V6 Turbo is More Boost Than Eco - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

V6 Turbo is More Boost Than Eco - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

We added another 2,753 miles to our 2015 Ford F-150 this month, but its lifetime fuel economy remains dismal and it has never cracked 20 mpg on a single tank.

Read the full story here

ramecofan

Hey Guys, I have been reading this forum for the last year specifically regarding the Ram EcoDiesel. I bought a 2014 F-150 Lariat 4x4 with the 3.5 EcoBoost in January 2015 after my 11 year old Ford with 5.4 needed to be replaced. I have always driven Ford's and been very pleased but my recent F150 albeit a beautiful truck never exceeded 16.3 mpg over 6 months. I was disappointed in the gas mileage I tried all the known remedies, i.e. Premium fuel, new breather, slow highway speeds, etc. All I found was boost, no Eco.
It finally made me trade for a new trade Ram EcoDiesel. Thus far thoroughly impressed with the vehicle, quality and especially the gas mileage. I tow a 6,000lb boat on the weekends and it has been a joy. My point is the EcoBoost drove a long time Ford owner to another brand as it did not ever get close to its described mileage. Fast, yes....Strong, yes.....disappointed yes.

handbrake

Next week I'm going to be taking my 09 5.4 F150 on a fairly long trip to go deer hunting. The trip will be about 250 miles of freeway driving (albeit fairly steep and winding on a good part of it, along the CA coast) and then about 50 or so miles off road. I'll record the fuel use on this trip and I bet that even with the off road element (where I'll be in 4wd low for a good part of the time), and my aftermarket off road tires, I'll end up with better mileage than Dan gets on his Oregon trip.

kshankar

I rented a 2015 Expedition EL with the Ecoboost. With 5 passengers and lots of luggage, got a best of 16.1 mpg on the highway. Granted I was going faster than the speed limit. The torque is impressive at almost any speed! Maybe it should just be called the BOOST :-)

explorerx4

Although it's not guaranteed either way, a 3.73 rear axle ratio is a power ratio. 3.31 is standard. Run a few tanks of super unleaded, although CA has only 91(?). Here in CT super unleaded is 93 octane. We have 3 2.0 ecoboost engines and they really seem to like the higher octane.
Smoother, quieter, and better mileage in my experience.

allthingshonda

Big heavy vehicle combined with a small, albeit powerful, engine equals poor fuel economy. I would like to know if the 5.0 V8 hits it's EPA combined average. Something tells me it probably gets closer than the EB engines.

casper_f15c

I have a 2015 F-150 with nearly the exact specs as Edmunds (2.7L, 3.55 rear end, 4x4). With only 2600 miles on it, my last tank (75/25, highway/city) came out to 21.1 MPG, hand calculated from the same pump. While not eye watering, it is much better than what Edmunds is touting. The biggest issue I see, as with any full size brick of a truck going down the road, is the differences in economy between the EPA tested highway MPH versus the average driver's actual MPH when driving. I can say from personal investigation/experience that my 2015 gets 5-6 MPG less (instant fuel economy) at 73 MPH versus 65 MPH. Also, comparing the Ram EcoDiesel to the Ford EcoBoost is a non starter. The energy density and specific efficiency of diesel versus gas makes this a pointless comparison. Drive a Ram 1500 5.7L Hemi for a few thousand miles and get back to me how it compares to the Ford (any engine!).

g35buf

I know the Ford EcoBoost engines are powerful but I get the same real world (Fuelly) mileage with my 2014 RAM with the 5.7 HEMI. 16 around town and 19-20 on the highway. 16 towing 5,000 lbs on the highway. Still fast as hell when you need it and cruising along it 8th gear at 1,500 rpm doing 75 mph. Still, I'm greedy and got mesmerized by the RAM EcoDiesel after a test drive and trading the HEMI this week for a new RAM Eco...

RAM actually puts the Eco part of the equation in THEIR trucks...

s197gt

you missed his point.

others readers have blamed the driving style of edmunds staff as being (at least partly) why the ford hasn't reached its rated numbers.

the same group of drivers (heavy foot or not) are able to match epa numbers on many of their long-term vehicles. thus, the test drivers can not be (solely) blamed.

-------

so... in the ecoboost's defense i am probably going to be picking up vehicle #5 in the next week or so... a pickup. all these pickups on here, especially the colorado, have created a scratch i want to itch. i'll be picking up an old 2001 ranger xlt with the off road package. i have always wanted to go to an off-roading park and the only way to do that (properly) is with a vehicle you don't care too much about.

anyway, i mention that to say the 01 ranger has a 4.0l v6 that is rated something like 14/17 mpg... with like 210 hp. in a much smaller vehicle that weighs a lot less. no eco. no boost.

casper_f15c said:

Also, comparing the Ram EcoDiesel to the Ford EcoBoost is a non starter. The energy density and specific efficiency of diesel versus gas makes this a pointless comparison. Drive a Ram 1500 5.7L Hemi for a few thousand miles and get back to me how it compares to the Ford (any engine!).

adamb1

I am having the same experience with my 2014 Fusion Titanium with 2.0 Eco Boost engine. My combined economy is about 4-5 mpg under rating. I have achieved the highway number by letting the adaptive cruise control do its thing on the highway. But, I can't get anywhere close to the city mpg even driving like I have an egg on the pedal.

legacygt

I feel like I'm adding the same comment over and over again. I did this with the 2.0L ecoboost Explorer you had as well. The problem is that the EPA test allows an undersized turbo engine to do very well. I don't mean undersized as in not powerful enough to move the vehicle. I mean undersized as in not powerful enough to move the vehicle without spooling up the turbos all the time. The trick to getting great mpg out of a turbo engine is to keep the revs down to the point where the turbo isn't called upon unless absolutely necessary. (I had a Legacy GT Wagon where I could keep the turbo in check and get essentially the mpg you would expect from a 2.5L naturally aspirated engine but saw significant drops when I called on the turbos for fast acceleration.) But this isn't the formula that Ford (and others) use when they put these small turbo engines in big heavy cars and trucks. These engines are so small that you need to call upon the turbos early and often in order to get any type of acceptable acceleration. My only guess is that the EPA test cycle allows cars to accelerate so slowly that the turbos don't get spooled up as much. There's nothing wrong with these engines. What needs fixing is the EPA test so that the government and consumers understand know what to expect. If the EPA test more closely reflected real world driving I have a feeling we'd see fewer of these powertrains.

misterfusion

Ford should just go back to their originally-intended name for the EcoBoost engine line: TwinForce. Sounds cooler, and it's accurate to boot (or at least not misleading).

legacygt

misterfusion said:

Ford should just go back to their originally-intended name for the EcoBoost engine line: TwinForce. Sounds cooler, and it's accurate to boot (or at least not misleading).

TwinForce is definitely a better name. As for misleading, I find the engineering behind some of the ecoboost applications to be worse than the name. The marketers are simply following the the numbers and when it comes to the EPA numbers, the ecoboost is certainly impressive. A savvy consumer can get past the name but they should be able to put some stock in the mpg numbers on the window sticker or at least apply the 1-2 mpg discount that is generally expected.

bassracerx

legacygt said:

I feel like I'm adding the same comment over and over again. I did this with the 2.0L ecoboost Explorer you had as well. The problem is that the EPA test allows an undersized turbo engine to do very well. I don't mean undersized as in not powerful enough to move the vehicle. I mean undersized as in not powerful enough to move the vehicle without spooling up the turbos all the time. The trick to getting great mpg out of a turbo engine is to keep the revs down to the point where the turbo isn't called upon unless absolutely necessary. (I had a Legacy GT Wagon where I could keep the turbo in check and get essentially the mpg you would expect from a 2.5L naturally aspirated engine but saw significant drops when I called on the turbos for fast acceleration.) But this isn't the formula that Ford (and others) use when they put these small turbo engines in big heavy cars and trucks. These engines are so small that you need to call upon the turbos early and often in order to get any type of acceptable acceleration. My only guess is that the EPA test cycle allows cars to accelerate so slowly that the turbos don't get spooled up as much. There's nothing wrong with these engines. What needs fixing is the EPA test so that the government and consumers understand know what to expect. If the EPA test more closely reflected real world driving I have a feeling we'd see fewer of these powertrains.

But if they revised the EPA tests then the Executive branch does not get to pat themselves on the back for how their heavy-handed legislation increased MPGs of new cars. It will also make their goal of having the average fuel economy being 30whatever by 2030 a lot more difficult not to mention All of the automakers would be lobbying against it because they don't want their Reputation to be tarnished by mpgs dropping off the cliff.

For what its worth i agree with everything you just said.

mtnbiker8

I have a 2013 with the 5.0L V-8 & 4X4. I've never wanted for power and am getting the same mileage Edmunds is with the 2.7 Ecoboost. I'm usually averaging over 19mpg on the freeway if I keep it at or under 70mph. Got 19.1 mpg avg while driving from Jackson, WY to San Antonio, TX for example. I guess the laws of physics trump the laws of marketing after all.

stever

Well, yeah, that's downhill all the way.

Dunno, the bell curve at Fuellycom puts the F-150 5.0LV-8 at 13mph at the height, with others hitting 14 and 15. Not a big data set there though. There's a few more reports for 2.7L owners and most are hitting 18.