2015 F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost

[supton]

What is good gas milage while towing? Based upon casual web surfing I would think that while pulling any full sized travel trailer anything greater than 10mpg is "good". Towing a vehicle on a flatbed, maybe 14 would be good.

I did see some complaints on Ridgelines getting poor mpg while towing. But it didn't seem much lower than what V8's were getting. Not sure if some people think that loaded mpg ought to be the same as unloaded or something.

 

[Astro14]

Fundamentally, the Ecoboost is a turbo engine. I've owned a few, and there are three turbos in the driveway right now.

So, under light load, a turbo gets better mileage than a normally aspirated engine of the same horsepower. There are fewer/lighter moving parts, less engine friction, so it's more efficient.

Under heavy load, the turbo gets the same, or slightly worse, mileage than a normally aspirated engine of the same horsepower. You've got to burn a certain amount of fuel to create that power. The turbo engine burns fuel quite well with the extra air that forced induction provides, but the fuel trim is often adjusted to more rich under high boost to prevent detonation.

All of the observations in this thread; Ecoboost gets great mileage under light load, or driven gently, Ecoboost gets lousy mileage when towing, are exactly what I would expect of a turbo engine. It's the nature of the beast...

To the OP considering this truck - if you drive it gently (not Miss Daisy gently, but reasonable acceleration, etc.), it will reward you with great mileage. Tow with it, drag race at stoplights, and you will get far lower mileage. Only you know your usage pattern. If you tow a lot, I would get the NA engine, or better: diesel.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: Danno
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Once my parents switched their Ecoboost to 91 octane gas, it has no problem exceeding the EPA rating. To the point that it is actually cheaper to run 91 than 87

That tells me Ford engineers are throwing a lot of 87 octane fuel into the engine to prevent detonation, which lessens as an issue with 91 octane.


Exhaust tips of an EcoBoost Ford usually look sooty, perhaps for this very reason.

 

[c502cid]

We had 2 pre-production F150's in our booth at SEMA this year. We weren't even allowed to open the hoods but we did to hook up the power inverters as is any convention center rules. Both had unmarked eco-boosts. I only got to idle one in and out of the show so I cant tell you about power or mileage but the Ford Engineer who came over during the show to talk to us about show reaction said this. The fuel economy wars, and current/future cafe regulations, have changed the ball game with the full size trucks. Ford is going after Ram Eco-Diesel with the 2.7. The 2015 Ford is 700lbs lighter then the 2014 (I took a magnet to it, just had to!) and the 2.7 is more then adequate to do the job but still perform in mileage testing. Thats the key, bragging rights for advertising, then actual mileage, then performance in the real world. Like all manufacturers, Ford has done their homework...to the best of their ability.

No, I didn't ask what oil they used....

 

[itguy08]

Premium can help in the Ecoboosts. I know it "smooths out" the SHO, especially in the summer. In that application it gives slightly better fuel economy (yes, I have records for all 83k) but not enough to offset the higher cost of the fuel, at least in my experience.

The tips can be sooty - they will run slightly rich on WOT but nobody can dump tons of fuel now - IIRC the EPA mandates tight control even at WOT (where before they could dump tons of fuel).

Yes, when under boost they will suck gas like a 2x bigger engine (3.5 is ~ 7.0L, 2.7=5.4L, etc). But throw a big load behind anything and watch fuel economy plummet. Happens to them all, even Diesels. But when not under load they will do well.

I've been happy with ours - decent fuel economy, tons of power, and with the flat torque curves they are fun to drive.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Danno
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Once my parents switched their Ecoboost to 91 octane gas, it has no problem exceeding the EPA rating. To the point that it is actually cheaper to run 91 than 87

That tells me Ford engineers are throwing a lot of 87 octane fuel into the engine to prevent detonation, which lessens as an issue with 91 octane.


Yep. The factory programming makes the engine want to lug all the time. It has the ability to pull a steep hill at 1500RPM in 6th gear ... but it is going to use crazy amounts of gas to prevent pinging when it's running at full boost at 1500RPM.


Originally Posted By: itguy08
Premium can help in the Ecoboosts. I know it "smooths out" the SHO, especially in the summer. In that application it gives slightly better fuel economy (yes, I have records for all 83k) but not enough to offset the higher cost of the fuel, at least in my experience.

The tips can be sooty - they will run slightly rich on WOT but nobody can dump tons of fuel now - IIRC the EPA mandates tight control even at WOT (where before they could dump tons of fuel).

Yes, when under boost they will suck gas like a 2x bigger engine (3.5 is ~ 7.0L, 2.7=5.4L, etc). But throw a big load behind anything and watch fuel economy plummet. Happens to them all, even Diesels. But when not under load they will do well.

I've been happy with ours - decent fuel economy, tons of power, and with the flat torque curves they are fun to drive.


Do you have a lot of hills where you are? I think that's why my parents' ecoboost saw such an increase with 91. It's programmed to hold top gear as long as possible, so on the hills it would just consume gas like crazy. When I was driving it, I found I would get better mileage by making the transmission drop a gear or two.

But with 91, it can hold top gear and not struggle to avoid pinging. It also has to downshift a lot less on some of the very large hills.

 

[cptbarkey]

if you care one iota about mpg, dont buy a truck, bottom line.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I was listening to episode #410 Aotoblog podcast and they had a 4x4 2.7l F150 and were reviewing it. In the first 5 min of the podcast the takeaway was they didn't even get close to the mpg. They got 16mpg in mixed driving 70/30 highway/city of course winter time so cold weather effects. It was in 2w drive the entire time and no towing. No special driving conditions but likely highway was pretty fast. There are probably other reviews out as well.


If I was in their shoes I'd be beating on it like a red headed step child. I'd be in boost all the time.


I dont think they were hammering on it but on the highway at 80mph they were saying it was likely heavy in boost hence the reason for such low mpg.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
if you care one iota about mpg, dont buy a truck, bottom line.


Nobody buys a truck in order to get good fuel economy, but I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to minimize your fuel use as much as you can, within reason.

I guess you could say, "if you care about how much fuel you use, don't buy anything with an engine, cuz they all use gas." I don't mean for that to sound flip, but everything's on a sliding scale; there are few absolutes.

 

[topbliss]

The Ford 2.7 got 4 mpg more then the chevy and was the favorite of the 3 pickups tested. Of course its not going to get great mileage towing but you only tow 10% of the time. Read it

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/truc...rado/specs.html


Originally Posted By: 95busa
Originally Posted By: topbliss
Our ecoboost in an Escape absolutely gets as much if no more then the epa ratings and it an amazing engine, Ford really did their homework with the Ecoboosts and have a LOT to lose of they don't do what they claim to. The F150's are the money makers for Ford and they don't gamble on them. I would just on the F150 2.7 in a second if I were in the market for a truck. You have a buncha of 'sour grapes' people here cause they can't afford one so they poo poo it.. Don;'t be afraid of the new F150 ecoboosts, you will love it, if you can keep your foot out of the boost

Well I guess motortrend is sour grapes poopooing too, since they noted that while towing and under load the 2.7 got poor gas mileage. If you want to do V8 work, you get V8 fuel economy, simple as that. It takes a certain amount of energy to pull X pounds. There is a finite amount of energy in gas. To get an engine to do the same amount of work at the same rate, you have to push a certain amount of gas through it. The ecoboosts are pretty cheap, the 2.7 is a $795 upgrade over then 3.5 N/A and the 5.0 is actually more expensive. I am willing to bet you havent hitched a big trailer behind that turbo 4 in your escape. If you had, you would see that happens to that good gas mileage. I can see the ecoboosts getting great mileage unloaded. Loaded/towing, not so much. The only way to get better mileage while doing the same work at the same rate is to find a more efficient fuel source (diesel) or a hybrid. Remember, all turbos do is get more fuel and air into a small engine than can be naturally pulled in. They make the engine use more fuel and air when under boost! The efficiency gained through forced induction is just that you get a smaller displacement engine when boost is not needed. Turbos are not a magic bullet. That being said, if I was buying a new half ton, it would be the 2.7 ecoboost. Why? Exactly that, efficiency when not towing. I just wouldnt expect great gas mileage when pulling. Its an unrealistic expectation.

 

[cptbarkey]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
if you care one iota about mpg, dont buy a truck, bottom line.


Nobody buys a truck in order to get good fuel economy, but I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to minimize your fuel use as much as you can, within reason.

I guess you could say, "if you care about how much fuel you use, don't buy anything with an engine, cuz they all use gas." I don't mean for that to sound flip, but everything's on a sliding scale; there are few absolutes.


you are overthinking it. want mpg? dont buy a truck. the end.

 

[c502cid]

[/quote] you are overthinking it. want mpg? dont buy a truck. the end. [/quote]

Glad you have so much to offer here.

 

[cptbarkey]

Originally Posted By: c502cid

Glad you have so much to offer here.


always there for some common sense.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: c502cid

Glad you have so much to offer here.


always there for some common sense.


I don't think you are too far off though.

The Chevy gets 4 mpg worse than the Ford. If 4 mpg is going to be the financial deal breaker for a customer, than that customer probably shouldn't be purchasing a brand new truck. Unless you drive across the country every day, there should be more important factors influencing the financial decision of purchasing a vehicle such as initial purchase price and repair/maintenance costs. A repair bill for a turbo will buy a significant amount of fuel. I'm not saying the Ecoboost is unreliable, but judging a new vehicle purchase on mpg is foolish.

A guy I worked with was considering the purchase of a newer car because it got 2 mpg better than his current vehicle. Meanwhile his current vehicle was paid for, reliable, and the insurance was cheaper. It made no financial sense to take on a monthly car payment, higher insurance, taxes, etc in order to save a few bucks on mpg. The gas savings wouldn't offset the car payment.

I can see the mpg thing making sense for commercial fleet buyers who run a lot of trucks. 100 trucks getting 4 mpg better would be a significant savings. I wouldn't buy a Ford Ecoboost that gets 4 mpg better if the Dodge Hemi and Chevy 5.3 trucks are cheaper to purchase initially and have lower maintenance costs. It is all in the numbers.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: c502cid

Glad you have so much to offer here.


always there for some common sense.


I don't think you are too far off though.

The Chevy gets 4 mpg worse than the Ford. If 4 mpg is going to be the financial deal breaker for a customer, than that customer probably shouldn't be purchasing a brand new truck. Unless you drive across the country every day, there should be more important factors influencing the financial decision of purchasing a vehicle such as initial purchase price and repair/maintenance costs. A repair bill for a turbo will buy a significant amount of fuel. I'm not saying the Ecoboost is unreliable, but judging a new vehicle purchase on mpg is foolish.

A guy I worked with was considering the purchase of a newer car because it got 2 mpg better than his current vehicle. Meanwhile his current vehicle was paid for, reliable, and the insurance was cheaper. It made no financial sense to take on a monthly car payment, higher insurance, taxes, etc in order to save a few bucks on mpg. The gas savings wouldn't offset the car payment.

I can see the mpg thing making sense for commercial fleet buyers who run a lot of trucks. 100 trucks getting 4 mpg better would be a significant savings. I wouldn't buy a Ford Ecoboost that gets 4 mpg better if the Dodge Hemi and Chevy 5.3 trucks are cheaper to purchase initially and have lower maintenance costs. It is all in the numbers.

What you said makes perfect sense. One thing to keep in mind though. There are a lot of car, truck, and SUV buyers that buy simply because they want a certain vehicle, and price and mpg don't play much into the equation at all. They want it because they want it and nothing else matters.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
if you care one iota about mpg, dont buy a truck, bottom line.


Nobody buys a truck in order to get good fuel economy, but I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to minimize your fuel use as much as you can, within reason.

I guess you could say, "if you care about how much fuel you use, don't buy anything with an engine, cuz they all use gas." I don't mean for that to sound flip, but everything's on a sliding scale; there are few absolutes.


you are overthinking it. want mpg? dont buy a truck. the end.


I presume you'd be happy in that new Ram of yours if it got 5mpg, right? Would you own it if got 3mpg? As long as it did its job for you, right?

 

[cptbarkey]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
if you care one iota about mpg, dont buy a truck, bottom line.


Nobody buys a truck in order to get good fuel economy, but I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to minimize your fuel use as much as you can, within reason.

I guess you could say, "if you care about how much fuel you use, don't buy anything with an engine, cuz they all use gas." I don't mean for that to sound flip, but everything's on a sliding scale; there are few absolutes.


you are overthinking it. want mpg? dont buy a truck. the end.


I presume you'd be happy in that new Ram of yours if it got 5mpg, right? Would you own it if got 3mpg? As long as it did its job for you, right?


scroll up to my post about over-thinking situations. making up stuff falls along those lines i think too.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I'm really surprised all they got was 14MPG towing with the Gas v8. When I tow with the 2001 F350 ... I get 14MPG.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Miller88

Do you have a lot of hills where you are? I think that's why my parents' ecoboost saw such an increase with 91. It's programmed to hold top gear as long as possible, so on the hills it would just consume gas like crazy. When I was driving it, I found I would get better mileage by making the transmission drop a gear or two.

But with 91, it can hold top gear and not struggle to avoid pinging. It also has to downshift a lot less on some of the very large hills.


Not too many hills here in Central PA where I commute. Were kind of in the valley. When I go west I do like to go through the mountains on the way there and on the return take the Turnpike (avoiding the mountains). Can't say I've noticed much of a difference in MPG on the legs of the trip. It's always right around 1/2 tank in the Taurus each way. Now I don't baby it up the hills either - I will run out of 'Nads before the car will run out of steam.

I can feel the difference in the programming when I put in premium, especially in the summer. Seems to be less jerky with the shifts and smoother. In the winter I don't notice much of a difference at all.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
scroll up to my post about over-thinking situations. making up stuff falls along those lines i think too.


Huh? I don't understand. Going from 20mpg down to 16mpg is a cost over a 200k-300k lifespan. I come up with 3,750gallons difference over 300k. That's over $9k at today's low $2.50/gallon cost.

Although if one is "5 and done" then I agree. Fuel cost is neglible if one only owns for 5yr/60kmiles, at least on a truck. Depreciation would probably be much larger.

I agree, 1mpg difference isn't usually big, but 4mpg on something that normally is under 20 is big news. Money saved is money saved.