Ford Says Aluminum Pickup’s Fuel Economy Rises up to 29%

[Edstock]

What do I get if I switch from a 2014 6.2 to a 2014 3.7L?

 

Better front tire wear?

[RichardJensen]

Comparing the 2.7EB with the discontinued 6.2 is disingenuous regardless of fine print and footnotes because one is not a replacement for the other.

OK

[JasonM]

So I can get 29% better mileage if I switch from a 2014- 6.2L to a 2015 2.7LEB? Fine.

 

What do I get if I switch from a 2014 6.2 to a 2014 3.7L?

 

Comparing the 2.7EB with the discontinued 6.2 is disingenuous regardless of fine print and footnotes because one is not a replacement for the other.

 

Who is comparing the 2.7L to the 6.2L? Ford's press release is clearly not making that comparison.

 

Ford is clearly comparing the 2.7L to the last engine Ford had in that segment, the 4.6L.

 

The 2.7L fills the gap left by the 4.6L and delivers 16/26/22 compared to 14/19/16 for the 4.6L.

 

The combined number is an increase of 38%. Ford's "up to 29% better" statement is conservative one.

 

 

 

Speaking of 4.6L engines, compare the 2.7L 16/26/22 to a 2015 Toyota's Tundra with 4.6L, 15/19/16.

 

That's 38% better than Toyota's 4.6 with the 2.7L delivering better HP (+15), better torque (+48), better towing (+1700 pounds) and better payload (+645).

[akirby]

Ford's press release isn't clear at all about where the 29% came from. It most certainly isn't the old 4.6L.

 

If it was, that would be even worse to claim an improvement over an engine from 7 years ago. Why stop there? Why not compare the improvement to the old 302 from the 70s?

 

I have no problem with the actual numbers, just Ford's advertising spin. At least they should clearly spell out where the 29% improvement comes from.

[Bryan1]

Mike Levine pointed out that comparisons to the 2008 F-150 were done because the average trade-in age is 7-8 years.

 

2008 4.6 4x2 at 16 mpg........2015 3.5 EB 4x2 at 20 mpg = 25% increase

2008 4.6 4x2 at 16 mpg........2015 2.7 EB 4x2 at 22 mpg = 37.5% increase

 

Of more interest to me........

my 5.4 4x4 at 14 mpg........2015 3.5 EB 4x4 at 19 mpg combined = 35.7% increase

my 5.4 4x4 at 14 mpg........2015 2.7 EB 4x4 at 20 mpg combined = 42.8% increase

[akirby]

And none of those are 29% so where did the 29% come from?

[RichardJensen]

(22 - 17) / 17 = .294

 

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34530

 

2014 5.0L torque: 380lb-ft

2015 2.7L torque: 375lb-ft

 

2014 5.0L hp: 360hp

2015 2.7L hp: 325hp

 

98.7% of the 2014 5.0L torque

90.3% of the 2014 5.0L hp.

Edited November 22, 2014 by RichardJensen

[Bryan1]

Richard nailed it......

 

2014 5.0 4x2 at 17 mpg combined........2015 2.7 EB 4x2 at 22 mpg combined = 29.4% increase (Ford rounded down to 29%)

 

There you have it.

[JasonM]

Why not compare the improvement to the old 302 from the 70s?

 

 

Do you really think Ford should spend time addressing someone trading in a 1970s F-150?

 

Wouldn't it be smarter for Ford to address the average F-150 buyer, the one who is trading in a 7 to 8 year old F-150 and provide examples of the kind of efficiency and performance improvements that buyer would realize?

 

"Owners of seven- or eight-year-old trucks who are in the market for a new truck may be surprised by the impressive capability of the 2015 F-150. For example, returning owners of 2008 model year F-150s could see EPA-estimated fuel economy rating improvements of up to 43 percent and power-to-weight increases of up to 46 percent, while towing could improve as much as 3,900 pounds and payload could improve as much as 1,390 pounds, depending on engine and configuration."

[akirby]

(22 - 17) / 17 = .294

 

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34530

 

2014 5.0L torque: 380lb-ft

2015 2.7L torque: 375lb-ft

 

2014 5.0L hp: 360hp

2015 2.7L hp: 325hp

 

98.7% of the 2014 5.0L torque

90.3% of the 2014 5.0L hp.

Ok, I can buy that comparison. I must have done the math wrong initially. Of course they could have just said that in the press release.

 

/rant

[akirby]

Do you really think Ford should spend time addressing someone trading in a 1970s F-150?

 

Wouldn't it be smarter for Ford to address the average F-150 buyer, the one who is trading in a 7 to 8 year old F-150 and provide examples of the kind of efficiency and performance improvements that buyer would realize?

 

"Owners of seven- or eight-year-old trucks who are in the market for a new truck may be surprised by the impressive capability of the 2015 F-150. For example, returning owners of 2008 model year F-150s could see EPA-estimated fuel economy rating improvements of up to 43 percent and power-to-weight increases of up to 46 percent, while towing could improve as much as 3,900 pounds and payload could improve as much as 1,390 pounds, depending on engine and configuration."

If they're doing that in a chart like the press release shows with other trucks that's fine.

 

But that's not where the 29% came from. You shouldn't say 29% improvement unless it's year to year (which it was apparently).

[blwnsmoke]

You shouldn't say 29% improvement unless it's year to year (which it was apparently).

 

I completely agree with this. I think most are wondering what the aluminum weight savings are doing and to say up to 29% is just not right. Like you, I'm looking for like model/motor year over year, not comparing a 14 motor and a completely different 15 motor. Apples vs Apples

 

However I just recently read an article about GMs 8 speed vs their 6 speed and they are seeing a 2-3mpg bump so if the 8 speed can do the same results in the F150, we should see a nice improvement with up to 29mpg in it, especially with the weight savings as well (no weight savings in the GM).

Edited November 22, 2014 by blwnsmoke

[RichardJensen]

The 5.0L motors are also tuned different.

 

The 5.0L goes from 360hp to 385hp (up 6.9%)

 

The Ecoboost, which is unchanged, goes from 18 combined to 22 combined. That's a 22.2% increase.

[2005Explorer]

(22 - 17) / 17 = .294

 

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34530

 

2014 5.0L torque: 380lb-ft

2015 2.7L torque: 375lb-ft

 

2014 5.0L hp: 360hp

2015 2.7L hp: 325hp

 

98.7% of the 2014 5.0L torque

90.3% of the 2014 5.0L hp.

If the 2.7L is supposed to be the equivalent of the 5.0L it makes you wonder why they even offer the V8 anymore?

Edited November 23, 2014 by 2005Explorer

[akirby]

If the 2.7L is supposed to be the equivalent of the 5.0L it makes you wonder why they even offer the V8 anymore?

 

Because a lot of folks either want a 302 or want a v8 or don't want an ecoboost engine.

[akirby]

The Ecoboost, which is unchanged, goes from 18 combined to 22 combined. That's a 22.2% increase.

 

Nope. Ecoboost goes from 18 to 20 combined. 11% increase.

[2005Explorer]

 

Because a lot of folks either want a 302 or want a v8 or don't want an ecoboost engine.

Well I do see now that the 5.0 is their horsepower leader at 385 for 2015 up from 360 with a small bump in torque. Those are pretty impressive numbers for a 5.0L NA V8.

Edited November 23, 2014 by 2005Explorer

[twintornados]

Does it get better fuel economy?? Mission accomplished....

[fordmantpw]

The 2.7L takes a 3 MPG hit on the highway with 4x4, whereas the 3.5L EB and 5.0 only take a 1 MPG hit.

 

In 4x4 trim, the 2.7L is only 1 MPG in the city and 1 MPG combined better, while the same on the highway as the 3.5L EB.

 

Strange that the 4x4 hurts the 2.7L so much, especially on the highway where I would think aero would play a much bigger part than the added weight/inefficiency of a 4x4 system. Weird...

[akirby]

Different gearing on the 4x4?

[fordmantpw]

Hmmm, could be, but I wouldn't think so.

 

Yep, looks like on a Lariat, 2.7L EB comes with 3.31 on the 4x2 and 3.55 on the 4x4.

 

But ,on the 3.5L EB, it goes from 3.15 to 3.31 when you go from 4x2 to 4x4.

 

Still, those numbers don't really indicate the difference the MPG differences show.

[ibme]

The article clearly stated.....

 

"Ford says the 29% improvement compares the 2.7-liter turbocharged engine to a 5-liter V-8. It's a fair comparison, the automaker says, because owners will see similar performance." Although they did conveniently leave out which 5.0 it was being compared to.

 

To me it really doesn't matter which engine its compared to or what percent increase they say it gets...it's still a big let down when it comes down to the actual numbers especially when you consider when they first announced the trucks release there were rumors of it being low 20's city and upwards of 30 on the highway.

 

Combine that with the fact that the cars, or rather TANKS, of the late 60's early 70's got 13-15 mpg....the percentage of the increase in fuel economy over 40 years by ALL the manufacturers is pretty damn pathetic.

[silvrsvt]

To me it really doesn't matter which engine its compared to or what percent increase they say it gets...it's still a big let down when it comes down to the actual numbers especially when you consider when they first announced the trucks release there were rumors of it being low 20's city and upwards of 30 on the highway.

 

Combine that with the fact that the cars, or rather TANKS, of the late 60's early 70's got 13-15 mpg....the percentage of the increase in fuel economy over 40 years by ALL the manufacturers is pretty damn pathetic.

 

There goes those rumor things again....just like a lighter mustang, the rumors get hyped up and expectations get so high that their is no way they can meet them.

 

As for your fuel economy claims...you seem to be smoking something, because your comparing Highway mileage vs the city mileage of a truck

 

Here is a better example of 30 years of progress:

 

 

1984 Mustang GT Turbo:

 

19 Combined 17 City 24 Highway

 

175HP/210Ft lb curb weight: 2,795ish

 

2015 Mustang Ecoboost

 

25 combined 21 city 32 Highway

 

310HP/320Ft lb Curb weight 3,532 lbs

 

The 2015 Mustang has nearly double the power with a 24% increase in combined MPG with a nearly 800lb weight disadvantage

[akirby]

The article clearly stated.....

 

That was only stated in the USA Today article (which I didn't read), not the businessweek article or the press release on media.ford.com.

[akirby]

Combine that with the fact that the cars, or rather TANKS, of the late 60's early 70's got 13-15 mpg....the percentage of the increase in fuel economy over 40 years by ALL the manufacturers is pretty damn pathetic.

 

I was expecting a 2-4 mpg increase across the board so I'm a little disappointed, too.

 

But you can't compare late 60s early 70s because fuel economy testing was changed so what was 13-15 using today's formula would be 11-13 and there is a HUGE difference in emissions requirements and vehicle weight due to crash standards.

 

Apples and grapefruits.