It's all aero resistance. The weight reduction doesn't do anything for mpg at hwy speeds.

Trucks are still designed to look tough instead of making any serious changes to help with not making it a parachute.

 

Without any actual facts to confirm. ...I'll go out on a limb and dare say a lot of engineering went into the trucks wind resistance. ....I can't bring myself to think that's holding it back

 

Yes it does. Given the same distance it takes more work to move a heavier vehicle.

 

The frontal area of the vehicle has more to do with the mileage...

 

You drove 200 miles in VA at 80 MPH? There must not be any troopers where you live because they're all in my neck of the woods!!

 

Dude! This was a strange coincidence for certain. Not one trooper all weekend. From Hampton to Staunton where my daughter goes to college is a nice drive and when the troopers are out they very typically don't bother unless someone is acting erratically. Lots of Richmond, DC and Charlottesville traffic.

There's a short stretch where heavy road construction is taking place and it drops to 60 for about 2 miles then back to normal.

 

Yup. That's because of tire rolling resistance. Tires are measured by their coefficient of rolling friction. So total rolling resistance is calculated by multiplying the vehicle weight by the coefficient. The more the truck weighs, the more it takes to roll the tires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance
Of course this pales in comparison to wind resistance, but it's still there.

 

Of that you can bet on. I recall reading an article after the 1980 F-series redesign talking with a Ford engineer at the time. He was saying how much work went into that design, all the wind tunnel testing, etc., then cringing when he saw someone putting a bug deflector on the hood. In 35 years, aerodynamics engineering and understanding surely have improved.

 

Funny, but since they're comparing apples to oranges they should've included the Ram EcoDiesel, but then the entire article would have been false.

 

I dunno guys with all these engines so closely matched I would expect to see one dropped in the near future. I would suspect the 3.5 na to go bye bye. Ford will observe Dodges numbers on the ecodiesel front then pull the trigger on a small diesel to replace the 3.5 Eco or 5.0. Then that would bring it back to 3 engine choices. 2.7 Eco, 5.0 for the v8 lovers and a baby powerstroke capable of good mileage and same towing numbers as 3.5 Eco. BOOM! I just blew my own mind! Sit back and wait!

 

I disagree. Ford should have scraped the 2.7EB seeing as it only gets 1 mpg better than it's big brother.

Why would anyone want the little 2.7 EB over the 3.5 EB?
The 5.0 is here to stay for a while. There are to many truck buyers who want a V8 and the 5.0 does pretty much everything the 3.5 EB does at less cost and most likely better longtime reliability.

 

Well either way they will most likely be cutting back one engine at least. It just doesn't add up to have 2 turbo charged v6 engines that are so closely matched mpg wise. I myself love the 5.0 it just plain rips had one for about a 18 months before getting my superduty. I hope they keep the 5.0 or they will lose some fans for sure. It will just be a waiting game now to see what they do.

 

Interesting thought for sure. I'm of the mindset that the 2.7L would become the base engine and the NA 3.5L would go away.

Now that the 5.0L has finally been given the respect it deserves, I can see fewer F-150 3.5L EB's in the future and more 2.7L and 5.0's. A certain number of T-series vans will have the 3.5L EB as an optional engine.

 

I don't think anybody here has an "@ford.com" email address, so speculating about future engine lineups just seems silly to me. Every engine offered has been engineered to fit under the hood of the 2015 F150, at considerable expense. Lots of folks don't want a turbocharged engine, so there are two great choices for them. Lots of us like turbos, and there are two great choices for us too.

 

But nothing for those of us who like diesel.