New F-150 Delivers Best In Class Fuel Economy

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Hemi426
The turbo 3.5 V6 WILL run on regular 87 octane but you MUST run it on 93 octane if you want optimum power. That came straight from Ford's website.


Per Ford's website, the advertised output was achieved on 87 octane.

Originally Posted By: Ford Media
The 3.5-liter EcoBoost truck engine delivers 365 horsepower at 5,000 rpm and best-in-class 420 lb.-ft. of torque at 2,500 rpm, with up to 90 percent of the peak torque available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm – all on regular fuel


http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33260

It will make more HP/TQ on 89-93 octane.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Yep.

No question if the EB can hold up in real world use it will be an impressive engine.

"...with up to 90 percent of the peak torque available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm – all on regular fuel."

Unreal power curve. Flat as a table top.

 

[wapacz]

Is it wrong that I think 23 is kind of low?

I have a 2009 silverado 1500 crew cab 4 wheel drive with a 5.3 liter that gets and is rated 20mpg . If a truck set up like that can get 20 you would think you could squeeze a bit more out of a 1.6 liter smaller engine, normal cab and 2 wheel drive than 3 mpg.

 

[ls1mike]

5.3 has always gotten decent gas mileage for a half ton. I used to get right around 20-21 mpg on the highway in my 04. After the tune and exhaust I could see 23 mpg. Mine was an extra cab 4X4 with 3.73s.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: wapacz
Is it wrong that I think 23 is kind of low?

I have a 2009 silverado 1500 crew cab 4 wheel drive with a 5.3 liter that gets and is rated 20mpg . If a truck set up like that can get 20 you would think you could squeeze a bit more out of a 1.6 liter smaller engine, normal cab and 2 wheel drive than 3 mpg.


Those are projected numbers, and Ford has been on a streak of low-balling their projections. I'm kind of expecting a 24-25 MPG figure from the EPA with the 3.7 and EcoBoost.

The new Mustang 3.7 beat Ford's projection by 1 mpg, getting 31.

 

[Dualie]

I'm amazed one of the hybrid zealots hasn't chimed in here with "A pickup doesn't need that much torque to get the job done" "turbo charged pickup trucks are pointless and a waste of resources" or why by a half ton when you could do the work on a skateboard.


But my own personal preference for TRUE TRUCK ENGINES is long stroke, large displacement, low RPM engines.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Dualie
But my own personal preference for TRUE TRUCK ENGINES is long stroke, large displacement, low RPM engines.

MMMMMM Big Block...

 

[caravanmike]

Originally Posted By: Dualie

my own personal preference for TRUE TRUCK ENGINES is, low RPM engines.


you mean flat head, straight six cylinders?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Ford will have to go a ways to beat their own straight 6.

That was one of the best engines on the road. Not for fuel economy but for overall cost of ownership.

All this tech is great while you're under warranty but when turbos and other expensive stuff die the bill could buy a LOT of fuel for a boring old straight six!

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Ford will have to go a ways to beat their own straight 6.


Ford still has a straight 6. It wasn't developed from the 240/300 truck sixes but from the passenger car 144/200/250 L6.

The only problem? Ford Australia is keeping it to themselves.

Seems like it would be less expensive to build an L6 than a V6. You would have to have a longer crankshaft but there would only be one casting for the head. Not two.

It would work fine for trucks and RWD cars....maybe not so much for FWD.

I think Daewoo is the only company in recent history to mount an L6 sideways. (Suzuki Verona) As much as it is a pain to do a transverse 4's accessory belt, the L6 has got to be 2 cylinders worse.

 

[Dualie]

Originally Posted By: caravanmike
Originally Posted By: Dualie

my own personal preference for TRUE TRUCK ENGINES is, low RPM engines.


you mean flat head, straight six cylinders?


NO! OHV strait 6's and V8's.

No ridiculous turbo charged OHV variable valve timing nightmares.