Just found this about an SFE F150
 

New F-150 with SFE package
 

This means that they are targeting to beat the 28 mpg from Ram 1500.

I cross my fingers.

2015 Ford F-150 SFE: Highest Gas Mileage Model For Aluminum Pickup

Ford spokesman Mike Levine later confirmed that the SFE option will be available for the XL and XLT trim levels, which together make up 70 percent of total F-150 sales.

It will also be offered on two different body styles: regular cab and SuperCab, he said.

Trucks equipped with the SFE package will ride on 17-inch wheels and tires, among the smallest available on any full-size pickup on the market today.

The engine used for the SFE option will be the new, smaller 2.7-liter EcoBoost direct-injected and twin-turbocharged V-6 that will launch on the 2015 F-150.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...luminum-pickup

This is a re-post of a thread started on August 1st.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...-sfe-f150.html

Will be interesting to see what kind of MPG they can get with this setup, but it's not going to make much difference to me, as I would be unlikely to buy this. I'm much more likly to buy a max tow than an SFE.

Yeah me too. But thought I'd share for those more concerned with the max mpg rating.

Looks like the mods combined the threads, so now it's nice and clean.

Mileage will probably go up even more when the 9 and 10 speed autos come out in 2017/18 model year. So if they are claiming maybe 30mpg with the SFE and the 700lb weight reduction, I could see maybe mid to upper 30s with the 9 and 10 speeds. They are probably going to have 3.08 or higher gearing and will probably be in 2wd only, short bed standard cab.

My first new car was a 1981 Chevrolet c10 custom deluxe 1/2 ton stepside with the super saver pkg that included a 305 v8 and 4 speed manual trans with overdrive and a 2.56 to one rear gear, this was my first hard learned lesson in gearing, 4th gear was as useless as tits on a bull, you had to be going at least 80 or the engine wouldn't pull the gear, you could tow a 4000 lb boat, but you were not coming off the boat launch with the boat, point is, I tow stuff, not so much need the bed for stuff but need the towing capabilities. That c10 would get 22 miles per gallon by the way doing 70 on long trips, but other than that it wasn't much fun even with the manual trans. The mistakes we make when we are young!

j.grif, having more gears would have helped your situation a lot, and I'm willing to bet the new 2.7 EcoBoost has more torque than your old 305 ever did.

At the very most his 305 had 150hp and 240ft/lbs of torque, the 2.7L having 325hp and 375ft/lbs may or may not be a huge improvement but nonetheless an improvement. Economy will be a bit better, with the truck having better aerodynamics than OBS Ford and Chevy trucks which had the aerodynamics of a brick.

In all fairness to that truck, it was my first new vehicle, I don't think that I had towing in mind when I bought it, however my dad had just bought a new chaparell 20 ft boat and this is what I tried to tow it with, I think this is the hard way of educating ones self about what is needed for gears, there is no doubt in my mind that if this truck had 3.73 gear set that it would have done just fine. It seems as though when we were in the sixties and seventies a camper seldom weighed more than 4 or 5000# and were often towed with a station wagon or large sedan with a big v8, when the air stream people would tow they would use something like a 300 cubic inch ford inline six or the chevy version with 292 cubes and have transmissions like a 4spd manual with a creeper first gear that you only used when you were pulling something, will this new 2.7 handle it? I think it will, but I also think that the R V industry needs to do some homework and start making rv's a little lighter, if a person wants to tent camp or buy an expensive trailmanor that folds down for aerodynamics, this truck would do just fine!

The 2.7L can't be had with the max tow option so it's not Ford's pulling machine anyway.

Now I can see a salesperson talking someone into a 2.7L with references about being able to pull 8000 lbs, etc when we all know here on FTE that you still have the load the camper, add the passengers, etc.

People need to learn the limitations of their vehicles and adjust their expectation accordingly OR, buy a pulling machine and prepare for lower than advertised MPG's.

I don't know how many times we've argued this point on the 2009+ forum. :-X15

The funny thing is, not everyone has to pull 4 tons around. For myself, any towing I do is a 17.5' boat which probably weighs maybe 1800lbs with the 70hp Evinrude. I probably would not spend my money on the economy version, but rather get the 2.7L in the standard version. Just hope they give you the option for 3.73 gears unlike the 3.5L where they option you the 3.31. At least that's the way it is online, not sure how it is at a dealer if that can be optioned, or just buy the truck and go with an aftermaket set of gears.

Very interesting.

I don't think you can compare a 2.7L EcoBoost truck with an old Chevy that had less than half the power. I'd be willing to bet a 2.7L truck would drag around 5,000 lbs without much issue with 3.31 gears, and the new transmissions coming out in the future may mean even lower ratios on trucks rated to pull.

My first new vehicle was a 1978 F100 shortbed Flareside with the 300 inch six, the new 4 speed OD transmission (basically a toploader with 3rd and 4th reversed), and the stock 2.75 rear axle ratio. So final drive ratio was 2.19 and completely stupid. It would get 22 mpg on the road but was miserable and if I had to do it over again, I would check the box for the 3.25 or 3.50 axle ratio. The countershaft bearings died and I just stopped using 4th (overdrive)... EPA mileage was 19/29 as I recall and I had a 60 mile round trip commute so I bought it for a high mpg commuter.

And, in 1988, I bought a used '86 GMC 2500 van with a carbureted 305, a Turbo 350 with lockup torque converter, and a 2.73 axle. What a joke...I soon changed the rear axle to a 3.42 and an Auburn LS and that worked OK. As originally equipped, it would choke on the slightest uphill and it was completely useless in some mountain vacations we took in it.

Overgearing vehicles in the 70's and 80's made for some STUPID cars for the real world.

I say there is no way that something with the frontal area of an F150 will ever get 30 mpg with a gas engine. That mileage is hard to get in a dang Escape, and impossible with an Explorer. 25 real mpg with decent performance would be realistic... Remember how Ford got burned with the spectacular mileage claims on its hybrids in the last few years...they gave refunds to buyers. So they are gonna have to be really careful on the numbers they publish if real world driving can't even get close.

George