Fuel Economy Update for November - Lifetime Average Still Improving - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road
Edmunds.com
Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
Fuel Economy Update for November - Lifetime Average Still Improving - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test
This long-term update to Edmunds 2015 Ford F-150 details the truck's fuel economy through November 2015.
0
Comments
A V8 Chevy or RAM will get 16 mpg or better. I had a 2014 RAM 5.7 and it did get mid 16s in mostly suburban stop and go. My current EcoDiesel RAM actually is 'Eco' and gets 22.5 mpg overall.
I honestly wanted to consider the F-150 with the 2.7T when buying the last RAM > but what are the actual benefits > other than V8 like performance and V8 like mileage?
A few months ago I was using the truck during a deer hunt and got into a pickle with some really muddy trails. The truck went sliding down the trail into some rocks and trees and there was a bit of a crunch to the metal around the bumper and rear tire. When I got home, I took a hammer and a piece of wood, gave it a few smacks and the creases popped back to pretty much where they started. Not sure what would have happened had the metal been aluminum...
So the new F150 2.7 gets slightly better mileage than my old 5.4 V8 4WD with off road tires. But my F150 is paid for, has never had a problem, has plenty of power for my uses and shows no signs of giving up. I couldn't imagine a reason why I'd go $40k+ into debt to get the new truck, and the uncertainties of the new engines and metal, when I can't really figure out what the benefits are.
"Fuel economy has been worse than expected throughout this truck's lifetime, but the data shows no degradation after the suspect oil change, as one might expect with the crankshaft stirring up all of that extra fluid."
Too bad the Chevy or Ram V8s dont have as much power and dont perform as well at high altitudes.....that is the benefit. More power where you need it: TQ down low AND HP up higher. The ED is a wheezer pulling a heavy load at freeway speeds. And please spare us the BS that the GM/Ram V8s are any more reliable either, its not true. All of the fanbois said the 3.5 EB was going to be a bad engine for trucks and would never hold up.....and they were wrong, again.
When gasoline is as cheap as it is now, the diesel engine will take many many years and miles before making it as economical in the long run considering the cost of maint etc. I guess if one tows heavy loads at city speeds and one requires the best MPGs the ED has some merits. The Colorado diesel could not even hit 60 MPH in a 1/4 mile in the MT COTY tests pulling a heavy load, now THAT is "Unacceptable". Trucks need HP as well as TQ to be a good all around performer.
Ummmm, what "uncertainties"? Aluminum is hardly some mystery metal and the 3.5EB has proven to be just as tough as the early vids with Mike Rowe showed them to be. The 2.7 was engineered the same way. I dont blame you for not wanting to get rid of a perfectly good truck at all but one really cant compare the performance of the old 5.4 (awesome engine) to the 2.7. Apples and oranges. The 2.7 is more powerful in all situations and gets better MPG in a truck that is a strong improvement over the steel F150.......
I can't remember now which configuration and drive Edmunds has but and is testing. I desired and bought a reg cab, 2wd, short-bed, with the highest available gearing @ 3.31, which would more or less be about as light and as little and as high geared as one can get in a F150 with this engine in 2015 at or just a little more than 4168 lbs of curb weight. I think for 2016, it's dropped another 30 lbs. or so.
I can tell that it would be very easy to get poor mpg as this truck really wants to take off, however, using a very light foot, which is practical with this engine and its higher low-end grunt than a typical V6 and even some V8s with those turbos spinning just a little, as it will accelerate and maintain speeds on hills with little pedal pressure and very smooth transitions to higher gears just barely pushing; and having hauled only one large item since owning it; and after around 2,600 miles; I'm so far averaging 23.4. My worst is 21.4 and my best is 24.4. My commute is ideal in a very rural area with speed limits from 45-65 in my 30-mile, one-way route through one small town with five traffic lights, but hardly any traffic. I've used the truck some for city driving, but I have to drive 13 miles to get to the city in a 65 / 55 speed limit 4-lane state highway--again, ideal.
The GOOD! Overall, I'm satisfied. After reading reviews like this one and realizing that I'd be getting a lesser truck than most of the trucks that have been reviewed, and knowing how I usually achieve somewhat better than most in most vehicles, I was expecting at least 19 and hoping for 21. Probably, for regular, empty-bed commuting at reasonable speeds for my area, I'm going to settle in at about 22.5. Also, I've noticed that I think this truck, in this configuration, with me driving, could probably exceed the city estimate, and that I could probably hit between 19 and 20 for city driving. I also love the low-end torque I referred to earlier for daily driving. It's like driving a V8 when tooling around town and on the highway on rolling hills, as it has no more propensity to downshift than a V8 even with the 3.31 gearing; yet I don't think there is a V8 out there that can achieve what I'm getting in this truck, as long as I stay conscious of fuel economy.
The BAD! Well, I gave up a diesel car for this truck. The car would get 47 in the summer on a highway trip and better than 40 city driving in the winter time no matter how I drove it, and that's what I miss about a right-powered diesel. I could drive it hard or drive it easy and still get great mpg, but this truck being a turbo-charged gas sucker, which helps it suck in more gas when called upon to do so, really hurts it in that regard, so it's like I have a choice. But even driving conservatively, it's still a refined driving experience due to the low torque.
Also BAD is that it absolutely will not achieve 26 on the highway. I can get around 25 in good weather @ 65 mph. At 70 and up, it probably goes down to around 24 or even worse.
I wish the emission thing for diesels could have gotten figured out with some new, cheap technology, and an OEM would have put one of those diesels that are in the commercial vans in a pickup, or if one of the commercial vans were configured with a pickup box at a reasonable price. Then that sub-200 hp, 300+ torque, 4 cylinder, diesel pickup at or near 30 mpg would have been my truck. But unfortunately, we live in this world. Even so, an Ecoboost can be pretty economical when it's not overburdened with weight (i.e. 4wd, super cab, and lots of bling), when it's not driven in a sporty manner and one knows how to take advantage of the direct injection turbo system letting the torque drive the truck; and it's geared high. I'm living proof.
Just like Edmunds though, I found the calculated mpg by the computer to be way off. Sometimes off as much as 2 mpg optimistic, so you have to use the pumped gas figure from the gas pump to be accurate as possible when figuring mpg, as the computer way underestimates the gas consumed figure while driving.
So why is the lifetime average fuel economy going up if you found no difference?
After 21k miles I am showing an indicated average of 19.8MPG which in real life is a touch over 18 based on spot calculations. This with the biggest version of the truck and 3.73 gears......and very little highway miles.