Has anyone heard the mileage figures of the new F-150 with the 2.7 Ecoboost?

Our Rangers are getting long in the tooth and we will be looking to replace them but it has to get at least 25+ combined MPG...

Thanks.

 

I'm more interested to see the torque curve.

 

It's a forced-induction motor... the curve should look basically like any other turbo motor. An almost vertical climb and then flat to redline.

 

If ford has played their hand right, the 2.7 will match the ecodiesel in economy and out power it.

 

I second Tim. But we'll have to wait and see since Ford hasn't posted any info on the engine yet. That is other then it's here. It's been and will be tested. Just have to keep an ear out and an eye open for updates.

 

I have a hard time believing that the 2.7 will turn 420 ft lbs of torque. I also seriously doubt it will be even remotely close to the diesel in mpgs either.

Anyone who thinks that a 1/2 ton can get 25+ combined mpgs is dreaming. Not on current tech.

 

That's what I'm afraid of....

I own a construction company and of course most of our equipment is diesel.
I just don't understand Ford's hesitation to bring a small diesel engine into their lineup.
I had an opportunity to see their new diesel Ranger in Europe last summer and thought it would be exactly what I need to carry a couple of guys and some tools. We have a couple of SD to tow anything heavy...

I guess what Ford doesn't realize is that not everyone needs or wants a truck that can tow 10,000 pounds...

 

Remotely....come close? I'm getting a sustained 22 out of my 3.5L 4x4 with 3.31 axles and six speed. 365hp / 420tq / 9200 tow rating. That's remotely close isn't it? Mount an 8-10 speed trans behind it and see what happens then.

Shed 700 lbs, offer a smaller engine and in the future mount a 10 speed and see what happens. I'm optimistic.

 

700 lbs diet helps. But optimistic should be 25-26 HWY on the 2.7, not pushing 30. And no, 22 isn't close to what's been reported on the ecodiesel, 28 hwy real world with 3.55 axle by motor trend tests on a base model fleet type truck. That's 27% better than your EB. Most EB trucks are barely seeing 20 hwy. Towing mpg should be far better from the diesel as well. I'm pretty confident that the ecodiesel will handily out perform the 2.7 on a dyno and real world.

If you can't tell I'm very disappointed that Ford still isn't considering a small diesel in the F150. And all this coming from a proud EB owner.

 

I'd like to see that offered in the States. My current ride is getting long in the tooth as well and I haven't seen anything yet that is appealing as a replacement.

 

I hear ya and I think Ford should at least offer the 3.2 in the F-150. However, the EB is something like $1500 over the 5.0 and the Ecodiesel is close to a $3000 option. When will the diesel break even? We've all had this discussion dozens of times, diesel vs. ecoboost and I'm yet convinced that dollar for dollar, the diesel is the best answer.


OK, so on an average of 12000 miles per year here's a simple example:

ecoboost at 20 MPG's over 12000 miles uses 600 gallons @ $3.25 p/g is $1950.

Diesel at 25 MPG's over 12000 miles uses 480 gallons @ $3.75 p/g is $1800.

$150 per year in fuel savings. But, the diesel costs $1500 more than the ecoboost your looking at 10 years just to break even on fuel costs alone.

It may take 150,000-175,000 miles of actual use to break even completely with maintenance, repairs and fuel.

What does all this mean for the second or third owner? It starts all over again as a diesel typically sells for more than a gasser used.

I'm not an educated man but simple math shows me that the diesel isn't the answer until the buy in cost comes down....which we all know it won't.

 

A high compression gas engine would be the right answer here. Take a cue from the bobcat concept engine, and ramp up the compression ratio of an ecoboost engine and use e85 injectors as a knock suppressor and it would basically be a diesel engine running on a mix of gas and e85. The only drawback is having 2 seperately fuel systems. I'm ok with that.

 

Which is why Ford is all in on Ecoboost and haven't offered a diesel.

 

Let's talk real world here.
The European diesel Ranger is getting 32 to 35 MPG combined in the real world. It is also about 95% the size of the F-150.

Would I pay a $3000 premium over the base engine to get 10+MPG over the F-150?? Every day of the week!
Plus I would be able to recoup most of the difference upon resale. This is why we pay the almost $8k difference with the SD's we buy. The net real world cost actually work in the diesels favor (at least for us).

 

Now what you guys are ALL missing is where I can buy one of these 2.7 ecoboost to put into an 09 ranger! I bet you could get above 30 all day with that.