silvrsvt Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-21/ford-says-aluminum-pickup-s-fuel-economy-rises-up-to-29-percent http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/21/ford-f-series-gas-mileage-aluminum/19340289/ 4x2 ratings: •The 2.7-liter turbocharged EcoBoost V-6 engine will get 19 miles per gallon in the city, 26 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg overall. •The 3.5-liter turbocharged EcoBoost V-6 engine will get 17 mpg in the city, 24 mpg on the highway for an average of 20 mpg. •The 3.5-liter non-turbocharged will get 18 mpg in the city, 25 mpg on the highway and 20 mpg overall. •The 5-liter non-turbocharged V-8 will get 15 mpg in the city, 22 mpg on the highway and 18 mpg overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 That's about where I would have guessed things would land. My SWAG is another 10% to maybe 15% savings once the 10 speed transmission hits the F150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 3...2...1....to people with eco engines unable to attain stated mileage.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-21/ford-says-aluminum-pickup-s-fuel-economy-rises-up-to-29-percent http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/21/ford-f-series-gas-mileage-aluminum/19340289/ 4x2 ratings: •The 2.7-liter turbocharged EcoBoost V-6 engine will get 19 miles per gallon in the city, 26 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg overall. •The 3.5-liter turbocharged EcoBoost V-6 engine will get 17 mpg in the city, 24 mpg on the highway for an average of 20 mpg. •The 3.5-liter non-turbocharged will get 18 mpg in the city, 25 mpg on the highway and 20 mpg overall. •The 5-liter non-turbocharged V-8 will get 15 mpg in the city, 22 mpg on the highway and 18 mpg overall. 2014 3.7L 17/23/19 2014 5.0L 15/21/17 2014 3.5LEB 16/22/18 2014 6.2L 13/18/15 Apparently the 29% improvement is from the old 6.2L to the new 2.7LEB. And that is not a valid comparison. It's totally misleading. Shame on Ford. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 2014 3.7L 17/23/19 2014 5.0L 15/21/17 2014 3.5LEB 16/22/18 2014 6.2L 13/18/15 Apparently the 29% improvement is from the old 6.2L to the new 2.7LEB. And that is not a valid comparison. It's totally misleading. Shame on Ford. add the fact apparently the price increase is only $395 as well.........becoming spin central... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 The truck is a first class vehicle, very well thought out, however the factory is not doing a very good job of managing expectations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 add the fact apparently the price increase is only $395 as well.........becoming spin central... For the 100th time - show me anywhere Ford published that $395 figure. This was in the Ford press release. And they don't even explain where they get the 29% figure from. It would not surprise me to see them pull that from the press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 This was in the Ford press release. And they don't even explain where they get the 29% figure from. It would not surprise me to see them pull that from the press release. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/11/21/f-150-fuel-economy.html "That is 5 percent to 29 percent better than current F-150 models, depending on engine and driveline configuration on the combined cycle." I really don't have a problem with that wording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I'd also note that the 2.7L EB appears to be a close match to the EcoDiesel in capabilities, and the Dodge is only about 7.7% better on the EPA tests. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Gotta love this piece from AllPar: http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2014/11/f-150-economy-falls-short-of-ram-diesel "F-150 economy falls short of Ram diesel...The Ford F-150 XL carries a MSRP of $26,215 plus $1,195 destination; the Ram’s price for a V6 Tradesman is $25,060." So Allpar is comparing 2.7L EB vs Ram diesel fuel economy, but when he gets to the price he compares it to the Ram base V6 and doesn't add destination. The actual Ram Diesel price is $25,060. + $4770 in diesel options + $1195 destination. = $31,410. Ford 2.7L EB price is $26,215 + $0 options + $1,195 = $27,409. Ram is $4,001. more. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 And this doesn't even begin to cover the operational costs. 100K miles acquisition + fuel @ combined cycle estimate using today's fuel prices (S. Louisiana avg) Ram Tradesman EcoDiesel purchase = $31,410 Ram Tradesman Fuel = (23mpg @ $3.40 per gal for 100K) $14,782.60 Ram Tradesman Cost Estimate @ 100K miles = $46,192.60 Ford F-150XL EB 2.7 purchase = $27,409 Ford F-150XL Fuel = (22mpg @ $2.50 per gal for 100K) $11,363.64 (of note, I filled up with regular unleaded at the local Shell for $2.42/gal) Ford F-150XL Cost Estimate @ 100K miles = $38,772.64 F-150 costs $7419.96 less than the RAM for the first 100K miles (excluding non-warranty repairs and regular maintenance items) This assumes that vehicles were purchased at full retail prices and that no discounts were given at the time of sale. My point is this, You can have a truck that is LESS CAPABLE IN EVERY MEASURABLE WAY for $7419.96 MORE for the first 100K miles of operation if you really, really want a Diesel 1/2 ton. No one is buying the RAM ecodiesel for full time max rating towing. It is way to weak for that. No one will be buying the EB 2.7L for full time max rating towing as the engine isn't as efficient in that usage. For occasional towing, the EB 2.7 L will tow a lot more or the same amount with more power reserve capacity. Even in its worst case scenario, when both trucks are towing the same load, the EB 2.7L will cost less to operate in that circumstance given the price difference of diesel. Though diesels do get better gas mileage when under load than the equivalent gasoline engine, given the EB 2.7L's reserve capacity, as long as you aren't exceeding the RAM's max ratings, the EB will still consume less money in the form of fuel per mile driven than the EcoDiesel as diesel mpg tends to degrade more and more as they approach their max ratings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 For the 100th time - show me anywhere Ford published that $395 figure. This was in the Ford press release. And they don't even explain where they get the 29% figure from. It would not surprise me to see them pull that from the press release. um, no offense, but we recieved an official bulletin from Ford here at the dealership, and the SAME bulletin was also forwarded to all the publications...Edmunds.com etc etc...the wording was even eerily similar.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 I'd also note that the 2.7L EB appears to be a close match to the EcoDiesel in capabilities, and the Dodge is only about 7.7% better on the EPA tests. Better Value, Too Equipped with 2.7-liter EcoBoost, the all-new F-150 is a better value than even diesel-powered pickups. For instance, the $495 option on the Ford is significantly less than the $4,470 3.0-liter Ram EcoDiesel option. In addition, with diesel prices currently 76 cents per gallon more6 at the pump, each 3.0-liter Ram EcoDiesel fill-up costs over $24 more than the new 2.7-liter F-1507. That means at today’s fuel prices Ram EcoDiesel owners are not able to offset the additional cost of their EcoDiesel engines with fuel savings8. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/11/21/f-150-fuel-economy.html "That is 5 percent to 29 percent better than current F-150 models, depending on engine and driveline configuration on the combined cycle." I really don't have a problem with that wording. It's borderline at best. You don't think anyone is going to expect a 2015 5.0L to get 29% better fuel economy than a 2014 5.0L due to the 700 lb weight loss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Its OK. Not as good as I was wanting. I wish they had the new transmission ready for this launch. I think that will help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Image the mileage when they launch the 10 speed. Does anyone have a time frame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Fuzzy55 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Very impressive milage for a pick-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Very impressive milage for a pick-up. Better than my wife's Maxima, and runs on regular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blwnsmoke Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 I do not believe the 10 speed is going in the F150. From what I have been told by the guy I know who has driven and tests them, 8 speed in F150, 10 speed in the new Superduty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) It's borderline at best. You don't think anyone is going to expect a 2015 5.0L to get 29% better fuel economy than a 2014 5.0L due to the 700 lb weight loss? I disagree. The basic sentence is entirely accurate and the qualifying parenthetical is included as a clause in the very same sentence, not buried in a footnote. Anyone incapable of reading past a comma is going to be outraged by something, eventually, because the world is very confusing if you can't read well. It isn't: Mileage up to 29% better than the current F150!!!!!1 1Actual range: 5% to 29% depending on engine and driveline configuration on the combined cycle. Edited November 22, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Kinda disappointed in the numbers. I was hearing larger increases. Can't wait for the new transmission. Still would like to see a diesel option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Bottom line is, the new F-150 is a quantum leap forward in truck manufacturing and as such, should be embraced on the fact that Ford has moved the bar up....in a few years, you will see GM and FCA follow this lead to build more efficient trucks. Right now, the price of gasoline has dropped...but like all things related to a "commodity"...it will go back up and Ford is ready...once again, GM and FCA will be scrambling while Ford is fully prepared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Kinda disappointed in the numbers. I was hearing larger increases. Can't wait for the new transmission. Still would like to see a diesel option. I have to wonder if Ford is purposely pushing the numbers downward after the Cmax debacle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 I have to wonder if Ford is purposely pushing the numbers downward after the Cmax debacle. Possible, but highly unlikely. It's a lot easier to measure mileage out of a conventional drivetrain than it is with a hybrid. Way more variables with a hybrid. 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.