2015 F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost

[SZR48207]

I swore up and down that I wasn't going to buy another Ford, but the new 2.7 has MPG numbers that beat all other makes for a similarly equipped vehicle.

I can't even fathom getting 19 city MPG in a full size pickup. This actually presents a dilemma because I'm in the market for a new vehicle this year and was set on a Tundra, but the MPG on those are just way behind at this point. Since this is the first year of the 2.7, I don't want to be the guinea pig, and I can assure you anyone who buys one of the first year 2.7s IS a guinea pig.

Hopefully Ford has learned from the MPG lawsuits over the first EcoBoost and these numbers are legit (or even conservative).

 

[lawman1909]

I'll pass on all ecoboosts. Not only are they having trouble in police interceptor models in excess of 100k miles, but most aren't even making it that far in duty service w/out problems. On the DD side, just as a work truck, I'd opt for the 3.5L ecoboost. But again, I am hesitant at any ecoboost. Can't beat the mpg though.

 

[Danno]

The Ecoboost real world does not do as well as EPA ratings.

2012 3.5L Ecoboost is rated at 17mpg combined, a look at fuelly.com shows about 15.5 mpg.

2012 5.0L is rated at 16 combined, fuelly.com shows about 15.5 mpg.

I would expect similar with the 2.7L. It is hard to stay out of boost. When in the boost it makes big power and consumption rises big time.

 

[dishdude]

If I was buying strictly from that list, I am taking the Chevy!

 

[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.

 

[wirelessF]

Take a lease and be BITOG's first guinea pig.

 

[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.

 

[mattwithcats]

2.7 liter in a full size pickup?

Do you not remember the mid sized Dodge Dakota with the 2.2 Omni engine,, 1988-89?
The hesitation of power was legendary...
I know because I owned one, got it for half price (new) and also got $1,000 back...

Either wait 3-5 years for Ford to work our the bugs, or get a 3.5...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Not really that impressive IMO. My 14 Ram consistently returns 18 mpg in the city once you get tired of gunning it to feel the 8 speed trans work. Gets 20 with me driving it, my Wife is the lead foot.

My Pilot buddy has one of these on order, I'll give everybody an opinion after it is delivered soon...

 

[oilmaven]

From what I'm reading, with the EcoBoost you can have your pick...Eco or Boost...but not both. Keeping the turbo on the boil to keep things moving at a decent pace knocks the heck out of the mpg. Those mileage figures are probably only remotely feasible if you drive it like a granny.

 

[95busa]

Those turbo engines in full size trucks all get good mpg till its time to do truck stuff.

 

[19jacobob93]

Regardless of better MPGs and power figures I'd take the old 4.6 over the EcoBoost any day! The EB won't even come close to being as reliable and robust and I'm betting it won't produce those figures for long.
And as stated smaller turbo engines normally use more fuel than their larger engined counterparts because they are thrashing and working harder for the same results

 

[supton]

Why does everyone think that, if it is in boost,then it is sucking down gas? In the end it winds up in the 12-14.7:1 air/fuel range. Like any vehicle, more air thro the motor = more gas.

Personally I'd avoid first year models. If you drive few miles, hmmm maybe. If it's a lemon but you are still under warranty 3 years from now maybe trade in will be good. But it does seem that Ford has been doing there testing on these EB motors.

In the end I'm not sure what the upper limit for mpg is on a full size truck. Lots of weight and lots of air to push. Seems like the point of disminishing returns to shrink the motor down.

I wonder what resale will be like. Will it drop if it is a truck that can't tow 15,000lb? So much of this market value is based on bragging rights.

 

[19jacobob93]

Well my old man works for the Gold Coast city council and they pretty much have in their fleet every single commercial vehicle available.
The Holden Colorados with the little 2.8 Turbo diesel engines use a surprisingly huge amount of fuel and many have said you can pretty much see the needle move because you have to hold them in hight revs to get them moving. Both the Holden Commodore Ute with the 3.6 V6 and the Ford Falcon Ute with the 4.0 I6 use way way less fuel because they basically idle everywhere yet have more power when it is required. The LPG (natural/autogas) versions of both these angines blow everything else out the water and cost half as much to run as any 4 cylinder diesel they have

 

[volk06]

My 2011 ecoboost averages between 17-17.5 mpg. Premium 91 E0 is the key. If I use 87 E10, I'm looking at 15.7-16 mpg average.

For some reason i always get better than the fuelly average. My Grand Prix, focus and f150 have all gotten above fuelly.

 

[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

 

[itguy08]

I wouldn't worry about being a guinea pig at all. I've got 2 1st year models (see my sig) and outside of a bum knock sensor in the Taurus the Ecoboost has been flawless. Can't say much about the F150 other than in the year I've had it, it has also been flawless.

I've got no doubt either will make it to at least 150k like the wife's vehicle. And at that point they will owe me nothing.

For point of reference, I'm averaging about 16.9 in mixed driving in the F150. It's a 4x4 with 3.73s so that doesn't help MPG at all. There are those on the F150 forums without the high gears that get a few MPG better - some around 20. I've seen a high of 18 in mine so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Those that have driven the new 2.7 say it's very powerful. The same linear-like power of the other Ecoboosts and Diesels.

 

[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.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

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

 

[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.