Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
No Surprises, But 20,000-Mile Goal Comes Months Early - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test
Edmunds.com
Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
No Surprises, But 20,000-Mile Goal Comes Months Early - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test
We added some 1,891 miles to our 2015 Ford F-150 this month, pushing its odometer past the 20,000-mile threshold four months ahead of schedule.
0
Comments
So, which does the Edmunds staff prefer, the Ford or the Ram?
The second was a 1997 with the 4.6V8, super cab, short bed. Estimate was 15-20. My wife drove that truck mostly. Sixty to sixty-five mpg, 28 miles to town and back with no traffic, and a little in town driving in between to run errands. I drove it a little. We averaged 15 (hardly what I'd call city driving) but could get 20 on a trip driving below the speed limit on a long trip. The third was the same design with the 4.2V6 in a 1999 version. Estimate was 16/21; in reality, driving the same way on the same routes by my wife, as she did the '97 she got around 1/2 more mpg in the V6 as the V8. Now we've got the 2015, all aluminum 2.7 Ecoboost and this one will be a keeper for sure, as it's not leased. I'm the primary driver and drive like an old granny, and it looks like I'm going to average around 21 against an estimate of 19/26; 57 mile commute 45-65 mph. The trip computer so far way underestimates the amount of fuel burned, and is therefore around 2 mpg off. Going by the trip meter, it looks like we'll see 22-23 except for really cold weather, however, the trip computer is off by so much because the amount of gas needed to refill exceeds what the comuter shows burned by about 1.5 gallons, and so that puts the real mpg around 20-21.
The point is that all full-size Ford's have fallen well short of the EPA estimate for a long time, and this new Ecoboost falls right in line with the others or maybe just a little worse. I'd say it's possible to get 26 on a long trip of 100 miles or more w/o stopping driving 60 mph, but that's about the only way. And it's important to point out that I've got the lightest and smallest and highest gearing version of the 2.7 available in an F150 and can usually go well above epa esitmates in other type vehicles, but in full-size Fords, I can't meet the EPA estimate, and the trip computer error is a huge disappointment. However, it's a great truck otherwise, except for being a little tall for a 2wd pickup.
I don't think Ford's issue is using a smaller displacement forced induction engine hurting economy, even in a truck like the F-150, but instead the design of said engine. They used really small turbochargers to minimize lag and provide excellent transient response to throttle changes but the small exhaust housing chokes off exhaust flow and increases backpressure. That's likely the much bigger reason the economy isn't as great compared to other turbocharged powertrains.
Looking at the turbochargers specified on a lot of the OEM gasoline applications Ford sized them slightly smaller than normal on their various EcoBoost branded engines. With being able to better tailor the combustion events with direct injection and more importantly with regards to the exhaust driven turbocharger, valve timing/lift, other automakers have been able to tune their smaller displacement turbocharged engines to minimize lag and transient response.
Since Ford was trying to replace larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines with the EcoBoost inline-four and V6 engines, it appears they place a pretty high priority on minimizing any potential turbo lag which decades ago was one of the larger complaints about the technology. The smaller frame turbochargers they specified spool extremely fast due to the small turbine and housing/scroll area but that imparts a slight restriction to exhaust flow which impacts overall volumetric efficiency (air pumping efficiency) of the engine.
It also doesn't leave much overhead in the turbocharger for the aftermarket tuning crowd. That's why the most of the gains are usually in the mid-range torque when rpms and exhaust flow isn't as big of a restriction but there isn't much room left on the top end as the turbo starts to choke off the exhaust flow. If you look at the next generation 2.0L and the 2.3L EcoBoost that evolved from it, they're moving to using more efficient twin-scroll (divided) exhaust housings that are also bigger and should help improve fuel economy when out of boost and compensating for the slightly increased lag with better powertrain calibration (tuning).
It does seem that the Edmunds staff has a little heavier foot than most, but when the truck is driven under the most favorable possible conditions (such as the recent road trip) and it still has trouble meeting EPA ratings I think we can rule out driver variance for the most part.
There aren't any trouble codes set so there isn't a need to take the truck in for diagnosis of a "problem" that could easily be chalked up to the way the truck is driven, but I've suggested at least asking the service manager at the Ford dealer during the next oil change if there are any powertrain controller (software) updates available as Ford seems to continually update and refine their calibrations.
If nothing is "wrong" with the truck then you're left with only a few possible scenarios. Either the gearing or way this particular truck is optioned differs enough from the test truck used for EPA testing to cause a significant difference or it's just the nature of this particular engine in this particular application.
Since other fuel tracking web sites are reporting slightly better economy numbers for some real-world owners it does appear possible that in some configuration and driving styles it can meet the EPA numbers. Yet others are showing similarly poor economy ratings.
If I were buying one of the two EcoBoost turbocharged V6s in an F-150 I'd personally skip the 2.7L and get the 3.5L. It has a little extra displacement and shouldn't need to be in boost as often, has more power in reserve for towing and real-world economy numbers seem about a wash. Either that or get the naturally aspirated 5.0L V8 as all the gas engines in the Ford lineup seem about the same in actual use.
specifically,
https://www.motorcraftservice.com/vdirs/PCMflash/default.asp?pageid=calibration_pub&gutsid=calibration
By doing this any Ford owner can check their calibration level to see if it is the most current.
Unfortunately looking at the mileage in this update I'm guessing they're already processing it out of their fleet (if it hasn't be done already). If not, it would be nice to rule that out before forming an opinion that the 2.7L can't meet economy ratings.