Oregon Road Trip Leg 1 - Improvised Cargo Protection and a 638-Mile Tank - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,237
edited August 2015 in Ford
imageOregon Road Trip Leg 1 - Improvised Cargo Protection and a 638-Mile Tank - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

We take our long-term 2015 Ford F-150 on a long road trip, but have to improvise our open-bed cargo situation. Our early fuel economy results are not very impressive.

Read the full story here


  • ebeaudoinebeaudoin NE IllinoisMember Posts: 509
    This will be interesting!
  • misterfusionmisterfusion Member Posts: 471
    Good call on the premium. In my experience, the benefits (even in non-turbo engines) exceed the sole disadvantage (cost).

    I'm curious to hear about the passenger comfort in the F-150 on such a long trip, especially where your carsickness-prone passengers are concerned.
  • spdracerutspdracerut Member Posts: 8
    I'm going to say that switching to 91 octane will do the trick. My company has a 2015 WRX as one of our fleet cars. The previous person put in 87 oct and with me finishing up the tank on a straight highway cruise, I was getting 26mpg. Literally right after I tanked up with 91 octane, the mpg jumped to 29mpg; again, straight highway cruise, so light load. ~10% gain in fuel economy (not to mention improved power and response) for ~5% increase in fuel cost. So actually saving money by using 91 oct and it's significantly more powerful. All around win.

    We've also had the gasoline turbo Chevy Cruze and Ford Taurus SHO. Same stories for both cars; ~10% fuel economy benefit using 91 oct vs. 87 oct.

    So, in my opinion, those advertised number from Ford should really be stated as for using 91 octane.
  • prndlolprndlol Member Posts: 140
    The bed 'trunk' is a pretty brilliant idea. Premium fuel however, is not. I'll bet it returns less than a 1 mpg gain.
Sign In or Register to comment.