Hi all: Here are a couple tests of the 2.7. First one shows real gas mileage of 23.5 driving like a granny, and down to about 16 with yer foot in it. Author predicts 18 day to day with 4WD (no magic 30 mpg):

2015 Ford F-150 2.7 EcoBoost Four-Door Crew Cab Is Capable Of 23.5 MPG

And here's a drag race test/video:

We 'Drag Raced' The 2015 F-150 2.7 EcoBoost: Little Lag, Then A Big Boot

Start/stop feature looks annoying. 31 psi of boost. They will use the engine in the 2015 Edge Sport--THAT would be a cool vehicle.

George

 

I suspect you'll see the 2.7 in lots of places. I know the existing 2.0 I4 EB in the Explorer is considered horribly anemic... wouldn't be surprised to see it appear there.

 

Can't wait to see the tuners get a hold of it

 

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that the preliminary tests done in the Jalopnik article are very unimpressive, if not out right poor. First of all the title of the article is completely misleading. The 4WD model with the 2.7L returned mileage figures in the 16.5 to 17 mpg range? Really? Billions invested in the development of this engine and an aluminum body and that's it? I am reading accounts of the Ram Pentastar - naturally aspirated and returning 22- 23 mpg under mixed driving conditions and hauling around a heavier vehicle. I sure hope these numbers are wrong - the EPA figures next month will be interesting.

 

The lower mileage readings were with a heavy foot and some hills involved--the economical driver got 23.5 mpg. At 60 mph down the Interstate I bet the mileage would be better yet, but speed up to 75 and it will be lower. The question I have is whether the 3.5 NA engine will have slightly better mileage than the 2.7; that engine is comparable to the Pentastar.

Once you get into the turbo, your mileage goes down because the engine suddenly becomes "bigger" in terms of the amount of air/fuel that it burns. You might save a bit on friction being less than a V8, and a bit on engine weight being less than a V8.

The F150 is lighter than it used to be but it is still a big truck that weighs close to 5000 lbs with 4WD, and has the huge frontal area that trucks have. People get 16 mpg in Explorers in the real world too when they drive with a heavy foot, or in city traffic. This is still the real world...

I am guessing that the Ford freeway mileage rating will be in the mid 20's. I think that is fabulous for a vehicle that is as huge as an F150. I get 25 mpg on the road in a 3250 lb Subaru Forester with a stick when I drive 75. I can crack 30 mpg if I keep the speed at 60, but I won't drive like that.

George

 

I'm wondering if the 2.7L trucks will have the same spread of axle ratios that the 3.5L trucks have. My truck with the 3.5L is getting what the 2.7L test trucks are getting and I'm running 3.31 axles.

We can speculate all we want from these tests but I want to see the actual EPA estimates before I post something negative.

 

The dif ratios may become a thing of the past. A tranny with 8 to 10 gears would work well.
Why not offer 1 rear end ratio and have tranny gearing to order?

 

EPA ratings can be pretty faulty if a vehicle is optimized for EPA cycles, like keeping a turbo engine out of the turbo completely. The new system is more accurate but still flawed. I will wait for more road tests and user reports before trusting EPA ratings.

EPA ratings gave abominations like my '78 F100 with 300 inch six, 2.75 axle, and 4 speed OD trans giving a final ratio of 2.19 or something. It could not go up a slight hill in 4th gear, with no load.

Likewise, my '86 GMC van with carbureted and weak 305 had a 2.73 axle which was completely stupid. I changed it to a 3.42 posi and real world mileage did not go down a bit. Geared for test cycles, not driving.

Remember that Ford gave rebates and vastly reduced the mileage ratings on its hybrids because real world experience gave way lower mileage than the ratings--also the case with my 2 vehicles above. EPA ratings on my pickup were 19/28 I think, and I would see maybe 22-23 on the freeway. But that was a 3600 lb truck.

George

 

I kind of worry where all this mpg rush is leading trucks. Ridiculous EPA. I believe in conservation, but we need trucks! For crying out loud, and all the other sayings that ain't cussin'. Even my '02 5.4 two wheel drive 3.55 differential gets between 18-20 mpg highway. Last trip, I got 20! I'll be satisfied I'm sure. When I buy one of y'all's well taken care of trucks, that is.

 

Yep, we need trucks. And we have them. Hands down the most powerful and capable trucks that have ever been made. And the new '15 models are rated to tow over 12,000 lbs!

So what's the problem?

 

My old '88 got 18 on the freeway and I thought that was earth shattering. IMHO, to still get 18+ with a truck that weighs 2000-2500 lbs more and boasts tons more power is amazing.

All this hub bub about MPG's is being fueled by Ram's ecodiesel. Ford isn't building a baby diesel for the US market and may never. So, by a Ram if you want 28 MPG's.

 

I concur. The Ram will be the only one to fill this niche for the foreseeable future, at least until the new Titan comes out. But the Titan will have a much larger diesel V8 that probably won't get the 28 MPG the Ram gets.

Some of us may go that way. You can bet I'll be test driving an EcoDiesel Ram when the time comes.

 

Don't blame ya at all Tom. I'm leaning towards the Titan diesel. Nissan is also smart enough to offer the diesel in the Armada, the US car builders just don't get it.

 

The diesel in the Dodge pickup is a $4000 option over the Pentastar.

The difference in fuel cost at $3.50 per gallon between say, 22 and 26 mpg and 15k per year, is $350 per year (4 mpg when you're in the 20's is way less than going from 12 to 16 mpg). Factor in the additional cost of diesel fuel and you're probably at $250 per year. So the payback for the diesel is 16 years assuming equivalent maintenance and repair costs. If you are towing, the diesel certainly makes more sense, though, with its big torque.

I had a bud with an old Jeep Liberty Diesel and he had some kind of catastrophic engine failure well under 100k miles; one major engine repair will cancel many years of fuel savings. Although a nice little diesel makes a lot of sense, the numbers don't really work for most people. The car companies are not *that* stupid.

George

 

Well darn, that's what I get shooting from the hip without my calculator. On a side note, the Ram website is TERRIBLE. Took me ten minutes searching around to find the output of the EcoDiesel, and I finally found it after a Google search took me to a Car & Driver review.

Yeah the EcoDiesel makes lots of torque, but not a pound-foot more than the EcoBoost V6 makes that they put in the F150. From experience, an engine that makes 420 lb-ft of torque at low RPMs in a half-ton truck makes for a spectacular towing experience, so I expect the Ram to do an outstanding job with a trailer. I guess the $4K price tag may only be justified by retained value at resale, but I think it's too soon to tell if that will be the case. If the Italian mill proves to be unreliable that will work against it much like the 6.0L PSD does currently.

So bringing us back to the topic, I am VERY curious to see the fuel economy numbers for the 2.7L. I lost my craving for maximum power a few years ago, and I'd happily get a truck with the 2.7L engine as long as I don't have a huge trailer to pull. I've only driven two EcoBoost engines, the 3.5L in my F150 and a 2.0L in an Escape I test drove. Both impressed the hell out of me with low-end grunt, and I expect the 2.7L to be no different.