When I met my wife she had a 1993 Ford Ranger with the 4 cylinder, a stick regular cab and a 7' bed....I could barely fit in it, but we got 25mpg highway all day in that thing.

The hunger for more power and bigger vehicles is really a hard thing to overcome when you are talking about truly decent fuel economy. Think about it, these trucks are offering base normally aspirated V6s with 300 HP......go back even 10-15 years and that would compare pretty favorably to many of the V8s being offered.

As someone touched on above, at the end of the day no matter how you style a 4WD rig, it will basically be a rolling dumpster from a wind tunnel perspective.

With the launch of the GM Canyon/Colorado model, I'd be curious to see how Ford reacts, I think their money is in the smaller engine lighter truck concept, but with Dodge's econ-diesel capable of high 20mpg and even 30+ under the right circumstances and the GM Colorado being 7/8s size and offering the mini-duramax in 2016 I'm not sure the 2.7L will be enough to compete in the fuel economy game.

I could of course be 100% wrong......lol

 

Unless Ford builds a Ranger and intends to mount a 2.7L Eco under the hood, I'm not sure how all t his talk of a Ranger has anything to do with this conversation. Back on track please.

 

Lots of bashing in this thread, and I'm not sure why. Why don't we see how these things to do in the real world first?

 

We're all waiting and I certainly was not bashing, but just trying to guess what the real world mileage of the F150 will be with the 2.7. My guess is simply that it will get roughly what an Explorer with the 3.5 gets now, and that ain't 30 mpg. This is not an insult, it's just using an existing benchmark to help make educated guesses as to how the F150 will do in the real world.

The Ranger was definitely thread drift, but related to the fact that Ford will need to keep its fleet gas mileage above the EPA requirements and are now perhaps realizing that they ain't gonna do this with the F150 alone. How many SUV models does Ford build (five or six?), and wouldn't it make sense to have at least one other choice of pickup truck?

George

 

23+ mpg for a 4x4 would be great on the hwy. But if this is a case where the 3.5 is within 1 or 2 mpg of the 2.7, then I would say it is a fail.

 

For me the problem of "bashing" comes from the fact that the truck is starting to be manufactured and Ford still is not announcing there MPG number. Yes, I know the EPA has a number they are going to use, but Ford does know what the MPG is and they have for probably over a year. You do not go and build a new engine and truck, have a year plus of testing and not have a VERY GOOD idea as to all the numbers.

 

I repent from my mileage schmileage remark way back! Y'all boys made some good points about where the 2.7 Ecoboost will fit. If I had been in charge at Ford, I'd have never made the 2.7. That's why me name ain't Hank Ford IV.

 

I am not bashing. As the one who started the thread I was raising concern over the actual mileage figures that were directly quoted from journalists who have had a chance to drive the 2.7 and they made note of the mileage they experienced. I don't see where it is bashing to pass along information that is at the forefront of many buyers lists these days when they buy a vehicle and that's mileage. Furthermore, I have done a ton of research on the new F150 because I am making a truck purchase in the next couple of months and it's on my list of potentials - hardly looking to bash. However, if the 16-17 figure for combined mileage for the 2.7 turns out to be accurate, I do think this spells trouble. I hope it does not as I applaud Ford for this effort of a new aluminum body with a new motor that are both on the cutting edge. But 16-17 mpg combined will statistically leave them in the middle if not towards the back of the pack.

 

Ford will need a diesel to compete with the Dodge 1/2 ton diesel's 27mpg highway.

 

This is probably true. But once you add in the 40 cent cost increase for diesel fuel, plus the additional cost buying the diesel (partially offset by higher resale), the 2.7 may still be a cheaper engine to have for 3 years, 5 years, or some number like that. And the number could swing wildly if repair/maintenance costs for either the diesel or the 2.7 end up being significantly higher on average.

I had a friend with an old Jeep Liberty diesel (made by the same Italian mfr as the current truck one I believe) and he had some kind of catastrophic and expensive engine problem (maybe fuel pump and injection system) that forced him to get rid of the Jeep really quick. I might feel better if it was a Mercedes diesel engine, but that bridge burned long ago.

I remember comparing hybrids to economical small cars, and it was cheaper to run a stripper non-hybrid Civic over a Prius until you exceed 150k or 200k miles (and that was not including possible additional repair costs for the extra pieces--like batteries). If gas was $6 per gallon, the Prius would pay off much earlier.

Not meant to be off-topic, as there are a lot of factors that will affect the cost per mile of a truck and/or engine, and we will have to see how the 2.7 does as a low cost-per-mile engine with excellent power. For that matter, we'll have to see if the aluminum truck around the engine works out in terms of cost per mile (collision repair costs, paint problems to the negative, less rust to the positive).

George

 

on another forum someone posted that one of the people working the test drive event was getting 29MPG HW doing 65mph. it was a SC 4x4.

 

Compared the 2014 F150 specifications to the 2015 F150 specifications that would affect MPG.
The 2015 F150 curb weights have been now published by FMO.

Using a regular cab/short box, 2WD configuration

Curb weight, lbs
2014
3.7L V6 4685
5.0 V8 4791
3.5L eco not available with short box

2015
new 3.5L V6 4050
new 2.7L eco 4168
5.0L V8 4223

Using a regular cab/long box, 2WD configuration

Curb weight, lbs
2014
3.7L V6 4764
5.0 V8 4901
3.5L eco 4935

2015
new 3.5L V6 4154
new 2.7L eco 4257
5.0L V8 4344
3.5L eco 4419


Note, the for the base 3.5L V6 regular cab/ short box model the curb weight decreased 635 lbs.
The 2.7L eco engine weight is 118 lbs greater than the base 3.5L V6.

Tires
2014 base models
235x75R17

2015 base models
245x70R17

The 2015 lower profile tires result in less rolling resistance than the higher profile 2014 tires even though the 2015 tires are 1/2" greater in width.

However, the 2015 tires are smaller in diameter by 10/32" than the 2014 tires resulting in greater engine speed.

The compression ratio for the 3.5L eco and 2.7L eco are both 10.0:1

The available rear end gear ratio for the 2.7L eco is 3.31:1, only.

Suspect the 22 mpg highway rating for the 2014 3.5L eco was based on the 3.15:1 rear end gear ratio configuration which would result in the lowest engine rpm of all the available rear end options.

Based on the numbers, I would predict the highway rating for 2.7L eco with 3.31:1 rear would be
27.1 MPG
,based on the 3.5L eco MPG.

Believe the weight factor to influence MPG when accelerating and not steady state highway crusing using the speed controller.

 

A few things mentioned in the attached article.
2015 Ford F-150 is Most Aerodynamic F-Series Ever - Motor Trend WOT

 

In a couple of years the cost difference between gasoline and diesel fuel probably won't much. That's when the EPA is pushing to have low-sulphur gasoline mandated. But the premium price of entry (initial cost of diesel option) would still be relevant. But that is partially offset by better resale value of a diesel vehicle.

 

Just like any engine, drive it nicely, and it will get better fuel economy than mashing the go pedal at every green light. If some here are getting great fuel economy out of their 3.5 Eco, than the smaller 2.7 in a lighter truck has got to be better on gas. Drive it hard like the test drivers doing reviews right now are admittedly doing, and there's the lower fuel economy numbers being reported.