Aluminum F-series claims best gas-engine truck mpg, but falls short of earlier Ford predictions
Ford has released fuel economy ratings for its new aluminum-intensive 2015 F-150 pickup truck. Models with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 will return 17 mpg city and 24 on the highway for a combined average of 20 mpg. The new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 mill will net you 19 mpg in the city, 26 on the highway for a combined average of 22 mpg. That 26 mpg figure technically makes it the most fuel-efficient gasoline-fed full-size pickup on the market; it's still topped in overall pickup mileage by the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel, which achieves 28 mpg highway. The EPA rated the new Ford pickups on Friday.
The 2015 Ram 1500 with a 3.6-liter V6 gasoline engine gets 18 mpg in the city and 25 on the highway. That engine only comes with 305 hp, while the 2.7-liter EcoBoost makes 325 hp. The V6-powered Silverado, alternatively, delivers 285 hp and returns 18 mpg in the city and 24 on the highway.
The new F-150 weighs on average 700 pounds less than the outgoing model largely due to its aluminum-intensive body construction. It arrives at dealerships this week.
Just about to post this. I wouldn't quite say a fail, it is pretty good fuel economy for a brick on wheels. And just one or two mpg's could be enough to sway fleet purchasers.....
The hype was so great I don't think there was much of a way for Ford to live up to it - people would be disapointed even if it were 50mpg.
Interesting choice to make the announcment the Friday before Thanksgiving. Often companies will report disapointing news on a Friday before a major holiday week as the markets are quiet with people being off and on vacation, then when the markets are back to normal the first week of December the news is just a fading memory. Did Ford realize the reality isn't matching up to the hype? What a superbly managed rollout on Ford's part - I wish GM were as adept.
Just about to post this. I wouldn't quite say a fail, it is pretty good fuel economy for a brick on wheels. And just one or two mpg's could be enough to sway fleet purchasers.....
The hype was so great I don't think there was much of a way for Ford to live up to it - people would be disapointed even if it were 50mpg.
I think the alum body is going to sell more on being rustproof than offering astounding MPG.
V8 mileage is where GM was with the 325 V8 in like 2009. Granted it does have more power though.
Thought the base V6 should net better than that as well - only 1mpg hwy over the base Silvy V6, and it can power anything while this one does not go on the lwb models.
I think now we know the reason Ford was holding back on these when the 'intro test drives' were done. Far from astounding.
If it wasn't for the 2.7 dink engine, the 3.6 Ecoboost and 5.0 are equivelant or worse to GM's 5.3 in gas mileage. This should not be when you drop "700 lbs." off this pig. C'mon, 23 highway for the 2.7 Ecoboost 4x4, is this April Fools day?
Surprise Surprise Ford have been giving out all the technical information with everything except the MPG details in their press releases.
Owners will face high cost repair bills for dings in bodywork, which will bump up insurance claims and running costs for owners.
Aussie designed Thai/South African made steel Ranger thats nearly the same size as a F-150, a small diesel in a Ford of Australia designed Ford Ranger returns an averages 32.22 US MPG/returns 35.13 US MPG on the highway, mind you its a bit gutless in comparison to the Ecoboost.
But it has enough torque to pull 160 tonne train out the shed, it gets the job done.
Two things:
1.) Ford claims the aluminum they are using is 3 times thicker than steel and will resist most minor bumps that will ding steel.
2.) Big downside is that if the skin IS dinged it will be almost impossible to pull out which means we are talking about an all new panel just for a ding....or bondo, I suppose, if it will adhere to aluminum.
Exactly, this new F-150 is a pig. Twin Turbos are a maintenace nightmare.... Not to mention the Aluminum body (which less than 10% of the body shops in America actually know how to repair). The base Pentastar V6 Ram gets nearly the same horsepower and fuel economy (although has a bit less towing capacity).... Ram is definitely going to be eating some Ford marketshare from this botched powertrain. I can't believe Ford is going to screw up its breadwinner so much.
Even with the good mileage of the 2.7EB, it doesn't impress me. With the shutter and start-stop, that's to be expected. What does impress me is the carryover engines. Any improvement over last year was all due to weight reduction and aero improvements (not unless I'm unaware of any gearing changes or ECM changes). But as you can see, loosing 700 isn't the holy grail of improving mileage. And that would go for GM too.
I haven't read most posts so others may have said this.
Weight only counts to 'stop/start' and 'slowing/accellerating'. Less weight means less energy lost to brake pad heat.
But weight has near zero impact on 'moving' fuel economy, such as highway and driving down the street, which is all down to aerodynamics and rolling resistance.
As to 'stop/start'; a braking energy recovery system is a better deal.
I would say those NUMBERS are GOOD and ANYBODY expecting 24/30 or something else is REALLY drinking the Ford kool-aid
and going back 10 years that City Milage is good for the HiWay ratings so I would say the # are in range of where they NEED to be
I can't help but feel Ford isn't happy with where their mileage ended up on the 2015 F150. Why would Ford release this info on a Friday afternoon if they were happy? No unless I am mistaken and auto news traffic is higher on the weekend than weekdays. I don't think the numbers are anything to hang your head about. But also, it might not be something to shout from the rooftops either. The timing just seems odd to me.
That is all fine and dandy, show me real numbers once you add people, cargo and/or towning. I suspect the Ford can handle what they rate it at, but at what cost to MPG?
I was a bit disappointed but maybe this is a case of closer to the real world estimates and not inflated like Honduh Accord hybrid mileage which in the real world is 7 mpgs LESS than the posted figures.
A good improvement over what they have, but my concern is what happens in the real world. If you get a 3MPG drop by added 4x4, what is going to happen with people, cargo, and towing? It is a great sales number, but think there will be a lot of pissed people when the real world numbers are far less.
Ford now has a problem, perception is greater than reality, that may not play well for them as this is rolled out. They got the worlds attention with this, if it is not a flawless launch, it will bite them, hard.
I'm not a truck guy, but here's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The most telling metric for trucks isn't horsepower, it's torque. To that end, the EB2.7 lines up closest to GM's 5.3 in terms of pulling power (and, I'm assuming availability and cost). The 4x4 full-sized GMC with the 5.3 is rated 16 mpg city, 18 mpg combined, 22 mpg highway. EB2.7, as noted is 18/23 mpg city/high. So a couple of mpg better in the city, one mpg better on the highway and I'm guessing one or two mpg better combined.
So, EB isn't a quantum leap forward, but it still offers better fuel economy for roughly equivalent performance. I'm sure many will be watching to see how these all do in tests with towing and loads. My gut is it's close enough that it won't sway a brand die-hard to switch -- a couple of mpg isn't do or die for most buyers. But, it's HUGE from a CAFE perspective in terms of the flexibility it offers Ford across its line. That's likely a much bigger motivator. A 20 mpg combined volume large pick up makes up for a lot of V8 Mustangs under the area-based CAFE rules!
I think it will be incredibly difficult for a full-sized truck to crack 30 mpg on the highway. The issue is frontal area. Trucks have a lot of metal to push through the air and resistance increases with the cube of speed. Unless trucks adopt very different profiles, (narrower, lower and much less upright), I have a hard time imagining 30 mpg is in reach with any kind of acceptable performance. Maybe, as you point out, with a diesel and the right gearing. Frankly, at highway speeds, weight doesn't really matter -- it's all about drag. That's why the F150 shows so much of an improvement in city fuel economy (lighter weight is easier to accelerate) but less of an advantage in highway economy. Gearing, low rpm torque and air resistance are the big factors in a great highway figure. It's why the 'Vette does so well.
A quick look on Fuelly (not 100% accurate I agree, but a good starting point), the 2014 3.5L EB gets worse combined economy than the 2014 5.0L (15.1 vs 17.4). The problem is Boosted engines and the EPA test. I don't think they are trying to decieve, its just real world driving does not give the improvement the EPA test indicates.
For reference the 2014 Silverado 5.3: is showing as 18 (my personal experience matches that with a ~17.8MPG with some towing over 9000miles).
Glad to see they get an improvement in the marketing numbers, time will tell what the real world shows.
and still "lose" to the boosted engines in EPA/marketing
IMHO GM NEEDS the 8 speed in the 5.3L and MARKET the the best FE V8 pick up
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
GM Inside News Forum
3.5M posts
83.7K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to GM owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about General Motors news, concepts, releases, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!