GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 117 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,421 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Real MPG Rating Bests Chevrolet Silverado 5.3L
MotorTrend
October 28, 2014
By: Alex Nishimoto


The aluminum-intensive 2015 Ford F-150 has yet to receive official EPA fuel economy numbers, but Motor Trend's own emissions experts recently gathered some data on the truck's new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6, and the results look promising.

A 2015 Ford F-150 SuperCab Lariat 4x4 equipped with the twin-turbo 2.7-liter achieved 16.6/21.5/18.5 mpg city/highway/combined in our Real MPG tests. That's less thirsty than a 2015 Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 with the 5.3-liter V-8 Crew Cab we recently tested, which returned 13/19/15.2 mpg. The reigning Truck of the Year champ, the 2014 Ram 1500, scored 18.6/25.8/21.2 mpg in 4x4 EcoDiesel trim.

Full article available at link.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
Wow, that is pretty impressive.

I find it amazing how much their Real MPG numbers differ from EPA. Their method seems like it would be fairly accurate. Some cars match well with EPA, others don't. Perhaps some cars are just tuned to do well on the EPA test and not so much in real life?

Most people that care about fuel economy are shopping the EPA numbers as those are most readily available, I can't wait to see how those turn out. I really want to know how the 5.0L and 3.5L EB are as that will be a more direct comparison to the previous generation. How much does the lighter weight gain you in fuel economy?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,339 Posts
A 2015 Ford F-150 SuperCab Lariat 4x4 equipped with the twin-turbo 2.7-liter achieved 16.6/21.5/18.5 mpg city/highway/combined in our Real MPG tests. That's less thirsty than a 2015 Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 with the 5.3-liter V-8 Crew Cab we recently tested, which returned 13/19/15.2 mpg. The reigning Truck of the Year champ, the 2014 Ram 1500, scored 18.6/25.8/21.2 mpg in 4x4 EcoDiesel trim.
The MT test is not the EPA test
A Silverado 5.3 4x4 gets 16/22 mpg
A Ram 1500 diesel 4x4 gets 19/27 mpg

By those figures, the Ram diesel more closely matches its EPA figures but still a tick under.
clearly the 5.3 couldn't use its cylinder deactivation as much as needed and the Ford
most likely needed to use its boost more than the official test.

The Ram diesel is less affected by fluctuations in test program, so its economy will
probably be more consistent in actual driving where as the Ford and Gm will most
likely fall away much quicker on anything more than light running, the Ford less so.
Still, I think Ford will get their beautiful numbers for EPA..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,339 Posts
Might be good in initial testing, but we really don't about the long term durability of the engine yet.
Modern turbos with water cooled center bearing are way more reliable than the old version from the 1990s.
Around 45% of 2011 to 2014 F150 were equipped with the Ecoboost 3.5 v6 and well over 500,000 examples
are in service in F150, Explorer, Flex, Taurus, MKS and MKT.

The new 2.7 is better out of the box, being designed specifically for boosted operation from get go.
I think it's going to be a mighty interesting little engine that defies description as either a V8 gas
replacement or a V6 diesel alternative... it's probably somewhere in the middle...

I can see quite a few 5.4 3V owners looking at this little engine as their next ride, all Ford has to do
is convince these legions of truck owners that the little engine has the goods and sales will follow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
I expect an empty truck with half the cubic inches would get better fuel economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix and SRFCTY

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Might be good in initial testing, but we really don't about the long term durability of the engine yet.
You can say that about any new engine. These Ecoboost engines aren't using magic, the various technologies that are cobbled together under that name are all well known and durable. In fact the biggest question with a boosted engine long term is going to be the aluminum block, over time they degrade. With the 2.7EB they're using time tested diesel technology in CGI in the most demanding area of the engine. The 3.5EB has shown itself to be a strong, reliable engine in the F150 so far and there is every reason to think the new engine will be more reliable, not less.

Of course it could develop a habit of self immolation, who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
I expect an empty truck with half the cubic inches would get better fuel economy.
An boosted engine with half the cubic inches is going to need to use more boost, more often, to achieve the same results. When I look across the spectrum of gasoline engines it seems efficiency is more closely tied to power output than engine capacity, all other things being equal. In other words a 325HP/375lbft 5.0 would be very similar in efficiency to the 325hp/375lbft 2.3 Turbo under the same circumstances and in a similar vehicle.

Who knows, I've been wrong before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,689 Posts
Real MPG Rating Bests Chevrolet Silverado 5.3L
I'm not a truck-guy myself, but I gotta ask:

Why is this a "headline"? Isn't it basic logic that an engine with 2 more cylinders and TWICE the displacement is going to use more fuel?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
I went back to Motor Trend's 2014 truck of the year contest. 2014 GMC Sierra 1500 Denali was tested and received Real MPG ratings of 15/20. Not sure why the 2015 5.3 Silverado Z71 they just tested was worse at 13/19.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
907 Posts
An boosted engine with half the cubic inches is going to need to use more boost, more often, to achieve the same results. When I look across the spectrum of gasoline engines it seems efficiency is more closely tied to power output than engine capacity, all other things being equal. In other words a 325HP/375lbft 5.0 would be very similar in efficiency to the 325hp/375lbft 2.3 Turbo under the same circumstances and in a similar vehicle.

Who knows, I've been wrong before.
Actually i was thinking that too. If you are in boost more often means more fuel more air to achieve similar power. Big V8s can lumber and produce the torque necessary to move the weight. Low rev = long life (normally). If i have to be on it all the time there will be considerable stress put on the engine. Dont get me wrong, Ford did better with the 2.7EB than the 3.5EB in terms of block design, but still. If Ford wants to impress me, EB a smaller (4.0-4.5L) V8 to slightly more power with considerably more torque than the 3.5EB and get the best of both worlds. Plus the V8 rumble with should be REQUIRED for a full size truck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Actually i was thinking that too. If you are in boost more often means more fuel more air to achieve similar power. Big V8s can lumber and produce the torque necessary to move the weight. Low rev = long life (normally). If i have to be on it all the time there will be considerable stress put on the engine. Dont get me wrong, Ford did better with the 2.7EB than the 3.5EB in terms of block design, but still. If Ford wants to impress me, EB a smaller (4.0-4.5L) V8 to slightly more power with considerably more torque than the 3.5EB and get the best of both worlds. Plus the V8 rumble with should be REQUIRED for a full size truck!
You won't get the correct V8 rumble once you've routed the exhaust through a couple turbos. It'll have a very different sound coming out the back than the same engine without a turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Drive slower?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,449 Posts
Isn't it basic logic that an engine with 2 more cylinders and TWICE the displacement going to use more fuel?
Not necessarily. Consumer Reports reported last year that small displacement turbocharged engines often fail to deliver on claims of improved fuel economy.

To cite a passenger car example, the 1.5L Ecoboost Ford Fusion delivered worse real-world fuel economy numbers than the 3.5L V6 Honda Accord (24 mpg overall for Fusion, 26 mpg overall for Accord).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
An boosted engine with half the cubic inches is going to need to use more boost, more often, to achieve the same results.

Who knows, I've been wrong before.
But not much boost will be necessary in an EMPTY(as in zero payload) truck.
 
1 - 20 of 117 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top