2.7 eco boost gets 18.5 mpg average according to Motor Trend

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.

Seems like a preety good combined # to me. Especially from an auto magazine full of leadfoots.

buddyIam wrote:
Dang topic heading was supposed to say 2.7 eco boost. Sorry can't figure out how to fix it yet.

That's horrible. Not much better than 5.3 last year with a steel body

Link

According to the article 20% better than the 5.3. Seems like an improvement to me.

City Hwy Combined
2.7 eco 16.6 21.5 18.5
5.3 gm 13 19 15.2

Change 3.6 2.5 3.3
% 28% 13% 22%

Tried fixing the formatting no luck. Hopefully it is legible.

It seems that's the same mpg as the 3.5 eco boost