ANTAUS Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 http://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/05/2017-ford-f-150-10-speed-ecoboost-fuel-economy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 That article appears to be talking about the 3.5 Ecoboost, not the 2.7. Did I miss something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 That article appears to be talking about the 3.5 Ecoboost, not the 2.7. Did I miss something? Fixed it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted October 6, 2016 Author Share Posted October 6, 2016 Sorry, between driving and reading articles, and copy and paste while I'm driving around securing my rental homes before this little storm passes by, I was bound to mess something up... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Sorry, between driving and reading articles, and copy and paste while I'm driving around securing my rental homes before this little storm passes by, I was bound to mess something up... . Quit braggin'..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) The rear-wheel-drive F-150 is EPA-rated at 18 miles per gallon in city driving, 25 on the highway, and 21 combined, which are all 1 mpg better than the 2016 model with the EcoBoost V6 and six-speed. The four-wheel-drive variant nets 17 mpg city and 23 highway, each up 1 mpg. The combined rating rises 2 mpg to 20. I think the article is missing the whole point, those improvements while appearing slight are far more important when it comes to the former towing packs and their poorer fuel economy thanks to needing a higher rear axle ratio. So I take it that 3.5 EB towing up to 12,000 lbs is now, 4x2 version 18 / 25 / 21mpg 4x4 version 17 / 23 / 20mpg That was after all, the big bragging rights over at GM when the Silverado 6.2 was given the 8AT, that FE number was good for all towing up to 12,000 lbs and 21mpg on the highway cycle.. Edited October 6, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) I remember, about 15-20 years ago, having a conversation with a friend who worked on transmission design at Ford Research. He told me then, the modeling showed very minor fuel economy improvement after 6 speed were designed into a transmission.The real key is achieving a wider gear range and smaller steps, plus extremely fast and smooth gear changes. (4.696, 2.985, 2.179, 1.801, 1.539, 1.288, 1.00, 0.852, 0.689, 0.636, -4.786 compared to the 6R80's 4.171, 2.344, 1.521, 1.143, 0.867. 0.691, -3.403). First gear should be a real "tire shreader" !Most automatic transmission designed prior to about 2000 used multiple epicyclic planetary gearset. After that time Ravigneaux and Lepelletier started to become popular. While Ravigneaux and Lepelletier are much more complicated in their design, they are very compact and lighter than multiple epicyclic gearsets.The JV with GM on this transmission also makes it very cost effective. (The Ford engineers I have talked to, point out that even though the 6F family of transmissions were also a Ford/GM JV, they operate very differently and have almost no common parts.)If you want a "deep dive" analysis into the 10R read Saturation Dive: Ford 10 Speed Transmission Power Flow Edited October 6, 2016 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 I am not sure how much stock to put in this video but I was surprised at the 0-60 comparison between the 2016 with the gen 1 3.5 and 6 speed vs. the gen 2 and 10 speed. I would have expected more of a difference. The acceleration comparison starts around 1:50 into the video. https://youtu.be/H6sDUApQRbU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 I am not sure how much stock to put in this video but I was surprised at the 0-60 comparison between the 2016 with the gen 1 3.5 and 6 speed vs. the gen 2 and 10 speed. I would have expected more of a difference. The acceleration comparison starts around 1:50 into the video. https://youtu.be/H6sDUApQRbU The test after that when the 2015 and 2017 were towing 9,900 lbs gives us a clue, in order to have that tow pack the 2016 needs the higher rear axle ratio, that's why there wasn't much difference in the 0-60 mph drag test but when both are towing 9,900 lbs up a 7% grade, there a big difference in performance. 1 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.