https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.ford-trucks.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/80-20140821_164121_d2c63fae390cd10030388702fb410e3f6f 6f26cf.jpg

 

If the MT article did not include a 3.5 L Ecoboost for comparison then the test lacks context. Each testing method is unique to that test, you can't compare across different methodologies.

 

MT uses the same testing method for all their "RealMPG" fuel economy tests. Here's the 3.5L test numbers:

2015 F150 4x4 Platinum Supercrew 3.5L ecoboost
14.8 city 16.8 combined 19.9 highway

 

Thanks SVT, so it looks like a roughly 2mpg improvement across the board. I was hoping to see a bigger city improvement since I believe this engine comes with engine stop/start. Given the amount of horsepower this engine builds and such, that's a pretty decent improvement.

 

If I remember correctly they said the new 2015 F150 with the 3.5L ecoboost sees about a 1.5-2mpg gain across the board from the previous model 3.5L F150 in their testing too.

Not exactly huge jumps, but at least it's an improvement. I'm sure they'll squeeze out another mpg or two when they get their new transmissions.


That being said, I still wish Ford at least offered a diesel in a smaller truck. I'd love to see their numbers.

 

The 2015 Platinum weighs about the same as my 2011 Scab XLT and about 600 lbs more than the 2015 Scab Lariat that MT tested.

So, the exact cab configuration as my truck shed about 600 lbs with no great increase in economy, in fact, none. But on the bright side, it's bound to perform better and have a higher payload / tow rating than mine. I've managed to get some amazing MPG figures out of my truck over the last 43K miles, I'd take a higher payload / tow rating and be happy with the same fuel economy.

 

From my perspective, I like the swap to aluminum as it will only help them increase fuel economy and payload etc. And if they just stuck with the 3.5EB and the N/A v6, 5.0L etc. this lineup would make more sense to me. Based on the weight shedding, the 3.5L saw an increase of about 10% in fuel economy, not bad at all but when you are starting with high teens mpg the nominal increase of 10% still only works out to 1-2mpg. That being said I can see another 5-15% increase with the new tranny and then when you combine them the 3.5EB looks pretty good.....probably 22-23ish highway with 4wd with maybe 18mpg combined which is decent.

What I really don't understand is the 2.7L.......OK, nice engine, put it in the Explorer, Edge etc., what purpose does it serve in the F150?

It provides a small value play to get 80% of the capability of the 3.5L and roughly the same fuel economy.......anything else?

 

The 2.7L is a less expensive option than the 3.5L. I think that's its big reason for existing. The truck is expensive thanks to the aluminum, so they had to find somewhere else to cut costs to help keep things competitive.

 

Why are these numbers viewed as an improvement? The EPA ratings on the 2014 3.5L 4x4 F150 are 15/21 and 17 combined? The above are 15/19 and 17 combined - at best they're the same and the highway figure has DECREASED. So how is this better? Again, so much invested as so much hype about less weight and the associated fuel savings....really? Highway numbers are worse!

 

Those are not the EPA ratings....It's MT's results...

 

I've found that EPA ratings mean little. Manufacturers know what it takes to max their EPA ratings.