Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Fuel Economy Update for May - 20-MPG Combined Rating Still Out Of Reach - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
edited June 2015 in Ford
imageFuel Economy Update for May - 20-MPG Combined Rating Still Out Of Reach - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

We added more than 2,400 miles to our 2015 Ford F-150 this May, but its lifetime average fuel economy still significantly lags behind its EPA combined rating.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • handbrakehandbrake Member Posts: 99
    My 09 5.4 F150 4x4 gets significantly better mileage. Since I don't race my pickup, I don't care that the 2.7 is quicker. I go off road a lot and range matters. Ford can keep the turbos.
  • s197gts197gt Member Posts: 486
    edited June 2015
    do they still offer the 5.0 V8? probably would be the engine i would spring for if i were in the market; presuming they have it in the trim and options i wanted.

    otherwise i might just go with a chevy and the 5.3 V8. i'd pretty much avoid the ecoboost engines unless i lived at elevation. but i am so not the target market.
  • newcrowynewcrowy Member Posts: 2
    It must really depend on how you use your truck. It looks like when you tow, the ecoboost is not good on gas. I have 2,000miles on my 2015 2.7 and I use my truck as my daily commute and family hauling. I think I get good mileage, at least similar and a little better than my 2012 Sorrento that I traded in. I got a total average of 19mpg, and I usually get 23mpg on family trips.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    Turbo gasoline engine + big heavy vehicle simply does not equal good gas mileage. If I am going to pay a premium for a more efficient engine, make it a diesel. So far all the LT test has shown is that the 5.0 is the better option on this vehicle.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    A friend of mine will be driving from Sacramento to Chicago in a couple weeks in his recently acquire F150 Super Crew with the 3.5EB. I will be interested to hear what his mileage turns out to be.
  • allthingshondaallthingshonda Member Posts: 878
    Well that sucks. GM's 5.3 V8 seems to get closer to the advertised mileage. Their bet on using 4 cylinder mode to save fuel seems to work.
  • legacygtlegacygt Member Posts: 599
    edited June 2015
    It's been said many times here (including by me) that Ford's approach to putting undersized turbos in heavy vehicles is a cynical numbers game aimed to improve CAFE but not necessarily benefit customers. I would love to see Edmunds spend some time with the 3.5 Ecoboost, the naturally aspirated V6 and even the V8. It would not surprise me if any or all of those beat the 2.7 Ecoboost in real world efficiency.
  • 500rwhp500rwhp Member Posts: 99
    bankerdanny said:

    Turbo gasoline engine + big heavy vehicle simply does not equal good gas mileage. If I am going to pay a premium for a more efficient engine, make it a diesel. So far all the LT test has shown is that the 5.0 is the better option on this vehicle.

    Hooey. My mileage overall for the last 4k miles is over 20mpg for my 3.5EB supercrew with the 6.5' bed. My previous 5.4L equipped F150 had around 16.8 with the exact same driving style. This truck gets 20MPG consistently, and only if driven 80MPH plus on the highway or in stop and go urban traffic can I get it below 20MPG.
  • socal_ericsocal_eric Member Posts: 189
    Since EPA numbers don't factor towing into consideration but many people who buy trucks might tow, it's great to see the towing numbers as well as the breakdown of lifetime averages so far with and without towing. I don't expect full size trucks to sip fuel but this engine, while having a nice torque curve doesn't seem to be much if any better than the V8 option if economy is a priority. I'd also suspect even the bigger 3.5L EcoBoost V6 with its added displacement would get better economy numbers in the real world.
  • escape23escape23 Member Posts: 3
    Not sure what these guys are doing with their truck. I have a XLT version 4x4 Super Crew and I am getting between 20.5-22MPG on mine.
  • fireinth3holefireinth3hole Member Posts: 3
    I think these guys are out there having fun with it because fun can be had, then saying "Huh I don't know why I got 14 mpg today, I only drove 10 miles, 1/2 at WOT"?
  • fireinth3holefireinth3hole Member Posts: 3
    The 3.73 rear end does play a large factor in the lower MPGs, you really cannot get up on the highway and maintain any speed over 70 and get more than 17 or 18 (at least w/ the 3.5l) except maybe in an area where it is nothing but flat. If these guys are riding at 85 because the truck loves to cruise there, then that would explain it. When you are getting that kind of HWY economy it becomes very difficult to offset the poor fuel economy from joyriding and towing. That being said my 3.5l EB SuperCrew 6.5' bed w/ 3.55 rear end easily gets over 20 on the interstate and I have had gotten close to 30 on rural HWY trips of 40-50 miles so the capability is definitely there I just don't think these reviewers are interested in getting it.
  • kevin197kevin197 Member Posts: 2
    my 2015 F-150 supercrew with 6.5' box and tonneau cover
    24.3 mpg, 70 mph highway run on 89 octane
    21.9 mpg, 70 mph highway run on 87 octane
    22.5 mpg overall year to date using as daily commuter, some highway, some city

    Switching to 89 octane now, it is only $0.12 more per gallon and will pay off it seems.
  • kevin197kevin197 Member Posts: 2
    Sorry it is a supercab and 2.7L eco engine.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles