silvrsvt Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 I was expecting a 2-4 mpg increase across the board so I'm a little disappointed, too. I'm curious as to how much this affected the fleet CAFE ratings vs what the consumer sees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I dare-say that the 2.7L EB gets hurt more than the 3.5L EB when going from 4X2 to 4X4 because of the simple factors of weight and power bands of the engines. The switch to 4X4 adds a significant amount of weight to the trucks, so much that it likely causes the 2.7L to have to dip into the boost a lot more than the 3.5L EB. Once you start leaning on the turbos for extra power, the effective displacement of the engine increases and the fuel burn increases proportionately. Remember, in the real world, City fuel economy is more closely related to vehicle weight, gearing in first through third, and engine efficiency under medium load. On the highway, fuel economy is more affected by vehicle aerodynamics, top end gearing, and engine efficiency under light load. Because the aerodynamics of the F-150 didn't change much, the highway mileage numbers for the carry-over engines don't change a whole lot (that they change at all shows that the EPA test still counts some low speed stops and starts). The drop in the 4X4 configuration is often the result of poorer aero due to the 4X4 being slightly higher off the ground. 2.7L is about as close to optimal as the F-150 is going to get for internal combustion gasoline engine highway performance from an engine perspective. I don't expect the new 8 to 10 speed transmission to improve the highway numbers by more than 1-2 mpg at best, mainly due to slightly better gearing at the top end and on starts and stops. I would expect maybe a bit more from the city, but, even 1-2 mpg is good. At the end of the day, you're still effectively trying to shove a brick through the air at highway speed. That's a LOT of drag to deal with. Aero changes are the next big thing. I think that streamlining will have to improve a whole lot in the next major revisions as CAFE numbers continue to rise. There's not much left for improving city numbers unless they go partial hybrid in a BIG way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I'm curious as to how much this affected the fleet CAFE ratings vs what the consumer sees. Exactly. Those are the numbers that count. I also think Ford is being as conservative as possible with the 2015 numbers compared to the 2014 numbers (as much as they can within the rules). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I'm curious as to how much this affected the fleet CAFE ratings vs what the consumer sees. And in the end thats really the only thing that matters, There will be a bump as well in about 24 months with the 10 speed addition as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 The expectations, and the media's "Fiat Love" hopefully will not derail the momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 upwards of 30 on the highway. What published report EVER said that the F150 would be doing better than 30MPG highway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I'm curious as to how much this affected the fleet CAFE ratings vs what the consumer sees. http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/14/f-150-just-the-start-of-fords-aluminum-plans/ Ford COO Mark Fields said it's also "CAFE-positive." That means, for the first time in the history of corporate average fuel economy standards, the F-150 would be a positive contributor on Ford's CAFE balance sheet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Rumors. The same ones that said the mustang would lose 300 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) What published report EVER said that the F150 would be doing better than 30MPG highway? Ive never read 30...26 is what I heard, nothing more ....and a mobile brick hitting 30?...thats absurd, maybe with a hypermiled diesel...maybe....and highly unlikely in the REAL world. Edited November 24, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) NYTimes from January http://nytimes.com/2014/01/12/automobiles/autoshow/the-f-150s-aluminum-diet.html?referrer=&_r=0 By Fords calculations, the 2015 truck, equipped with a new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 and a 6-speed automatic transmission, will be capable of achieving close to 30 miles a gallon in the Environmental Protection Agencys highway test when it goes on sale this year, according to engineers who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the ratings have not been formally announced. A 30 m.p.g. rating would catapult the F-150 well beyond its competitors, led by the 2014 Ram 1500 HFE at 25 m.p.g. highway, and would handily top the thriftiest (23 m.p.g. highway) 2014 F-150. And this is the payoff it would bring Fords most profitable vehicle line closer to meeting the governments future fleet mileage standards, which call for vehicles with a footprint as large as a full-size pickup to average 30.2 m.p.g. by 2025. Though it sounds like they are confusing the consumer CAFE numbers with the corp numbers in the last sentence (but still comparing against consumer numbers for the RAM and previous gen F150 earlier) Edited November 24, 2014 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 So Ford's official PR arm failed to contradict a report provided by employees who violated the terms of their employment agreements? Having a hard time mustering outrage about that. And, FWIW, the CAFE value of Ford's 2.7L EB on the highway is, in fact, well in excess of 30MPG: According to the uncorrected rates, the 2.7L 4x2 F150 returns about 38MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) 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. I know this is being hyped up as fuel economy for consumers but this is really all about CAFE. As far as CAFE is concerned, Ford no longer makes F150s that get EPA hwy of 16-18 mpg and in fact, I think the worst now gets EPA hwy 21 mpg That is big news for F150. Eliminating sub 20 mpg trucks is way better than adding a bunch of 30 mpg CAFE offset builds. The other thing to consider is that only around 5% of F150s were actually 6.2 V8s, so the engine had already been effectivly replaced by the 22 mpg Ecoboost 3.5 V6. Consider a 2014 6.2 versus a 2015 EB 3.5 and you'll see a roughly 1,000 lb weight difference. Edited November 30, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traxiii Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Rumors. The same ones that said the mustang would lose 300 lbs. The Mustang chassis did lose between 200 and 300 pounds over the previous chassis. But, extra safety mandated features (airbags, etc.) and the independent rear suspension increased the overall weight about 65 pounds. The new chassis is not only lighter, but something like 29% stronger than last model's. So, they were telling the truth, but not the whole truth. It's too bad they didn't clarify it before everyone jumped to the conclusion that the curb weight would decrease, but that's what you get believing rumors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 2016 Mazda MX-5: It lost 220 pounds vs the 2015 model. It is possible to reduce weight and keep it affordable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 2016 Mazda MX-5: It lost 220 pounds vs the 2015 model. It is possible to reduce weight and keep it affordable. They didn't swap a SRA for an IRS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 They didn't swap a SRA for an IRS. nor can it fit someone over 6 ft tall comfortably either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 2016 Mazda MX-5: It lost 220 pounds vs the 2015 model. It is possible to reduce weight and keep it affordable. But do you end up with a product people actually want to buy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I hate IRS...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Dude. A quick look at your avatar is enough to establish that. :D 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I hate IRS...... Me too. Damn taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) THATS AN TAX AUDIT GETAWAY IF IVE EVER SEEN ONE..... Edited December 2, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Im 100% behind ford in gettin mpg up across the fleet..but I am concerned about the recent Forbes magazine article talkin about fords use of recycled stag beer cans for the aluminum components in the f150..what happened to this military grade PR campaign?..i have no doubt virgin AL will not be used to keep costs down going forward..but i am not sure how well recycled AL will be from a safety standpoint..not buying into this whole AL stuff yet on the f150..guess we shall see in a few years how well the f150 is holding up and such..hell jeep is even rumored to be considering AL..hell I dunno..just do not trust this whole AL recycled stag beer can panels and such yet...god speed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I read that article -- twice -- and nowhere does it say Ford recycles aluminum cans for its trucks. The aluminum they reuse is the scrap from stamped body panels. In fact, they go to great lengths to keep the aluminum alloy for the body panels away from any other grade of metal so as to avoid deterioration. Stop making crap up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Im 100% behind ford in gettin mpg up across the fleet..but I am concerned about the recent Forbes magazine article talkin about fords use of recycled stag beer cans for the aluminum components in the f150..what happened to this military grade PR campaign?..i have no doubt virgin AL will not be used to keep costs down going forward..but i am not sure how well recycled AL will be from a safety standpoint..not buying into this whole AL stuff yet on the f150..guess we shall see in a few years how well the f150 is holding up and such..hell jeep is even rumored to be considering AL..hell I dunno..just do not trust this whole AL recycled stag beer can panels and such yet...god speed If you were talking about an edible I would agree with but since AL from a beer can does not go though an intestinal tract it should be OK, it were were a steak then I agree with you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Don't feed the troll..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.