Around here gas stays around 20 percent cheaper than diesel, so cost per mile is a wash.

 

Ford may be waiting to see the take rate of teh 5 cyl diesel in the transit before going to the expense of fitting it into anothr platform like the F150. If that's a big seller, they'll take notice.

Myself, I'm impressed with all the engines that they have in this lineup, and across the entire blue-oval brand. This is light years ahead of where we were in the 90's. The base model 3.5 NA engine in these 2015 trucks makes more HP than ANY engine availible in the 1992-1996 models. Even the mighty 460. Not quite as much torque, but that's from an engine that's less than half the displacement. AMAZING!

All this talk really makes me want to buy a new truck. I'm so excited. Gotta start buttering up the CFO.

 

From what I've read the mileage you report is somewhat unusual for a 3.5 ecoboost. Most I've read about don't get anywhere near your mileage, some substantially less.

Power is not free just because the engine is small and if the 2.7 ecoboost has the power numbers that are leaking out or being thrown out as guesses then reality needs to check in somewhere. It takes a certain amount of fuel to make that power. Sure 700lb weight reduction will help. The transmission will help some but quite frankly the improvement will be small over the current 6sp.

Look for some small incremental increase in fuel economy in some situations but don't look at this like Ford re-invented the wheel. At less than 70mph (like you've reported as your normal driving speed) it may do low to mid 20's. Drive one at 70 and above and physic's will check in.

 

They don't release the numbers because of competition

 

I'm with you on that. I'm actually going to check out the new GMC Canyons when they come out.

In 2016 it is getting a deisel

 

Agreed sir, I chose a truck with the 3.31 axles. I made a choice to have fuel economy and some good power instead of poor economy and stump pulling power. The thing that gets me is some people will buy a stump puller and then complain that it's MPG's are lower than what Ford advertises on TV.

However, if one were to look at the monroney sticker, it clearly shows in the smaller print that if your mileage is between XX and XX, it's normal. Everyone thinks that a max tow ecoboost truck should get 22 MPG's at wide open throttle. Sorry folks, it ain't gonna happen. So, having my Monroney sticker handy, the two large numbers show a range of 15-21. The two smaller numbers under the 15 show a range of 12-18 and the two smaller numbers under the 21 show a range of 17-25. I think every ecoboost truck on this website is well within all of the numbers. It's not my fault that testosterone plays games with a truck buying decision.

 

They should can everyone who agreed with that stupid decision if you are correct.

 

Is it possible that they haven't arrived at the final numbers yet? Maybe they don't know them.

Plus you have to have news to ration out to keep headlines flowing til the date they are on the lots.

 

I have 2012 max tow, lifetime average is 17.2 mpg, the truck it replaced was a 2006 fx4 flareside with 5.4 and 3.55 gears, I never seen more than15.6 highway, if that truck averaged more than 13 mpg, I would be surprised. I tow a 7200# travel trailer, the old truck struggled with it, the new truck dosent know its there. when I ordered this truck, it was between an f250 gasser or this ecoboost, I guarantee you there was no testosterone involved, over all, I am very happy with this truck!!

 

Unless you tow frequently. Add some more fuel savings to the diesel and add more fuel expense to the EB.

 

Also, don't forget the increased value when it comes time to sell or trade it in.
For example, the difference between my diesel F-350 and a gas version of the exact same vehicle with the standard gas engine is significant ($22,093 vs. $17.093).

That $5000 difference is almost what the initial up charge was. I think the list up charge was about $6400 at the time....

 

Going back to possible 2.7 fuel economy, I would think it would have to be better than the 3.5. I can't believe Ford would make it's mpg worse.

 

Of course. They are trying to compete with the Ram diesel.

 

I saw a post on f150 online. It was about the video on car and driver. In the video it shows the gas tank being half full, and it said 554 miles to empty. The guy figured 30 mpg if the truck has a 36 gallon tank. This was on the black platinum they were showing at the Detroit auto show. I hope this video is correct 30 mpg would be a game changer for ford.

 

In general, EPA fuel mileage is not made official until all engine and transmission calibrations are finalized and tested for meeting emissions requirements (edit--AND good driveability in all possible conditions). I am sure that Ford can approximate the EPA test sequence and knows the ballpark gas mileage of the 2.7 but I'm also sure that at this time, the final calibrations and fuel economy numbers are not known. There is a LOT of stuff to control with etronic throttle, infinite fuel mixture combos (including injector timing and shutoff on trailing throttle), trans shift points--in every possible climate condition...gotta be maddening to get it all right. My Chrysler bud's job had been driving around in camo Chrysler 200's with piles of gauges and readouts--calibrating their new 3.2 liter Pentastar (shrunken version of the 3.6 that Chrysler uses in every V6 app they have).

The F150 will still be a 4500+ lb truck with a huge frontal area, so don't expect the mileage to be what can be gotten out of an Escape or something much smaller and more aerodynamic.

As an example, a 2WD Explorer is rated at 17/24 (20 combined) mpg with the 3.5 liter Ecoboost engine and 20/28 (23 combined) with the 2 liter 4 cyl Ecoboost. I wouldn't have any reason to believe that a 2WD F150 with the new 2.7 EB could do better than the 2WD Explorer with the 3.5 EB due to weight and frontal area. Physics--it's the law

George