F150 ecoboost, anybody?

[Ecky]

F150 is only going to see those numbers at low speeds. In a Prius, you can cruise at 100+ mpg at 25mph, but will see less than 40 with all the mods in the world if you're driving at 75+. The same applies.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by mpg_numbers_guy

If you look at the average MPG for each vehicle, they don't count the outliers.

I think they do if the individual car has enough fill ups so it doesn't look that far off. If that car only had a couple fill ups of 200mpg sure, but if that car has 100 fill ups and in there are 4 200 mpg tanks they don't throw out those in the average. They only throw out a whole car not individual tanks.

[Hersbird]

I don't think any f150 owners are seeing 30 mpg. Some ecodiesel Dodge guys get high 20's without trying, I'm sure some of them get over 30 at times. Maybe when the new 3.0 diesel f150 comes out they too will have a 30mpg possible full size pickup.

[hayden55]

Its an interesting thought. Synopsis on ecoboost was it got advertised numbers when driving as normal, but under towing conditions the rich afr of the boosted models got worse mpg than the v8. When towing the 2.7 actually got the worst. ��
Also dont buy a direct injected motor. Ford even swapped back to port/direct injection since they couldnt keep the valves clean on the old 3.5s ��

[93tracerwagon]

I recently purchased a full size chevy 2500 van with the 2.8 Duramax and with about 7500 lbs or more regular weight, we are getting 17 to 18 in chicago city traffic and about 25 highway with no attempts to save fuel. It has about 2500 miles on it now. New and empty we saw about 27 highway on shorter 100 mile trips. It may have gotten around 30 on the longer trip when it was delivered from out of state. IMHO turbo 6's are a stupid idea for any truck that is doing real work. Diesels are inherently efficient at extremely heavy loads.... lots and lots of torque at low rpms. The 2.8 diesel produces about 360 ftlb of torque.... the same as the 6.0l gas v-8, but at much lower rpms. I bet much better city mileage could be gotten by changing the trans programming. It holds lower gears in city traffic than are necessary, probably for improved engine braking. Overall fuel usage is about 1/2 that of the gas vans we have. The extra cost of the diesel engine is returned by 20,000 miles. The gas savings along covers about a third of the car payment.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by bandit86

I keep hearing that it gets over 30 mpg and people can get over 600 miles per tank. It is less aerodynamic than my corolla, much heavier, less aerodynamic, how would that be possible? Any of you guys drove one?

The F150 2.7 ecoboost is EPA rated at 26 mpg highway. This is possible because it is a small turbo charged engine with a 10 speed transmission and the EPA "highway" test has a maximum speed of 60 mph. Steady state cruising at 55 mph on a level state highway could see high 20's maybe 30 mpg. Dip into the turbo driving around town and the mileage will drop like a rock.

No idea how new your Corolla is but a 2018 is rated at 40 mpg highway / 34 combined.

[Big Dave]

They do well in the EPA tests but real-world, they get about the same as the V-8s.

Secondly, I wouldn' hit a dog in the butt with a direct-injected gasoline engine. Intake valves coke up and cost a fortune to fix.

Direct injection is not ready for prime time.

[Ecky]

Over the weekend I rented a GMC Sierra long bed with cylinder deactivation from U-Haul. With the cruise control set to 55, driving through mountains with 32PSI in the tires and an outside air temperature of 20F, I averaged 27.5mpg over 180 miles. On the way back, with cargo in the bed, I averaged 21.5mpg.

I could see 30's easily in that truck when the weather is warm and more air in the tires. My only criticism - it was able to climb relatively steep inclines in top gear without dropping out of cylinder deactivation, nevermind downshifting, suggesting it could have had a significantly taller final gear.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by 93tracerwagon

I recently purchased a full size chevy 2500 van with the 2.8 Duramax and with about 7500 lbs or more regular weight, we are getting 17 to 18 in chicago city traffic and about 25 highway with no attempts to save fuel. It has about 2500 miles on it now. New and empty we saw about 27 highway on shorter 100 mile trips. It may have gotten around 30 on the longer trip when it was delivered from out of state. IMHO turbo 6's are a stupid idea for any truck that is doing real work. Diesels are inherently efficient at extremely heavy loads.... lots and lots of torque at low rpms. The 2.8 diesel produces about 360 ftlb of torque.... the same as the 6.0l gas v-8, but at much lower rpms. I bet much better city mileage could be gotten by changing the trans programming. It holds lower gears in city traffic than are necessary, probably for improved engine braking. Overall fuel usage is about 1/2 that of the gas vans we have. The extra cost of the diesel engine is returned by 20,000 miles. The gas savings along covers about a third of the car payment.

I didn't know they put the new diesel in the vans until you posted this. Makes me wonder why not in the 1500 full size pickups but oh well. Seems like the ultimate 12 passenger setup. I doubt anything would get better MPG per passenger. Well maybe the ecodiesel fiat promaster.

[jnich]

I have a 2017 EcoBoost F150, Its a SuperCrew 2WD with the 2.7 and 3.15 gears. I get ~25mpg doing 70, ~28mpg doing 65, and ~20mpg doing 80.