2015 - 2020 F150 Discuss the 2015 - 2020 Ford F150
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Halo Lifts

2015 F150 3.5l ecoboost Bad fuel mileage

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #91  
Old 05-03-2015, 10:27 PM
VegasF150's Avatar
VegasF150
VegasF150 is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GlueGuy
Too late. It is on order, and in fact "in transit".

Don't like Chevies anyway.

--
bp
You can always give it back before you register it, don't let them bully you if you change your mind. And if they give you the put 1k miles on it and the milage will come up it won't. They just want you to drive it long enough for you to get stuck in it like I did. But hey there is worse things they getting a badass truck with great power that keeps the oil companies in business. 👍😁
 
  #92  
Old 05-03-2015, 10:29 PM
VegasF150's Avatar
VegasF150
VegasF150 is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For those that asked and maybe didn't see it,



It's a 7,000lb truck.
 
  #93  
Old 05-04-2015, 04:50 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 38,156
Received 1,221 Likes on 803 Posts
Originally Posted by VegasF150
For those that asked and maybe didn't see it,



It's a 7,000lb truck.
7000 is the gross vehicle weight rating. If you subtract the actual payload of the truck then you'll have the trucks actual weight. Looking at the Ford website, your truck looks to have a 5000 lb curb weight and a 2000 lb payload which makes this a very capable truck.
 
  #94  
Old 05-04-2015, 05:38 AM
VegasF150's Avatar
VegasF150
VegasF150 is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tseekins
7000 is the gross vehicle weight rating. If you subtract the actual payload of the truck then you'll have the trucks actual weight. Looking at the Ford website, your truck looks to have a 5000 lb curb weight and a 2000 lb payload which makes this a very capable truck.
I was just posting what one of the other guys asked for was a pic of the door sticker. Didn't mean the truck actually weighs 7k just ment the gvrw was 7k. But thanks your right Fords website does have the curb weights but don't think they have one shown for the platinum. Although I didn't look very much maybe they do.
 
  #95  
Old 05-04-2015, 08:26 AM
rmccbride's Avatar
rmccbride
rmccbride is offline
Tuned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 474
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by VegasF150
I was just posting what one of the other guys asked for was a pic of the door sticker. Didn't mean the truck actually weighs 7k just ment the gvrw was 7k. But thanks your right Fords website does have the curb weights but don't think they have one shown for the platinum. Although I didn't look very much maybe they do.
All I have been able to find is the min weight of the trucks nothing broken down by actual weight as equipped.

But taking my GVW 7050 and the load limit of 1792 my truck must weigh 5258 which is heavier than I thought it would be.
 
  #96  
Old 05-04-2015, 08:35 AM
Gary Lewis's Avatar
Gary Lewis
Gary Lewis is offline
Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Northeast, OK
Posts: 32,866
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Something in the back of my mind says there was a 175 lb driver figured into the load limit. In other words, I think your 1792 includes the 175 of the driver. If so, your truck would weigh 5083.

I'll have a look to see if I can figure out where I found that - and if it is true.
 
  #97  
Old 05-04-2015, 08:52 AM
rmccbride's Avatar
rmccbride
rmccbride is offline
Tuned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 474
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Gary Lewis
Something in the back of my mind says there was a 175 lb driver figured into the load limit. In other words, I think your 1792 includes the 175 of the driver. If so, your truck would weigh 5083.

I'll have a look to see if I can figure out where I found that - and if it is true.
I read that it already counts a full tank of gas so in my case 216#. At 175# for driver just doesn't fit in my case
 
  #98  
Old 05-04-2015, 08:55 AM
VegasF150's Avatar
VegasF150
VegasF150 is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Update - here is the mpg's I'm getting while pulling a small enclosed trailer with 800lbs of weight in it averaging 65-70mph.
 
  #99  
Old 05-04-2015, 09:18 AM
rmccbride's Avatar
rmccbride
rmccbride is offline
Tuned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 474
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I don't know about everyone else but I think that's just awful. Better go to the gas station again soon. Bet you now wish you had the 36 gallon tank!
 
  #100  
Old 05-04-2015, 10:31 AM
VegasF150's Avatar
VegasF150
VegasF150 is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rmccbride
I don't know about everyone else but I think that's just awful. Better go to the gas station again soon. Bet you now wish you had the 36 gallon tank!
A 36 gallon tank would be very nice, should have defiantly gotten that!
 
  #101  
Old 05-04-2015, 02:36 PM
GlueGuy's Avatar
GlueGuy
GlueGuy is offline
Lead Driver
Join Date: May 2015
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 5,365
Received 213 Likes on 179 Posts
Originally Posted by VegasF150
A 36 gallon tank would be very nice, should have defiantly gotten that!
We plan on some long trips in ours, and that was high on my get list. If we get ~~ 19 mpg, we should get ~~ 600 mile range. Real curious how that turns out.

--
bp
 
  #102  
Old 05-04-2015, 09:18 PM
sixseven's Avatar
sixseven
sixseven is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Brookhaven - Georgia
Posts: 102
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
When pulling a trailer the weight of the trailer is only a part of the factor for loss of MPG. The wind resistance is an incredible factor in load and will reduce your mileage possibly as much as or more than extra weight. With that, comparing trucks requires some consideration for the aerodynamic shape (Ford vs Chevy, topper versus none, etc.) My 5.0 gets 22 mpg unloaded (4x4 Lariat with 3.31's) with A/C operating. When I drive around town and on short trips my mileage (as stated by someone else earlier) drops significantly to about 16.5 mpg.

I don't see a real advantage to getting the ecoboost on a larger vehicle since a heavy load apparently affects the smaller engines more so that the bigger engines.
 
  #103  
Old 05-04-2015, 09:40 PM
VegasF150's Avatar
VegasF150
VegasF150 is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sixseven
When pulling a trailer the weight of the trailer is only a part of the factor for loss of MPG. The wind resistance is an incredible factor in load and will reduce your mileage possibly as much as or more than extra weight. With that, comparing trucks requires some consideration for the aerodynamic shape (Ford vs Chevy, topper versus none, etc.) My 5.0 gets 22 mpg unloaded (4x4 Lariat with 3.31's) with A/C operating. When I drive around town and on short trips my mileage (as stated by someone else earlier) drops significantly to about 16.5 mpg.

I don't see a real advantage to getting the ecoboost on a larger vehicle since a heavy load apparently affects the smaller engines more so that the bigger engines.
I totally agree just wish it was doing better.
 
  #104  
Old 05-04-2015, 10:05 PM
dkf's Avatar
dkf
dkf is offline
Hotshot
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pa
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 17 Posts
Originally Posted by VegasF150
Update - here is the mpg's I'm getting while pulling a small enclosed trailer with 800lbs of weight in it averaging 65-70mph.
That MPG is not good. What I figure is you have a truck that weighs over 5k lbs, big and wide 20's, very shallow 3.31 gears, poor aerodynamics and a transmission that is going to keep the engine rpm down. Thus the little 3.5l is going to be in the boost. The EB uses the most boost at lower rpms and I believe your engine load is fairly high. Higher engine load, more boost equals more fuel.

Anyway I assume anyone whom spends $57k on truck can afford the fuel. If not then bad decisions were made.
 
  #105  
Old 05-05-2015, 12:16 AM
VegasF150's Avatar
VegasF150
VegasF150 is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dkf
That MPG is not good. What I figure is you have a truck that weighs over 5k lbs, big and wide 20's, very shallow 3.31 gears, poor aerodynamics and a transmission that is going to keep the engine rpm down. Thus the little 3.5l is going to be in the boost. The EB uses the most boost at lower rpms and I believe your engine load is fairly high. Higher engine load, more boost equals more fuel.

Anyway I assume anyone whom spends $57k on truck can afford the fuel. If not then bad decisions were made.
All I can say is we should get what we pay for, which is why I made this post so anyone thinking of getting one of these trucks don't plan on getting the stated mpg's. By the end of the day or by the end of the tank of fuel my guess is most consumers will see on average -4mpg or more than what Ford claims it will get. That's 25% less fuel economy then they claim. But time will tell maybe in 6 months this post will be obsolete or maybe it will be filled with dozens and dozens of the same complaint. Should we just tell them, well you payed for a 60k truck you can afford for it to not do what it should your bad decision I think not. Take a look at the lawsuit against Kia and Hyundai more over rated mpg claims and it costed them hundreds of millions of dollars. But hey we can afford to get screwed over right!
 


Quick Reply: 2015 F150 3.5l ecoboost Bad fuel mileage



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.