Ford Announces Fuel Economy Figures for 2011 F-150 EcoBoost V-6 - PickupTrucks.com News


Officially rated by the EPA at 16/22 mpg city/highway for two-wheel drive trucks and 15/21 mpg for four-wheel drive models.

I am getting my wife a black ecoboost Lincoln MKS this summer with the appearance package. Maybey a ecoboost F150 or 5.0 bobcat F350 in the future.

 

Even though its not a huge gain over the 5.0, its is still really impressive for an engine with 365 hp and 420 ft. lbs of torque. Not to mention the torque is made way lower in the rpm range. Overall I think it is a fair gain, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't hoping for like 17 and 23. This would be the engine I would choose in an F-150. Thanks for posting this!

 

I appreciate EPA ratings, but all that is done in an empty truck under ideal conditions; actually its more of a calculation and not actual driving. I hope I'm wrong on this, but really suspect that under normal driving and if one is hauling people/things and dealing with hills, that smaller engine could actually get worse mileage or certainly a lot less than those posted numbers.

 

Personally the gains don't really seem worth the 750$ upcharge over the 5.0L to me. I know the Ecoboost has that great torque curve and I'm not trying to take that away from it. But with my next truck which will be 2011 F-150, I plan to own for the next 15 to 20 years. So regaurdless, the 5.0L is cheaper intally and is less complex while offereing close to the same milage and since I rarely tow anything. The 5.0L is the engine for me.

However I'de be lying if I said the idea of a 5.0L Ecoboost down the road doesn't excite me. I would love to see a D.I Twin Turbo 5.0L. But only after Ecoboost technology has had a few years to prove itself in the real world and get some real miles say 200 or 300K.

 

I'll tell ya guys, my '04 Expedition 4x2 with the 4.6L engine and 3.73.1 LS axle is getting me 19-20 on the highway on trips. This is ancient technology by comparison to the 2011 F-150's.

I was expecting better.

 

That's good mileage for that Expedition BUT it doesn't have any where near the power the ecoboost has. The 4.6 is an excellent motor but not a powerhouse.
That kind of economy with the power it is producing IMPRESSES me.

 

Until they make the front of the truck more aerodynamic, not much is gonna change. Also the truck sits up too high too imo you get a lot of drag under it too.. With some better aero and lowering I bet 25 mpg would be doable..

 

Ford's bluffing a bit with this my friends. Look at the upcoming CAFE light truck requirements. 2012 25.7 mpg, 2013 26.4 mpg, 2014 27.3 mpg, 2015 28.5 mpg and 2016 29.8 mpg. (numbers taken from a recent issue of Autmotive News). Ford certainly hasn't shown us all that the EB is able to do in the F150. I think this holds true for the 3.7 and 5.0's also.

We will see improvements in power/mileage ratios as well as power to weigh ratios in order to meet these challenging mileage requirements.

Like most all of the posts on sites like this, this is all just my opinion. But it seems to make a little sense...

 

How much more do you guys want? That's 3 MPG HWY better than the 2010 models with the 5.4L 4x4.

The revised EPA calculations are easily beatable under optimum conditions, I'd estimate one could get 24 MPG with a 4x2 EB empty and driving 60 MPH on the highway without difficulty.

3Putt: Of course the truck will get lower mileage while towing and/or hauling, what motor doesn't?

I think the 15/21 and 16/22 are impressive, especially considering the weight and structure of the truck along with the amount of power.

Eric

 

Right now I'm getting around 13 mpg stop and go, to me the EB's power and the improved mpg's sound like a pretty good start to me. And I'm not even complaining about my mileage with my 5.4. If I saw 15 mpg around town I would be much happier. Our trucks are so boxy and heavy, that I believe there would have to be a major weigh reduction, along with less aero drag, and that would probably make some people angry about that, even if it meant getting 29 mpg. Until some miracle of technology and physics happen, we all will have to have some kind of compromise.

 

At the expense of something. There is no free lunch, especially when government regulation is involved.

Only so much is possible with gasoline engines, and I suspect that's why we're seeing such an incremental improvement in fuel economy, even with these new engines. Weight has to come off, which means a weaker vehicle, or more expensive vehicle, or (more likely) both. I've watched over the past decade as manufacturers have stripped features and cut back on materials quality to maintain certain palatable price points. Sure, technology has brought us some major improvements, but we're all forced to buy a lot of government-mandated garbage that we don't really need.

Now, rather than simply forcing options to be standard equipment, the government is going to start dictating vehicle design through regulation. Something is going to have to give at some point, and that's going to be a bigger hit to your pocketbook, less capable vehicles, and/or a major change in lifestyle for many of us... for no good reason.


JKG

 

We need to find a cheaper way to make carbon fiber body panels and Titanium frames. That will net some MPGs!

 

If you are going to quote me, please get it right. I never mentioned the word towing. My point was the truck is rated empty and the smaller engine will become progressively less efficient COMPARED TO THE LARGER ENGINES the more its loaded or in the mountains. IMO, that engine will do just fine on flat highways carrying light loads. If one uses their truck in that fashion, then that engine should work just fine.

 

And I don't want you guys to get me wrong either. I think 22 for a 6000 lb brick on the highway is pretty darned good.

Yes, the engine is extremely powerful but I expected better and here's why.

1. All the hype on the EB would have us salivating over towing 11K lbs and yet getting 24 MPG's empty.

2. The 2011 5.0L equipped with the 4x4 and 3.73 axles is rated at 19

3. The 4x2 F-150, 3.15 axle and 4.6L 3V is already getting 21-22 or better and has been since 2009.

4. And then I fall back to my 2004 Expy which as I stated is old news by comparison and is getting 19-20 on the highway.

I just expected better. I believe that real world mileage will be better but we all know that the EPA changed the rules for MPG estimates a couple of years back. We will see.

 

Sorry to have "misquoted" you but all engines will experience a decrease in fuel efficiency when hauling people/things and dealing with hills. You may have a valid point, I guess it remains to be seen. It is rated 15 or 16 for city type driving - could it get less than that, sure. The 5.0 is rated 15 local as well and I believe the 6.2 is 12 or 13 MPG for city.

They all have ranges and the numbers we see are what the EPA rates it. The small print under that number tells the story. Could someone fall below these expectations? Certainly, there are circumstances where this will happen.

Anyway, here's my take. Many people around these parts expect the truck to get 30 MPG with the motor and it just isn't possible when the truck weighs 3 tons and is far from being aerodynamic. Look at the increase over the 2010 model engines - The 5.4L 4x4 was rated 14/18 and the EB is 15/21 - that's more than 10% increase on the highway. I believe that is substantial.

Personally, I am going with the base engine in the truck I plan to get - that will be the 5.0L. I do not need the towing capability of the EB nor do I want to spend $750 for no reason although I believe that is more than reasonable for the EB if someone wanted it. I also dislike the smaller fuel tank when getting the EB in 4x4 applications. 26 gallons is not enough regardless of engine choice.

The one thing that has not been discussed much but still worries me is whether using 87 octane will reduce the performance of the engine. The owners manual says something to the effect of the engine is designed to run on regular unleaded but may have reduced power in hot temperatures or while towing. Now, if I were to tow regularly I would opt for the 6.2L over the EB simply on this premise. Ford is telling us the motor may not be up to par under these conditions. I'd be weary of that.

It remains to be seen how good the engine will be but Ford is sure pushing it hard. I really hope it works out for them and is successful. We all want to see the company succeed. I would love to hear the owners feedback once it hits the streets in everyday use.