2.7 eco boost gets 18.5 mpg average according to Motor Trend

buddyIam wrote:
Comparing by percentages can be a bit confusing. And still be 100% correct. For instance. 2 mpg is 100% better than 1 mpg. And 1 mpg is 50% of 2mpg. But neither is a great MPG number.

2.7 eco boost is 16.6/21.5/18.5
5.3 is 13/19/15.2 This is a steel bodied truck
3.5 Eco is 15/21/17 I believe this is a steel body figure.
3.7 ford gas is 16/21/18 I believe this and 3.5 eco numbers are with steel body last years model.

Ram Eco diesel is 18.6/25.8/21.2

It seems to me that the comfort and drivability of the V8 would make it a much more desirable vehicle than the 2.7.

It seems that the 3.5 eco boost might be the sweet spot for Power vs. economy. It takes a precise amount of fuel to make HP. It may be that at 3.5 liter you start to find much smaller gain by reducing cubic inches. When both engines are in the same truck at the same weight.

Your numbers aren't quite apples to apples, as I read the test. The numbers for the 2.7, 5.3, and Ecodiesel are their own as-tested numbers. The economy for the 3.5 Eco and 3.7 they quote are the EPA numbers, and not Motortrend's 'real world' result. In comparison, if I recall, Motortrend had an overall average of 14.7 mpg for their year-long test of a 2011 Ecoboost 3.5.

So under apparently the same conditions, the 2.7 did 25% better than the 5.3, while putting out similar power numbers. Seems like a win-win to me, especially where the 2.7's power is at lower rpm than the naturally aspirated 5.3, and therefore somewhat more 'accessible.'

I know, an improvement of 'only' 3 mpg doesn't jump out at you, but 25% is 25%, whether it is 15 to 18 or 30 to 40.

My own 'real world' view of the EB -- I get right on the epa numbers so far, with highway tanks in the 21 mpg range and my usual combined commuting tank between 17 and 18. My lifetime over 7k miles thus far, including about 1100 miles of towing, is 17.4.