Fuel Economy Update for February — Holding Steady After 30,000 Miles - 2015 Ford F-150

Edmunds.com

Fuel Economy Update for February — Holding Steady After 30,000 Miles - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Our 2015 Ford F-150 has amassed more than 30,000 miles, and some 10,000 miles have passed since we found it was overfilled with oil.

Read the full story here

handbrake

Roughly the same MPG as my 09 5.4 4x4 F150. There are two ways of looking at this...the 2.7 delivers a ton more speed than the old school V8 for no worse fuel economy OR all of that technology (small turbo engine and aluminium galore) sure does cost more and complicate everything, but if you drive a truck as a truck (rather than as a sports car), it is a waste of money. Maybe in the case of extreme towing the 2.7 makes sense, but for normal use I just don't see the benefits.

daryleason

And so we're back to my point that the EcoBoost isn't all that great for fuel economy. This truck is very similar to my truck. The difference is that mine is 2WD and the Edmunds' F-150 is 4WD. I'm not sure, but I think both have the 3.77 rear end. I think the EcoBoost is a good engine, I just don't see the value of it over the 5.0 Coyote. Eventually, both engines are going to need to be over-hauled. With mine, it's just the engine & transmission I'll have to worry about. With the EcoBoost, it'll be the engine, turbo, and transmission.

longtimelurker

No modern engine that is taken care of is going to need to be overhauled before it has 200,000 miles on it, nor any modern transmission nor any modern turbocharger. This is a non-issue.

People can easily see the value of a turbocharged diesel that has tons of low-rpm torque, for a truck, but they can't see the value of a turbo gas engine that has tons of low-rpm torque AND high-rpm power, for a truck. This engine has the same torque 1800 - 4500 rpm that the Coyote has at 3500. For a vehicle that can tow 9,000 lbs., that would seem to me to have some value.

daryleason

@longtimelurker : I get it that engines, transmissions, and so forth last longer now than they did 20, 30, 50 years ago. I'm not that old (almost 38), but I remember when cars didn't have much life after they hit 90,000. So I definitely appreciate the quality that we're now getting. But, assuming both engines will eventually have about the same amount of life-time (assuming approximately the same type of use), when it IS time to start replacing parts, you now have an extra part to worry about, the Turbo.

As for the towing capacity, what most people don't understand about the tow-rating is that it doesn't include the braking capacity. If you load a truck up to max weight towing, your brakes are normally not up to the task. Its why a lot of used vehicles have an issue with warped rotors after they've been used for towing heavy loads. However, my F-150, with the towing package, can tow about that. Close enough to not be an issue.

My main issue is that Ford touts the EcoBoost as the fuel efficient option for V8 Power, with gas sipping economy. But it's not really that way. While the Edmunds F-150 takes a hit for the 4x4 option, it's also got an aluminum body, which should help it. Instead, it's under what I'm getting with a steel body and a V8 on a 2WD.

bohio

Nearly 32k cumulative miles driven, and nearly 1 MPG below the CITY driving fuel economy rating overall? That is inexcusable. Ford and the EPA should be held accountable for false advertising or whatever punitive measures are appropriate. Had I bought a Ford, it would have been with their V8, which actually may achieve its touted fuel economy (which isn't great, but at least it's not flagrantly dishonest).

ballsonchin

I get better mpg then with a very similar truck. The 2.7 is great for towing and if you buy a truck for fuel economy your a putz. Everyone knows the Eco part of ecoboost is a stretch. Can we move on now?

ballsonchin

The turbo comments are like giant red flags that your automotive knowalge is based on stuff you read in 1990. The turbos are not failing.

daryleason

@ballsonchin : If it moves, it breaks. It's not a question of "if" but of "when." Yes, longevity has increased drastically in the last few decades, but since I tend to keep my vehicles WAY longer than most people (I'm one of those guys who's goal is ten years or better on a vehicle), I do consider rebuild/replace costs. I hate financing vehicles. So when I buy, I buy a vehicle that's going to be able to wrack up miles. I don't replace them until the repair costs start getting into an area where it's more cost-effective to purchase a new vehicle that's under warranty and start over. And even then, I tend to keep a fairly decent former daily driver for the "knock-about" vehicle, such as a spare. The absurd belief that "turbos are not failing" is either misplaced (meaning I was saying that there was an issue with the new turbos" or an unfounded belief that the bearing in the turbos will never fail.

bankerdanny

Given the number of EB engines Ford is selling, down the road replacement re-man turbos are going to be plentiful and relatively inexpensive. I simply would not be concerned about turbo related reliability or replacement cost issues were I trying to decide EB vs Coyote.

actualsize

Stayed tuned for more on the EB vs. Coyote issue...

ballsonchin

daryleason said:

@ballsonchin : If it moves, it breaks. It's not a question of "if" but of "when." Yes, longevity has increased drastically in the last few decades, but since I tend to keep my vehicles WAY longer than most people (I'm one of those guys who's goal is ten years or better on a vehicle), I do consider rebuild/replace costs. I hate financing vehicles. So when I buy, I buy a vehicle that's going to be able to wrack up miles. I don't replace them until the repair costs start getting into an area where it's more cost-effective to purchase a new vehicle that's under warranty and start over. And even then, I tend to keep a fairly decent former daily driver for the "knock-about" vehicle, such as a spare. The absurd belief that "turbos are not failing" is either misplaced (meaning I was saying that there was an issue with the new turbos" or an unfounded belief that the bearing in the turbos will never fail.

Of course the turbo will fail at some point but not to the degree most claim. You can use the argument that the eco V6 with 2 additional turbos has 8 less valves 8 less valve springs 2 less pistons..... the list goes on and in the end its a foolish argument. Again the turbo argument is based on ignorance or holding on to information from 1990's. I worked as a transit bus mechanic for 6 years. I didnt change a lot of turbos. It was not un common to have to see 400,000 miles on a original turbo. The ones that failed...... a few hours in the shop and they were back on the road.

thecardoc3

When serviced correctly turbos do last, however the service that your busses normally got, compared to how most people service their daily driver leaves a lot to be desired. Time will tell when it comes down to what the average lifespan of the turbo chargers will be. I'll be surprised if we aren't seeing lots of failures in a few years.

gregsfc1

The Edmunds long-term mpg review is as careful and as thorough as one can expect from such a test, and admittedly, it is disappointing and valid. However, it shows only that configuring this truck in a 4WD, mid-trim level, mid-level gearing, using it a certain way will provide only slightly better than average mpg. But this does not come close to showing consumers how well this power train can perform FE wise in a different set up where there is less load, and certainly not as much boost going on.

I've got my own personal, long-term mpg test going on in a 2WD, standard cab, short wheel base, and 3.31 standard rear axle. My F150 with the 2.7 is the second lightest available @ or about 4168 curb weight pounds. Additionally, my truck primary use is a commuter vehicle, but I absolutely need a truck for the weekend projects and for hauling home yard sale stuff and hauling off junk. The 2.7 adds $799 to the base price of an F150, so unlike competitors advanced engines, Ford lets one have it in minimalist configurations and at a small premium, and even if it gets only roughly the same FE as the base engine, all that extra torque, and the RPM at which that torque comes along makes it well worth that extra 800 bucks due to the far superior driving pleasure it provides.

I just achieved my highest mpg tank to date @ 25.4, and this was at least 10% city driving. My worst so far is 21.7, and my average has climbed to 24. Unlike the Edmund's review, I am not reporting any one-direction only tanks, as that scenario should never be reported. I did, however, take notice of one error that Edmunds did not that has slightly boosted my average and that is that my trip meter loses a consistent 1.8% to any GPS, so I add 1.5% each time so as to be conservative in my reporting.

The point I'm making is that this technology can, we mated in a more advantageous way, absolutely blow away any V8 in a similar configuration in a conservative driving style with respect to mpg with similar performance and refinement. I took a chance on my truck with this engine choice, as the diesel options from two other brands were way out of my price range and way more truck than what I needed.