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

Making a Move to Rainy Rose City - Part 2 - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
edited February 2016 in Ford
imageMaking a Move to Rainy Rose City - Part 2 - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test

I drove the 2015 Ford F-150 from Los Angeles to Portland and back to facilitate my girlfriend's move to a new city.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • daryleasondaryleason Member Posts: 501
    It's nice to see the average MPG rating on the F-150 climbing. I know before they discovered the oil fill issue, that it was horrible. Right now, it's about what I'm getting with my steel bodied 2013 SuperCrew with the 5.0 V8. I think, if the trend continues, it'll surpass it, but not by much. As it stands, it might be worth it for the smaller EcoBoost, but I doubt most people will recover the cost expenditure for the larger EcoBoost, unless they do a LOT Of heavy towing. Otherwise, either the smaller EcoBoost or the Coyote would be the way to go.
  • ebeaudoinebeaudoin Member Posts: 509
    daryleason said:

    It's nice to see the average MPG rating on the F-150 climbing. I know before they discovered the oil fill issue, that it was horrible. Right now, it's about what I'm getting with my steel bodied 2013 SuperCrew with the 5.0 V8. I think, if the trend continues, it'll surpass it, but not by much. As it stands, it might be worth it for the smaller EcoBoost, but I doubt most people will recover the cost expenditure for the larger EcoBoost, unless they do a LOT Of heavy towing. Otherwise, either the smaller EcoBoost or the Coyote would be the way to go.

    That seems to be the consensus on a F-150 forum I frequent. The 5.0 is for people who want a trucky-truck motor with V8 sounds; the 2.7L is for most buyers, people who commute in the truck but want acceptable MPG; the 3.5EB is for people who tow frequently as the torque is a boon for towing; and the 3.5NA is for fleets or people who like to keep it simple.
  • daryleasondaryleason Member Posts: 501
    edited February 2016
    I've driven two 2015 F-150s now. One had the 3.5 liter NA, which is an absolute gas-guzzling hog of a motor in that truck. The other was the 3.5 EB. It's better than the NA, but worse on gas than my 5.0. However, both were rentals and I have no clue if part of the problem could have been over-filling the oil on the EB. If the 2.7 Liter can redeem itself fuel economy wise, it might be viable. In fact, I think it's cheaper than the 5.0 now. I know a lot of the driving has to do with loading and how aggressive you drive. I typically average about 19 mpg, but I also tend to run 75-80 mph a lot. If I keep the speed at about 65 mph, I know I can eek out 22-23 mpg combined (but still mainly highway). My only other real issue with the redesign is the way it looks. The front grill screams "Suburu" to me. And I don't care for the dash layout. It "protrudes" more into the cabin than my 2013, which makes the cabin feel smaller. Plus, you can tell they went cheaper on some of the interior components to off-set the cost of the aluminum.
  • opfreakopfreak Member Posts: 106
    gas mileage nearly that of the renegaded.....
  • agentorangeagentorange Member Posts: 893
    I see way too much using the phone taking pictures instead of driving in this report.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    For the same money I would rather have your EcoDiesel Ram than the EcoBoost Ford, since it actually lives up to the 'eco' portion of the name.
  • g35bufg35buf Member Posts: 89
    Worst tank EVER on my 2015 EcoDiesel RAM Laramie (crew and 4WD, so heaviest possible version) is 20.0 mpg which included 300 miles of towing a 5,000 lb boat and driving around town...It does the Eco part...I guarantee on this run to Portland as described, 25 mpg would be worse case scenario. I know there are other elements to owning the EcoDiesel like the expensive oil changes (I did mine DIY last weekend - $107 for oil and filter and that was the best possible scenario - although super easy to work on) but the fuel economy is as stated by RAM or better.

  • cobrysoncobryson Member Posts: 110
    "Various signs alerted me about detouring miles before getting to this point, but like most Amber Alerts, I basically ignore them."

    That's...a pretty disrespectful thing to say, no? I hope you never have a child abducted or something.
  • daryleasondaryleason Member Posts: 501
    @cobryson : perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words for someone to choose. But, even you have to admit, the Amber Alerts tend to fall into the category of car alarms. When they first came out, if someone heard a car alarm, they'd go look, then call the police if they saw someone messing with the car. Now, if a car alarm goes off, if people do anything, they just scream "Turn that off!". Nowadays, the only benefit to a car alarm is that it's loud enough to make someone too disoriented to steal the car (if they're unskilled) or limit the theft to a quick smash and grab. I think the Amber Alerts are somewhat similar now. When they first came out, people would actively look for the child. Now, I see so many people just glance at the phone, then go back to what they were doing. It probably doesn't help that most of the time, the description is something along the lines of "16 year old female, missing, last seen with 19 year old male, may have left area blah blah blah" which means that most people assume that Mom & Dad don't approve of their underage daughter having sex with whoever the guy is, so they filed a police report (not saying they're wrong, but it's true).
  • cobrysoncobryson Member Posts: 110
    @daryleason I understand that's most people's reaction-but it's pretty crass to seem almost proud of it. Many of them may be false alarms, but all it takes is 10 seconds to look at the vehicle description and plate. If you see it, call it in, that's all there is. A car alarm is simply a possession, that can be replaced...an Amber alert is a child, after all.

    I realize I'm probably more biased than most-I actually happened to grow up in the neighborhood where the "Amber" from the alerts was abducted, at the same age.
  • daryleasondaryleason Member Posts: 501
    @cobryson: First, I lived in Mesquite when all this happened with Amber. So I can sort of understand the proximity association. Abducting a child is horrible, I don't think anyone would deny that. I didn't post the original comment, and I'm not arguing that you think it's crass. That's a matter of interpretation. I don't think he meant it to be offensive, though. Nor do I believe he was making light of child abduction, I think, while misguided, he was commenting on the (sadly) high proclivity of Amber Alerts and most people's reactions to them. It was an off-hand comment, perhaps as a poor attempt at humor, and nothing more.
  • cobrysoncobryson Member Posts: 110
    @daryleason I don't mean to imply you had anything to do with it, and I'm sure the author didn't mean to be offensive or anything like that. It just felt like an odd comment to me, and certainly unnecessary as it's unrelated to the point of the post. It comes across as disrespectful to me, and I'm not usually bothered by most mildly offensive things that everyone seems to be ready to attack these days.

    To me, it seems like a situation where the journalist should spend a little more time reflecting on the perception of their writing, and edit accordingly.
  • nagantnagant Member Posts: 176
    g35buf said:

    Worst tank EVER on my 2015 EcoDiesel RAM Laramie (crew and 4WD, so heaviest possible version) is 20.0 mpg which included 300 miles of towing a 5,000 lb boat and driving around town...It does the Eco part...I guarantee on this run to Portland as described, 25 mpg would be worse case scenario. I know there are other elements to owning the EcoDiesel like the expensive oil changes (I did mine DIY last weekend - $107 for oil and filter and that was the best possible scenario - although super easy to work on) but the fuel economy is as stated by RAM or better.

    You had to spend how much to get more "economy"? If the price was even close, you might have a case to brag....but the 2.7EB is $795 on every model, INCUDING the cheapie XL 2WD for a price of $27,223. The cheapest RAM ED is $36,400 (Sport reg cab) with $500 cash on the hood, so there is almost a $10K difference for an engine with more HP and almost the same TQ at the same RPMS. The 2.7 will out pull the ED at any elevation as well. My point is that with gas prices as low as they are, there is no compelling reason to get the ED over the 2.7. If gas was $4 a gallon, then maybe. Even in the Ram line, the Hemi is only $1195 (pretty expensive for such an old engine) so that makes the price difference at least $6K. If the ED was a $2K or even $3K option then it makes a better case for its self, but not at $6
  • nagantnagant Member Posts: 176
    edit above: the cheapest RAM is Tradesman (not sport) $37.880 WITH $1000 cash on the hood. And the cheapest Ford XL is $27,368 with $1K on the hood. I guess the demand is drying up a bit for the ED since there are now incentives for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles