2015 Ford F-150 SuperCrew 5.0-Liter Road Test | Edmunds.com

Edmunds.com

The 2015 Ford F-150 is fully redesigned and represents the 13th generation in the model's history. It's now significantly lighter thanks to the use of aluminum body panels. The lineup also gains more refinement and a smaller EcoBoost engine.

Read the full story here

darthbimmer

It's astonishing the conventional 5.0 V8 delivers virtually the same real-world fuel economy as the smaller turbo engine. EcoBoost? How about EcoFail!

g35buf

Not surprised as my 2014 RAM 1500 with the 5.7L got the same numbers as Edmunds F-150 2.7L EcoBoost. I ditched the 5.7L for a 2015 RAM EcoDiesel because I wanted the extreme range and around town mpg (averaging 23.5 mpg after 4,500 miles). I'd definitely stick with the V8s in either the Ford or RAM if going gas. If not towing a lot, RAM's 3.6L V6 is a best choice of the gas options.

temagami

I have a 2014 with the 3.5 turbo. I also have a Chev with a 6.2. Whenever I am doing work, including driving at highway speeds, my 6.2 gets better mileage than the Ford consistently by 1-2 mpg but the 3.5 does have sufficient, similar power and torque. In the city when you are driving stop and go the Ford gets better mileage. A few things I never see mentioned that buyers should be aware of. If you tow and use your transmission to help brake the 3.5 doesn't do much - not enough displacement I assume. It's worse, almost useless, in the mountains. My 6.2 is excellent for transmission braking. I like to drive with the window down and although you don't hear the turbo in a closed cab it is very annoying with the window down if there is anything beside you, even another vehicle, for the sound to bounce off. I'll probably still get the F150 again but next time I'll get the larger displacement and I certainly won't until they get that awful SYNC upgraded.

500rwhp

I get combined 19MPG+ with my 3.5 ecoboost. Great engine. Similar trucks with the 5.0 get nowhere near this. The 5.0 is a good engine, but the 3.5 Ecoboost is great.

gregsfc1

I get what Edmunds is saying about fuel economy. Yes I can see how a large-configured, heavy version of any half ton truck (the only kind that reviewers seem to be reviewing these days) will get truck-like fuel economy; even if it's powered by a small V6. But there is one thing missing here. These manufacturers still make trucks that sell for under $30K that are smaller; not so much cab; not so tall; and certainly not so heavy. In fact, I just bought a brand new 2015 F150 reg. cab, 2wd, short bed with a 3.31 reg rear axle with that same power train; the 2.7 V6 Ecoboost, and I got it with some important convenience features like power glass, cruise control, chrome appearance, remote keyless entry, and aluminum wheels all for about $27K. Yes the dealer had a hard time finding one, but I got one. It has all the important technologies that make the $50K+ truck a good truck except for extra seats, extra bling, and extra connectivity. But it does one thing more. It's about the right size and weight to get this 2.7 to get the fuel economy that the EPA estimate and Ford says it'll get. I'm averaging 23. This motor can do it, but it needs to be paired with a reasonably-size truck, which I'm sure was how it was paired for the EPA estimate. Your just not going to get a gargantuan, heavy truck, that shaped like a block, with a gas motor to get great fuel economy, and that's the dilemma folks are having.

gregsfc1

darthbimmer said:

It's astonishing the conventional 5.0 V8 delivers virtually the same real-world fuel economy as the smaller turbo engine. EcoBoost? How about EcoFail!

I've read that sales are good on Ecoboost for the F150 line. If you want or need only 1/2-ton duty (what half-ton duty used to be about fifteen years ago); and you don't want a weasley, naturally-aspired V6 that auto downshifts on 2% grades even when the bed is empty; you don't want or can't afford a highly-featured, $35K+ diesel, e.g. Ecodiesel or mini Duramax, then the smaller Ecoboost can provide better mpg @ a small upgrade in price from the base engine. I don't think a driver can see 20+ mpg in mixed driving with the 5.0 in any truck configuration.