Best Fuel Economy for 2015 Full-Size 4WD Trucks | Edmunds.com

Edmunds.com

Best Fuel Economy for 2015 Full-Size 4WD Trucks | Edmunds.com

Here are the fuel economy numbers for full-size trucks with four-wheel drive: the version that most truck buyers purchase.

Read the full story here

darthbimmer

Comparing window-sticker ratings is of limited relevance when some of the vehicles, like Edmunds' long-term F150 with the 2.7L turbo powertrain, vastly underperform in real-world driving.

500rwhp

darthbimmer said:

Comparing window-sticker ratings is of limited relevance when some of the vehicles, like Edmunds' long-term F150 with the 2.7L turbo powertrain, vastly underperform in real-world driving.

Comparing someone else's real world driving is of limited relevance. These trucks get wildly different numbers in real life than on the EPA circuit due to a number of circumstances, particularly speed. I personally am averaging almost 20mpg with my 2015 2WD Platinum supercrew with the 3.5L ecoboost, which is right in line with the EPA combined rating. If I go a lot above 75MPH, my MPG falls off pretty quickly.

hafcanadian

Something's haywire with your F-150 test truck. A 2.7L turbo getting that lousy of mileage on such a light truck, esp. if even EPA estimates are so much higher - that would tell anyone they need to have the thing checked. And yet you report it here to the public like it's supposed to be representative of the breed. You should at least have given Ford a chance to examine the vehicle's status and address the discrepancy. If working properly, it should have earned an "A".

Then to give the Ram an "A" because its diesel bested all other comers? Diesel fuel usually costs more and so does the engine option; why would you consider mileage your bottom line in the article, for rating purposes, instead of out-of-pocket costs? Nor does the article give specific tested stats we can go by to estimate how various options, such as axle ratios and the extra weight of longer vehicle lengths/configurations, might affect the EPA's and your test numbers.

gregsfc1

I highly doubt something is wrong with the F150 test truck or they're just pushing it unusually hard. I think it's asking a little much and a little overboard requesting that a reviewing company take a test truck that they had bought outright, just like a consumer would go out and buy, and then turn around and question whether or not it's representative of the configuration that they've got. Of course it is. There are just not that many variables from unit to unit unless the tires are nearly flat or they've added something to either substantially add drag or add weight, which I'm sure they have not.

On the other hand, one should consider the technology Ford is using and determine for his or herself whether that technology is going to work as a fuel saver based on his or her needs or wants in a truck. If you take a direct-injection, turbo-charged, gas engine; regardless of what the EPA estimate may or may not show; and laden it down with things that's going to cause this engine to take on extra load, be it weight or drag or gearing, then the technology used to help it beat out other trucks in mpg is going to be diminished. And that's what is showing through with Edmunds truck and the 2.7.

I've got the lightest and smallest and highest-geared version of the 2015 F150, and the 2.7 liter Ecoboost, and unlike their woeful results Edmunds is finding with a steroided version of this truck (which is admittedly what most people buy), I'm getting just a little more than the combined rating of 22, sitting right now at 23.6, driving conservatively. But keep in mind, my truck weighs in at less than 4200 lbs; has 3.31 gearing; is 2wd; and is a short bed at only 122" wheel base.

The point I'm making is that Ford's strategy has the power and torque to make it very acceptable in all configurations and driving styles from a performance standpoint, however, for this truck to excel at mpg, it has to be babied and it helps if its a baby version of the truck.