 exhaust note and engine growl.

jstrauch81

I don't know what everyone's problem is. I drove 110 miles this morning on a highway with plenty of climbs and turns, I averaged 23.1mpg. It isn't rocket science, set the cruise and let it do it's job = good mpg. The mystery is solved. Granted I wouldn't get the 2.7, I got the 3.5 because common sense tells you in reality it will achieve better MPG than the 2.7, works less.

dgcamero

nomercy346 said:

That your best fill up is still at 19 mpg after you followed a Yugo for hundreds of miles on some deserted two-lanes is truly disappointing. If there was one big chance for that 2.7 to shine, this was it. Surprised how you could come in below 20 in those conditions.

No, thank you, 5.0 please! (or even better, a 6.2 Silverado)

I'm pretty sure they were pulling an empty Uhaul car dolly the entire trip (based on Twitter feed). Not towing, perse, but definitely a 10% mileage penalty in crappy bias ply Uhaul trailer tires and old worn out bearings drag.

500rwhp

legacygt said:

And to further the point regarding Ford's cynical use of small turbo engines in large vehicles we can compare the Chevy Colorado in the Long Term Fleet. I know it's a smaller vehicle. I know it's less powerful than the F-150. I will not compare the two directly but will compare how they are performing relative to their own EPA numbers. The F-150 is averaging BELOW its City rating. The Colorado is averaging ABOVE its City rating and approaching the combined rating. These trucks are both being driven by Edmunds so I imagine the conditions and driving styles are similar. My point is not about which car is better. My point is that Ford is gaming the system when it comes to their powertains and the EPA in order to boost their CAFE number, and in doing so they are misleading their customers. Are they the only ones? No. But they are worse than others. And they are now repeat offenders in the Edmunds fleet. The previous offense was the Ecoboost Explorer which only just met its City rating over its time in the fleet.

My 3.5 Ecoboost supercrew 6 1/2' bed 2WD is now up to 19.5MPG over 10k miles. That's far better than the city numbers. And it isn't all highway miles, having only made about 3k of road trips in that time. Truth be told, the MPG I get on this compared to my old 5.4L shocks me. It's 25-30% better. So Ford isn't lying, at least on my truck.

23hammer

I've actually got one (2015 F-150 SCrew 4x4 2.7L) and my average lifetime (3800 miles) is 20.8 MPG and it is increasing as the truck accumulates more miles. I am mostly highway and have only towed twice with it. My driving record would debunk any reference to me as a granny driver. I LOVE the truck and my engine choice. I am not sure why Edmunds can't seem to do better with their MPG.

fireinth3hole

I have had two F150's with 3.5 EcoBoost engines, the first a Supercab with 3.73 gears, that one was a struggle to get 20 mpg on the highway but, staying between 65 and 70 it could be done. The second a SuperCrew /6.5' bed with 3.55 gears, I can get 20-21 on the highway @ 70 all day long and yes both are 4WD. Admittedly there is a bit of a learning curve to driving these engines efficiently, something that these reviewers are unlikely to bother with for the day that they have it. They are all too busy having fun burning fuel. One thing that I have never read anywhere which would lead me to believe that no of these so called "auto experts" have ever picked up on is the low end capability of the EB engines and how it can negatively effect your FE. The fact that the use small turbos allows them to spool quickly and provide boost down low, around 17-1800 RPM range. The problem with this is that any driver who isn't aware of exactly what their foot is doing is probably wasting gas, far more than in a naturally aspirated engine. I have seen many people who cannot keep their foot steady, have a habit of pulsing the pedal or just giving it more throttle than needed, I believe this can waste more gas in these trucks than the NA ones. I discovered this in the first two weeks of owning mine (was only getting 17-18 Hwy), I adjusted my habits and now I have no issue meeting or beating the EPA numbers and my truck tips the scales at just over 6,000 lbs. Be mindful of this and you will see a jump of several MPG.

rockkfish

Picked up my 2.7 Ecoboost supercrew 4x4 2 weeks ago. I went out of state to get the truck and on the 275 mi trip home I averaged 22.8 mpg on mostly 70 mph interstate driving. I now have 1000 mi on the truck with a lot of city driving mixed in and I'm still averaging 19.9 mpg, and I don't always baby the throttle. I'm not sure why some others aren't seeing similar mileage results, but so far mine has been just as advertised. By comparison, I also drive an '04 Chevy Tahoe with the 5.3L and the best I've averaged on a tank of gas is 18 mpg....and it's not nearly as fast.