Ford F-150 with 2.7-Liter EcoBoost Wins PickupTrucks.com Fuel Economy Challenge

[jpd80]

Feb 15, 2016 | DEARBORN, Mich.

Ford F-150 with 2.7-Liter EcoBoost Wins

PickupTrucks.com Fuel Economy Challenge

 

* 2016 Ford F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost^® V6 beat four competitors, including Ram 1500

3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6, in head-to-head mileage, payload and performance tests

conducted by PickupTrucks.com

* F-150 recognized for ideal combination of best-in-class gas mileage, great capability

and strong driving performance

* Revolutionary 2.7-liter EcoBoost is a hit with truck customers – representing

30 percent of F-150 retail sales

 

DEARBORN, Mich., Feb. 15, 2016 – The 2016 Ford F-150 with 2.7-liter EcoBoost^® V6 engine has

been named winner of PickupTrucks.com’s Texas Truck Showdown Max MPG fuel economy challenge.

 

Ford F-150 beat out four competitors, including Chevrolet Silverado 1500 5.3-liter V8 and Ram 1500

3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6, thanks to its ideal combination of great gas mileage, capability and strong

driving performance.

 

“In the end, we were impressed with the F-150 for its capability, fuel efficiency and composure when

pushed hard, said Mark Williams, editor of PickupTrucks.com. “For a small V-6 engine, it’s very

impressive how well it almost eliminates the typical compromises half-ton customers have become

accustomed to.”

 

A hit with customers, sales of F-150 with 2.7-liter EcoBoost are 30 percent of the nameplate’s retail

performance, fulfilling Ford’s great expectations for this revolutionary engine. Combined sales of

2.7-liter and 3.5-liter EcoBoost engines account for 60 percent of F-150 sales.

 

When equipped with the available 2.7-liter EcoBoost with standard Auto Start-Stop, F-150 4x2 has

best-in-class EPA-estimated gasoline fuel economy ratings of 19 mpg city, 26 mpg highway and

22 mpg combined (actual mileage will vary).

 

The engine produces 325 horsepower and 375 lb.-ft. of torque with a maximum payload rating of

2,250 pounds and maximum tow rating of 8,500 pounds – ideal for meeting mid-range capability

requirements and the needs of more than 90 percent of light-duty truck customers.

 

* This is a Ford Press release, more details of tests and results at PickupTrucks.com...........

Edited February 16, 2016 by jpd80

[Anthony]

It's great that the F-150 won (even though it did not get the best fuel economy by a long shot), but any "Fuel Economy Challenge" award that uses 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, braking distance and sound dB as factors is a bit skewed away from what the award seems to represent (MPGs).

 

This is much more a general competition, which the F-150 excels at, rather than one centered on Fuel Economy.

 

Kudos though.

[MY93SHO]

So far I like my 2.7EB a lot.

[akirby]

Good grief - what were they thinking with that title? Can't blame Ford for advertising it. Good overall showing especially when loaded but the eco-diesel blew it away on actual fuel economy (as it should).

[Bob Rosadini]

Well using today's typical "best" pump prices in Eastern MA, (gas 1.55, diesel, 1.79) and 15,000 annual miles the Ford would cost about $1056 a year at 22 mpg and the 3.0 Ram diesel would cost $895 at 30 mpg.

 

Factor in first cost premium, oil change/DEF costs and you really just have to WANT a diesel. Even at 30,000 annual miles you can't justify the Ram on economics.

 

Without going "negative", seems like Ford should be spinning something that says...."Best Performance at Lowest Operating Cost"

[old_fairmont_wagon]

After reading the comparison test results, it seems to me that the Ford entry was suffering a little as compared to the competing entries in the payload and rear leaf spring strength department. Perhaps they should have sent over an F-150 with a higher payload rating? Shouldn't have made much of a difference in the mpg while offering more capabilities and perhaps better ride characteristics.

[jpd80]

interesting test against competitors both loaded and unloaded and then acceleration tests with

load and unloaded. It's like the superior acceleration and reasonable fuel economy tipped th balance.

Seems like a lot more factors than just fuel economy when into the result.

 

The Ram Ecodiesel showed really good fuel consumption even with a 1500 lb load but the acceleration

is very pedestrian, so aybe that really hurt its value perception with the assessors.

 

I smiled when I realized that the 2.7 EB really took the fight to to the 5.3 Silverado 1500, a truck that

represents approximately 80% of Silverado 1500 sales.

Edited February 17, 2016 by jpd80

[30 OTT 6]

They deactivated the Ford 2.7L's start stop mode for "apples to apples" testing. Then they proceed to test trucks with cylinder deactivation or diesel engines?

[fordmantpw]

You want real 'apples to oranges', try this:

 

 

 

We did have some fuel-filler issues on our empty loop with the Ram due to diesel foaming with the capless filler hose, which can be a problem even if you literally see fuel going up to the cap. That forced us to rely on trip-computer mpg numbers for the Ram for our data. Calculations for the other trucks were done the normal way: We divided the number of miles driven by the measured gallons of fuel. We should note that we reset the trip computer for the Chevy and Ford at our first fillup; base Tundras like our tester do not have trip computers.

[jpd80]

Good grief, don't they know how to fill the last gallon or so on a diesel pump?

 

With Hi-flow diesel pumps, you slow the delivery near full so it doesn't foam.

[Haonan Zhang]

Test drove an XLT sport f150 with 2.7 engine. Indeed impressed with its performance