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 bodyLink

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

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 bodyLinkAccording to the article 20% better than the 5.3. Seems like an improvement to me. City Hwy Combined2.7 eco 16.6 21.5 18.55.3 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.

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

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 16.6/21.5/18.55.3 is 13/19/15.2 This is a steel bodied truck3.5 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 18.6/25.8/21.2It 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.

I'm not sure why you think those are not good gains. The article seems to indicate that the truck performed well. Did you read that they did not like the comfort and drivability of the 2.7? It sounded like a good review to me.

2.7 eco boost gets 18.5 mpg average according to Motor Trend

34 Replies

Golden_HVAC
Explorer
Oct 29, 2014
I wonder why the compare the 0-60 MPH several times and then say "It gets this mileage" - how accurate can that be when they are beating the heck out of the truck while testing it out!

I would hate to find out that the 'new' truck or car was the one that had been given to Road and Track for a week of testing!

I hope the mileage is great, it will mean even more sales for the F-Series trucks!

Fred.
goducks10
Explorer
Oct 29, 2014
hone eagle wrote:
how long do you think it will be $2.99? A year, two maybe?
Who buys a vehicle on a fuel price 'snapshot'?

It'll be back up to $3.75-4.00 next summer like always.
MARK_VANDERBENT
Explorer
Oct 29, 2014
No lie !! just talked with a guy that just bought a 14 Silverado because his paving company did some work at a chevy dealership. He has only bought fords, and thought he would give this new Silverado a try. He loves it and loves the 22 mpg average he has been getting. GM is king with small blocks, and they can go for some serious miles. My 2000 gmc 5.3 has 300,000 miles all original, and my 2000 suburban has 200,000 miles with no rebuild. I back GM trucks, because they have serviced me very well with very low repair cost even with very high miles. All three have very nice trucks, and all are very expensive. Pick your favorite and drive happy !
buddyIam
Explorer
Oct 29, 2014
Corvette 6.2 gets 29 mpg hwy.

That beats all the eco boost, eco diesel, eco anything.
MARK_VANDERBENT
Explorer
Oct 29, 2014
I have 2 5.3 v8s and friends with new 5.3s and they don't get 13 mpg city. I average 16ish city and 21 hwy. The new 5.3s that my buddys have are hitting 22.5 hwy and 16- 17 city when driven conservatively .
buddyIam
Explorer
Oct 29, 2014
Hone,

Everyone has a plan to make money in all the commodities markets. Rules need to change. Rules need to require you to physically store your commodity before you can sell it. No trading of contacts.

Right now we have traders telling lies so they can buy at the bottom. Others telling lies so they sell at a big profit.

And it is the guy at the pump paying the price. Because they actually need to burn the fuel to get to work.
hone_eagle
Explorer
Oct 29, 2014
buddyIam wrote:
Hone,

It's hard to say. This price drop has been coming for a long time. Every one has know about the Bakken and tar sands since the 50's. Now they are finding shale in almost every nation. China only needs the investment. It's north western area is said to be the largest known area for shale. New Fields off Brazil are HUGE. More area's just popping up in the Gulf especially around the Cuba area. With all of these new finds on the books, OPEC is losing it's hold on prices.

If there is a large build tomorrow in the EIA report. Crude is expected to have a big drop with the new bottom around 75 dollars.

My son works in the oil fields. My family has mineral rights in the Bakken, (east of the current drilling) so I hope it won't drop much farther.

Totally agree this has been due for a long time ,the longer the price was propped up the bigger the fall.A collapse is not a good thing.
I understand a 'talking head claimed $10 oil was coming.

Tomorrow we should learn a little more about the future prices.
buddyIam
Explorer
Oct 28, 2014
mich,

I understand, but this is America. We have driven the big trucks all through the 4 buck a gallon era. If it's 3 mpg that separates a 'MAN' and his V8 from a 2.7 liter v6. I would be very surprised.

I am saying that because we are talking about trucks. Not a car.
mich800
Explorer
Oct 28, 2014
buddyIam wrote:
Mich,

What is the premium for the 2.7? It looks like the 2.0 eco boost on the Escape is about a 1500 dollar option. Now if your not paying cash then there is the added interest. After the warranty there is going to be a much higher repair cost if you are planning to keep it for a while. Of course I say that because of the complexity of a turbo engine.

Also when used under hard driving the 3.5 is recommended to use premium fuel. I would suspect the same will be true for the 2.7.

Taking all that into consideration why not take the more capable and just as efficient 3.5 eco boost? It has about the same premium at purchase.

I was not trying to suggest that there is not a premium for a premium engine. Whether it is the ecodiesel, ecoboost or one of the cylinder deactivation engines. Just to illustrate that a 20-30% improvement in mpg is significant. Lets face it, simple pushrod carbureted no emissions engines are long gone. Even the simple base engines can be expensive to repair or diagnose due to all the electronics.
buddyIam
Explorer
Oct 28, 2014
Hone,

It's hard to say. This price drop has been coming for a long time. Every one has known about the Bakken and tar sands since the 50's. Now they are finding shale in almost every nation. China only needs the investment. It's north western area is said to be the largest known area for shale. New Fields off Brazil are HUGE. More area's just popping up in the Gulf especially around the Cuba area. With all of these new finds on the books, OPEC is losing it's hold on prices.

If there is a large build tomorrow in the EIA report. Crude is expected to have a big drop with the new bottom around 75 dollars.

My son works in the oil fields. My family has mineral rights in the Bakken, (east of the current drilling) so I hope it won't drop much farther.

Tomorrow we should learn a little more about the future prices.

Forum Discussion

2.7 eco boost gets 18.5 mpg average according to Motor Trend

34 Replies

About Travel Trailer Group

Related Content

Average monthly rates?

Boondocking --- Average AH consumption/day?

Average Maintenance Costs

2016 Eco boost

Wifi boost