Motortrend ran a 2015 F-150 Supercab Lariat 4x4 through their fuel economy test loop.

In their test they got:
16.6 city 18.5 mixed driving 21.5 Highway

Comparison of some other pickups on the same test loop:

Silverado Crew Cab 4x4 LTZ with the 5.3L V8:
13 City 15.2 Mixed driving 19 Highway

Ram 1500 4x4 Ecodiesel:
18.6 City 21.2 Mixed driving 25.8 Highway

http://wot.motortrend.com/1410_2015_...Reviews:MT|WOT


Pretty much what I figured. I knew it wouldn't match the diesel's numbers, but I figured it would be a good mix of fuel economy, power, and option pricing.

 

Wondering how the truck was geared and the size tires used. These numbers are very close to my numbers in my truck. Not impressed considering the 10% diet that these trucks underwent.

 

If you consider all the effort, time, money and hype around this engine and this bottom-up redesign......

THESE MILEAGE FIGURES AS PUBLISHED SUCK!!!!

 

One more thing -

At $3.50/gallon and driving 15k per year - these figures yield a monthly fuel cost of approximately $250/per month - not very impressive.

And this also means that if the 2.7 is coming in at this mileage that means the 3.5 will likely be unchanged from the 2014 model. So again all this investment and this hype and mileage is status quo....this will not bode well for F150 sales going forward.

They better hurry up and get that 10 speed transmission installed!! As Ram is gonna be selling an awful lot of diesels!

 

Anyone who tests these trucks needs to offer up better details before they publish information like this. People who don't research much will take it as is but those of us who live on these boards just shake our heads.

I'm confident that if my truck was 500 lbs lighter I might be able to eek out another mile per gallon. The 2015 is reportedly the most aerodynamic F-150 ever built and the lightest since 2004.

I can't imagine MT's tester as having 3.73 axles since the 2.7L is supposed to be the fuel sipper. I'll wager it had 3.55's and it should have done better. And likewise, who knows how it was driven.

 

Motor Trend tends to drive things hard (think rental car starts/burnouts)

 

I would be cautious about trying to rationalize these figures by thinking "who knows what axle the truck has" or "who knows how hard they drive it" - really?

The companion article to this one details the equipment on the truck - 4x4 Lariat with the 2.7 and the optional equipment is specified but nothing to suggest that the axle is anything other than the standard axle as listed in the Ford buying guide for this power train configuration - the 3.55. In terms of how its driven the article refers to the MPG's as "real" - implying a combination of mixed highway and city driving as the test result refers to figures for each type of driving (16.6 for city; 21.5 for highway) and then a combined figure of 18.5. The other tell tale sign is that the figures are provided to the tenth of a mile meaning that a fairly thorough test and calculation was conducted.

In my opinion I think this is really unfortunate - as I really would like to see better numbers as I think there is much that is positive about this truck. That said however, if the big push was for increased mileage by virtue of all this weight savings and new & lighter motor than these figures are not good - not good at all.

 

Yes sir, really.

The 2009-2014 forum has been a virtual battle ground for the last three years largely due to MPG's. A variety of testers has different results, then comes the "official" EPA estimates that lend a huge gap in actual mileage figures, then we have numerous cab and drivetrain configurations on the road and everyone thinks that their 6200lb F-150 should get 22 MPG's.

Having said that, we should all reserve comment till these beasts hit the road and we get real world figures from all over North America.

 

Finally someone has the ***** to post MPGs. Too bad Ford does not have engineers able to do mpg calculations. So now that we have an idea of 2.7 MPGs, what is the point of this engine over the 3.5 again?

 

That is the issue exactly.

What is the point of this engine at these mileage rates?

What is the point of going aluminum at these mileage rates?

We'll wait and see the EPA estimates but I bet that they,re not going to be all that different. This truck tested by MotorTrend is the standard configuration for the 2.7 with a 3.55 axle - the room for improvement over the test performed - and again the article states city driving; highway driving and combined - remaining variables are not that great.....

 

You guys are funny.

 

I tend to take Motortrend with a grain of salt. They seem to be very biased in their results and choices over the years. MPG figures are like fish stories, they seem to get bigger or smaller as time goes on.

 

The thing with MT's realMPG test is that they are fairly controlled, but conducted on a real highway loop as close to consistent as they can. They don't drive it hard like the typical journalist but try to simulate a typical commute over a 400 mile loop or something like that. They did a big article on their methodologies and they actually use a big ol' sniffer aparatus strapped to the vehicle (not OBD II or inaccurate hand calculated gallons from a pump versus miles on the odometer). So aside from doing everything in a lab dyno / self reporting (EPA) this is the next best thing we have out there. More detail on the truck would be welcome though. Personally, I'd like them to take a 3.5 with similar specs and run it on the same loop. Then that would truly paint the picture of whether or not the 2.7 has a raison d'etre.

 

Like to see test with driver, then test with 4 adults and 500 lbs. in the back between both motors.

 

At least right now our fuel prices have diesel running almost $1.00 more than regular, I'll stick with gasoline. Plus the extra initial cost of a diesel & it's routine maintenance. Of course I'm biased since I own an Eco.