Oregon Road Trip Leg 3 - From Star Wars to Animal House and a 20-MPG Tank In Between - 2015 Ford F-1

Edmunds.com

Oregon Road Trip Leg 3 - From Star Wars to Animal House and a 20-MPG Tank In Between - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Leg three of my summer road trip produced the best fuel economy our 2015 Ford F-150 has ever managed, but our 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 still isn't impressing with its MPG.

Read the full story here

kirkhilles1

Wow, such an impressive MPG from a 2.7 liter V6 engine. Yeah, definitely. It's 1995, right?

bankerdanny

I've been hearing F-150 commercials on the radio lately, Dennis Leary is rattling off things like "you want best in class towing, load, mileage.. that's what you want, everything? ok, what color? or ok, longbed or short bed" Is if all these things are available in one version version, but the z-copy that follows mentions towing is with the 3.5EB, and load with the 5.0 and MPG with the 2.7EB.

I just feel like Ford has gone beyond simple advertising hype into actual deliberate deception. It really turns me away from the F-150. Although the performance of the LT Ram has been doing that anyway.

daryleason

My question about the EPA rating. From what I understand, and have heard, the EPA rating is based on a short engine run where the top speed never exceeds 55 mph, based on when the Federal Speed Limit for Interstates was 55 mph. I'm not saying the F-150 isn't the truck version of an alcoholic uncle, but isn't it true that the EPA ratings really don't account for 70 +/- speeds?

quadricycle

daryleason said:

My question about the EPA rating. From what I understand, and have heard, the EPA rating is based on a short engine run where the top speed never exceeds 55 mph, based on when the Federal Speed Limit for Interstates was 55 mph. I'm not saying the F-150 isn't the truck version of an alcoholic uncle, but isn't it true that the EPA ratings really don't account for 70 +/- speeds?

Have a look for yourself:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

allthingshonda

At this point we know that none of the EB engines meet their EPA numbers. To me, if I were buying this truck, I'm more concerned about the all new engine's reliability and durability. If it holds up and proves to be a strong tough little engine I would buy it.

socal_eric

The EPA ratings changed in 2008. If this truck would have been built and rated before that point in time the economy numbers would be even higher.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml


Info on how the EPA tests:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

daryleason

Thanks for the links everyone. So looking at the numbers, the layout is relatively unrealistic. They really only hit higher speeds for a moment. Plus, due to the number of the vehicles they test, the durations are relatively short. No wonder EPA numbers can be so far off for so many different vehicles.

actualsize

The current EPA test is comprised of 5 cycles, not just two.

I wrote this http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/explained-2008-epa-fuel-economy-ratings.html stripped-down piece in 2007, when the new 5-cycle tests were just introduced.

Two of them, the FTP (city) and HFET (highway) date back to the 1980s, and they are used unchanged today -- processional acceleration rates, comically low speeds, lack of climate control use, moderate temperatures, and all. The three additional tests were supposed to set things right. But the cold FTP is simply the FTP test conducted again at chilled temperatures with the heater on. That left two tests to capture higher speeds, more realistic acceleration and hot weather with the use of air conditioning. These are known as US06 and SC03.

Before, the City window sticker value came from the FTP result and the highway number came from the HFET value. Simple corrections that lopped off a straight percentage were added at one point after an earlier round of complaints about the numbers being too high. Some years later, the complaining ratcheted up again and the current scheme of 5-cycle testing was born. Carmakers learn how to game (maximize results by a very close and careful examination of the rules, then designing to suit) the system, it seems.

Today, a series of complicated equations use weighted amounts of all 5 results to generate the City, Highway and Combined numbers.

Interestingly, Canada has only just adopted 5-cycle testing this year. If you can read through the liters and kilometers, you'll see a pretty good comparison of the two here on the Mazda Canada website, of all places.

http://www.mazda.ca/en/about/5-cycle-fuel-testing/

There are still no mountains or hills, no headwinds, tailwinds or crosswinds, and to someone's point, the total duration of any one test amounts to no more than a dozen or two miles. Meanwhile, the typical tankful is over 300 miles (or double that in the Ford) during which time all sorts of driving is stirred in together. That's why we tend to focus on EPA combined instead of city or highway.

Except, of course, for a road trip like this.

socal_eric

Another thing to keep in mind is the EPA doesn't necessarily test every car. The manufacturer will test or have their vehicles certified at a testing facility and provide those results to the EPA for review (similar to how NHTSA doesn't crash test every vehicle and instead relies on certified testing reports to assign safety ratings). I haven't seen any numbers recently, but the EPA does verify a small number of the manufacturer provided results.

I believe this process was partially responsible for the inflated economy numbers at Hyundai and Ford over the last few years that caused those manufacturers to re-rate some of their models. For Ford with the Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid for example, they provided the same results to the EPA due to arcane regulations that allowed similar vehicles with the same powertrains to only be tested once.

opfreak

the hyudai got ~30 on a long drive (vs 35 epa), and edmunds said that was acceptable. The truck got 20.8 (vs 23epa) and thats bad.

stever

That "standardized fuel" mentioned in the Mazda Canada link is "pure" gas that us mere mortals don't pump into our tanks. I recall that it's of higher standards than even the ethanol free stuff; not sure if the BTUs are higher than what is typically pumped on the street.

That said, I usually meet or beat the EPA estimates.

quadricycle

opfreak said:

the hyudai got ~30 on a long drive (vs 35 epa), and edmunds said that was acceptable. The truck got 20.8 (vs 23epa) and thats bad.

Yes.

The Hyundai got that number on a road trip that was described as some city driving. Maybe a little low, but the car is averaging about 8.6% under its combined rating. So no big deal.

The F-150 is averaging 19% under its combined rating, which is atrocious. It was driven on this all highway trip under extremely favorable conditions, including higher octane gas(!), and still came in 9.6% lower than the highway rating.

So yes, that's bad.

explorerx4

If fuel mileage was an important comparison point head to head with the Ram, why didn't Edmunds buy an F150 that was spec'ed closer to an EPA test model? I doubt if it was tested with a 3.73 rear axle, more like a 3.31.
My wife has an Escape with pretty much everything, 2.0 ecoboost, 19 inch wheels, pano roof, roof rails, cross bars, and power hatch. she is getting 1.5 mpg better that the 09 Limited she drove before that.
I also have a 2013 Escape with the 2.0, have 18 inch wheels and none of the other previously mentioned features. I'm getting about 2 mpg better than her 2013.
The Ram is a great combo for max fuel mileage, but it would sweat racing a Corolla to 60 mph.
Edmunds F150 is a hotrod.

actualsize

It's not quite like that. The standard axle ratio for the 2.7-liter EcoBoost 4x4 is 3.55, so 3.73 isn't a ridiculous gear. And the rating is an amalgam of both of these anyway. I won't deny this puts us on the wrong side of the rating, but this effect isn't that big when unloaded. This is not why we're running a full 3.5 mpg off the combined rating after nearly 18,000 miles.

explorerx4

I've looked at a lot of window stickers and seen some with 3.31's on them, but they are not the 2.7. Base is a 3.55 as you noted. If I get an F150, I'll be able to do my own test. assuming I get an ecoboost model. The 3 2.0's we have are all powerful and get good mileage.
I just looked it up. Edmunds averaged 17.4 mpg for their long term test of the Silverado 2WD.

actualsize

Yes, a 5.3-liter V8. And I think that had a tow package axle ratio, too. Meanwhile, we ended July at 16.2 with the 2.7 EcoBoost 4x4, though I daresay this 2,800-mile all-highway (more or less) road trip is going to move the average up a bit. The early math suggests 16.7 mpg.

explorerx4

Here are the Edmunds performance numbers.
Silverado 2WD 5.3
0-60 6.9
1/4 15.0 @92.9
(GMC AWD 0-60 8.0)

Ram 4WD 3.0
0-60 8.7
1/4 16.4 @81.0

Toyota Corolla Eco 1.8
0-60 9.2
1/4 16.9 @83.9

F150 2.7
0-60 6.4
1/4 14.7 @93.7

Yes, the Ford is a comparative hotrod.