Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Fuel Economy Test: 2.7-liter EcoBoost vs. 5.0-liter V8 - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test
Edmunds.com
Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
Fuel Economy Test: 2.7-liter EcoBoost vs. 5.0-liter V8 - 2015 Ford F-150 Long-Term Road Test
We compared the fuel economy of our 2015 Ford F-150 with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 to a similar truck with a 5.0-liter V8 engine and found surprising results.
Tagged:
1
Comments
Here's what it would take for me to pick either EcoBoost over the Coyote. I can live with both of their tow ratings. The fuel economy would have to jump drastically though. I'm averaging 18-19 MPG in my 2013 Steel Bodied F-150 SuperCrew. To make the EcoBoost worth it to me, the EcoBoost would have to average 24-25 MPG and offer about the same towing.
Easily-obtained dynos, performed on both of these trucks by the same outfit, the same Dyno Dynamics dyno (which read very conservative compared to other chassis dynos), under controlled (similar) conditions, stock final drive ratios, show the 5.0 making a peak of 285 hp at 5,600 rpm, vs. the 2.7 making 265-270 at around 5,300.
The 5.0 makes over 275 lb/ft of torque from 3,350 rpm to 5,600, peaking at 290-295 from 4,100 to 5,000. The 2.7 makes over 275 lb/ft of torque from 1,750 rpm to 5,000, peaking at around 330 lb/ft at about 3,100 rpm. It's over 320 lb/ft from 2,800 to 4,000.
There is no way, shape or form in which the 5.0 with the 3.31 is as competent towing 9,000 lb as the 2.7 with 3.73 towing 8,100. Remember, the figures I gave above are with the 2.7 with the 3.55 rear end, not your 3.73s.
The 2.7 with the 3.55 is a superior tow/haul vehicle to the 5.0/3.31...the 2.7 with 3.73s will leave the 5.0 for dead.
Really, really a pity that you did not hook up your 6,500-lb trailer to both of these trucks, side by side, in addition to your mpg loop with nothing in the bed and nothing on the tow ball.
Oh - and for all its 35%-40% higher tow ratings, compared to the 2.7, the 3.5 dynos are all but an exact overlay of those of the 2.7...maybe 2% higher torque and 5% higher hp. Really - you didn't think this 5.200-lb brick was running the quarter in 14.7@92.3 mph on 325 flywheel hp, did you?
Moreover, such tow ratings are not based on an extrapolation of the results of a 10-second dyno pull on a chassis dynamometer. It's a marathon, not a drag race. Tow ratings are based on a real-world 10-minute+ pull with a trailer attached in high-ambient conditions up the Davis Dam grade near Laughlin, Nevada. SAE J2807 defines all of the conditions, including the frontal area of the box trailer to be pulled, the way it must be loaded, and it defines a minimum speed for the climb that the vehicle cannot fall below even if it is giving its all with the throttle pinned. You can bet that the truckmakers adjust the load to get as close to this minimum as possible in order to publish the highest figure.
So, yeah, I have no trouble believing that over an extended pull up a very long grade with a box trailer, the 5.0-liter V8 may well be able to soldier on steadily while the furiously-spinning turbos of the EcoBoost 2.7 V6 get all cherry-red and heat-soaked and have to be reined in. A turbo mill can be screwed up to do anything for short bursts, but its a different story if you want to sustain that output indefinitely.
Twitter: @Edmunds_Test
Not sure if it adds to the conversation at all, but on 2011-2014 Mustang GT's, the 3.31 vs. 3.73 gear thing seems to result in a 3-4 MPG difference, which is massive.
Loaner F-150: $54,570
Nobody is going to be any kind of happy towing 9,000 lbs with a small displacement V8 and 3.31 gears no matter what the brochure says.
The borrowed V8 test truck had more options (502A versus 501A, bedliner, FX4, etc) so it did indeed have a higher as-tested price.
I think the V8 base price has drifted up $800 relative to the 2.7-liter EcoBoost since then, possibly because their model mix included too many lower mpg-rated V8s relative to their CAFE target. Also, the CAFE target incrementally increases year over year, so I can easily imagine a 5.0-liter V8 price increase to tamp down its appeal and encourage more EcoBoost sales. I've seen this sort of thing done before. Well, shoppers use the window sticker to decide what to buy, so it's their problem, too. I think outright fuel economy and the difference from advertised performance are both relevant.
Twitter: @Edmunds_Test
The grille and under-bumper surface of a half-ton pickup has plenty of area for large radiators and intercoolers, and the short engine length provides room for very thick cross-sections of those components - the 2.7 has a half-quart more coolant capacity than the 5.0 liter, and .8 quart more than the 3.5 EB does. They did their homework.
Davis Dam, due to the elevation, will show still more advantage that the forced-induction 2.7 brings as opposed to the atmospheric 5.0.
Ford has a product mix they are trying to sell...they have plenty of sunk costs in certifying the Coyote for use in the F150. They'd like to make that back, and so far they're not selling anywhere near as many V8 F150s as they forecast. It's a great engine but it's not as good as the turbo V6s in that application.
Also, check your style sheet on "reigned in." The expression is "reined in" (as in reins - that you use to control a horse - that's where it came from.).
Nice observation, that's blocking the intercooler.
My 2014 has the plate mounted to the right of the center opening.
Now you've opened a new can of worms.
I looked a bunch of pictures at a local dealer website, and all the Ecoboost trucks have a plate mount smack dab in the middle of the bumper.
if i were in the market i'd probably have to look at aftermarket engine tuning support, product availability, and real world transaction prices to make my choice.
The stop-start on this vehicle is considered one of the best implementations on any vehicle regardless of price, and turbo failure isn't really a thing anymore, folks, if it ever was.
So, a lengthy comparison, with the EB truck making more power and slightly better fuel economy, then a final "no-brainer" decision on the "strength" of a verbiage-based towing comparison (reading factory specs - no actual towing involved) to buy the V8 due to a suspect theoretical superiority the average owner might encounter in maybe 10% of all towing scenarios.
Uh-huh.
Now you've done this test and your conclusion is that you'd rather have the V8 and I think you're right. The F150 has two other engine options I'd be curious to know how they perform. I would bet that the NA V6 and the Ecoboost V6 both get better real world mileage than the two versions you tested here and it's possible that the Ecoboost V6 is the most satisfying driver of the bunch.
I have nothing against turbocharging. I have nothing against Ford. But I am very skeptical of Ford's move to put undersized Ecoboost engines in larger vehicles. Some will say that the 2.7L Ecoboost in the F150 is not undersized as it moves the truck along just fine. This is true, but it requires the turbo to spool up all the time and then it consumes fuel like a larger engine. In order for a turbo to be fuel efficient, it needs to be able to operate without spooling up during certain conditions and that is only the case when the engine itself is big enough to move the vehicle without boost. This just isn't the case when you have a 2.7L engine in a large truck. The only real world gain is whatever weight savings you see between the 2.7L Ecoboost and the larger engine options. But this is negligible relative to the weight (and payload and towing capacity) of an F150. The engine weight difference may be huge in a Focus or a Fusion but not so much in an F150.
So why do they push these small turbos in large cars? The answer is simple. CAFE. The EPAs fuel efficiency test cycle does not accurately predict real world efficiency of turbo engines. I don't know why. Maybe they allow really slow acceleration. Whatever it is, the test favors turbo engines and Ford is taking advantage in a way that hurts consumers. This is not deception like VW but it is similarly motivated.
I'm sure I would enjoy driving the 2.7 from a performance standpoint, but the Coyote is no slouch either. I can totally see why people may feel a bit let down by the Ecoboost's real-world economy figures.
Has anyone looked at the mileage Edmunds is getting with the Honda Pilot?
To make the test truly fair, though, apples-to-apples, you needed to hit the second truck with a hammer.
This was mostly downhill overall, but look at the average speed.
My truck is rated @ 15/21.
This isn't a tow test.
"Here's another thing to bear in mind as we go forward: our 2.7-liter V6 crew cab 4x4 with its optional "plus one" axles can tow 8,100 pounds while the 5.0 V8 4x4 and its mere standard axles can tow 9,000 pounds."
I just don't think I need a V8 but this article has made me doubt getting the 2.7 EB.
I would appreciate your input.
Cheers!
The N/A 3.5 V6 is not available in the Lariat trim. The base motor is the 2.7 EB. The V8 is an $800 option, the 3.5 EB is $1515. The license plate bracket has been offset on all EB 150s since the engine debuted. The intercooler is mounted directly behind the lower opening. There are shutters that will open and close (at least on my '16) to adjust airflow as needed and help maximize fuel economy. With the license plate covering the opening as on the test truck, the intercooler was never operating at maximum efficiency.
I also question if that engine would even run with 10 quarts of oil in it. It doesn't have that large a crankcase. With all the electronics monitoring all aspects of engine operation, there had to at least be some type of warning telling the driver that the oil was way over capacity.
Anyway, driving around town, no load, no towing (which is 80% of our driving), I am very pleased with both the performance and fuel economy of the 2.7. All my friends that have the V8 aren't getting anywhere close to my figures. The max I tow is 4500lbs and this truck performs beautifully.
By refinement, I mean in many situations, when an NA engine needs more RPM maintaining speed on an uphill grade or while accelerating, a turbo-charged, DI engine (diesel or gas fueled) does not. And some people, myself included, really prefer cruising and not feeling and/or hearing a screaming engine at every 2-3 percent uphill grade, and that "racing up a hill phenomenon" while using cruise control with NA engines. Others prefer high revs for performance, and those folks should get an NA engine unless they don't care about mpg, because a turbo DI, gas engine revved high often will result in horrible mpg. People should understand that from the outset, but it is not true, like many of the reviewers believe, that everyone drives that way all the time.
It has been pointed out that the 2.7 probably, overall, outperforms the 5.0 V8 based on the dyno. But lets take this conversation another direction, which has been totally missed by Edmunds and every, single negative review of this 2.7-liter Ford Ecoboost choice by every professional reviewer. Every single review ends up reviewing a 4WD, SCab or SCrew and usually 3.55 rear axle and up and usually with XLT or Lariat trim. Moreover, as much as they like to say they're driving for fuel economy, I don't believe they are driving like many of us drive when we commute regularly. When I drive my truck, I can accelerate modestly and the tach won't go over about 1900, all the way up to cruising speed; even if I'm climbing a 3% grade while doing so. I'm getting great mpg, even when I've been hauling stuff around, though admittedly, it's been mostly light loads, furniture, etc.
But if one understands this technology and how and when this engine could maximize fuel economy versus other choices, then it should be realized that the area in which this power train would shine the most regarding fuel economy, against the other engines in this truck, and also where it would come closest to the EPA test cycle, would be in the lightest utility, and in the lightest and smallest versions, with 2WD and 3.31 gears and with few appointments and with conservative drivers who need and want the power only occasionally, but also appreciate the added refinement of this engine versus the NA choices; especially the sub-300-torque V6. I know I'm not the average buyer of a pickup truck in America and that's why the lesser trucks don't get reviewed, but it is still a fact that this is the best place for this engine to do what Ford was trying to accomplish with it...The lesser the truck, the better for this setup. This is my situation and my truck. I've got a 2015 F150 Standard Cab, 2WD, short-bed, XL with 3.31 regular rear axle; no step bars or brush guards or any of that crap. Only a light-weight tonneau that I keep on there out of necessity. I'm averaging for the life of the truck, hand calculated, 24.3 mpg. On the highway at 65 mph, I cannot regularly achieve the 26 mpg rating, but I can usually come in around 25-25.5. I would guess that at 75, it would be more like 24.5. I measure highway miles only both directions, which should always be done when reporting real-world, highway mpg. In city driving, which I don't do a whole lot of exclusively, it appears that this truck, with me driving can easily achieve the 19 mpg rating.
Now to expound on the trip meter error. It's huge! It's so bad that it should not be used for reporting. It also is not consistent. It is the "gallons used" data recorded in the truck that is flawed. I checked it a few times in the early days, hoping that I could get a consistent error and extrapolate from it and not have to calculate by hand. But I can't. Even though it is always significantly optimistic by under representing the true "gallons used" for a trip, that under representation can vary the mpg error between 1.4-1.9. And so it should never be used when reporting mpg. Instead it must be hand calculated, or otherwise, it has no basis in reality and we can't subtract a measure from it and be accurate; not even remotely.
But at least with my truck and 17" Michelin LTXs, there is another significant error, but this one goes the other way, and this one is consistent. I have checked the miles driven for an entire tank several times against a couple of GPS and the result is always the same...The true miles driven is 1.7-1.8 percent more than indicated on the odometer and trip meter, and this error, subtracts from the true mpg. But what I do, in order to be conservative in my estimate, is before dividing the miles shown by the pump-indicated fuel used, I multiply the trip miles indicated times 1.015; meaning I'm adding 1.5% to the trip miles, and this makes my reporting more realistic.
I hope than no one will try to convince me that any F150 configuration, in any reasonable driving scenario, can come close to 25.8 in a round trip measurement. I know better. I've driven late model 4.6s and 5.0s in a similar configurations, at the same approximate speed on pure highway trips and have never achieved above 21.5 for a round trip. This new Ecoboost can achieve at least 4 mpg better than V8 in at least one configuration when driving conservatively.
Godspeed