2015 F150 2.7L MPG

Getting 22.8 mpg from a full size pickup is impressive. But, basically it shows that it achieves the EPA highway rating at 65 mph, which is what every vehicle on the planet should be able to achieve.

Bionic Man wrote:

I would like to see a comparison vs competitie engines (although I'm not sure exactly what those engines would be).

I'd bet the Ram EcoDiesel is next. They shoot all the videos in a short time, then release them slowly, as they get them edited. Keep a look out in the next few days.

Good point Mich800. I found this on the EPA's site in reference to the parameter's they use in highway mpg's testing so 65 mph overall seems pretty fair to me, I stand corrected on my lack of real world mpg's empty. I read this as 60 mph is the primary speed with runs up to 80 mph for a high speed mix, so TFL's 65 mph average seems pretty fair.


"Vehicles are tested at a top speed of 80 mph in order to calculate the highway mpg estimates.
EPA utilizes fve test cycles to represent real-world driving conditions. While it’s true that the test cycle historically labeled as the “highway” test has a top speed of 60 mph, this test is currently meant to represent driving on lower speed highways as well as rural and suburban driving. EPA’s highway mpg estimates are primarily derived from a separate “high speed” test cycle, which has a top speed of 80 mph. The remaining three tests are designed to simulate stop-and-go city driving, high air conditioning use, and driving in cold temperatures. For more information on the fve test cycles and how EPA calculates its mpg estimates, go to epa.gov/fueleconomy."


I know one thing for sure, Ford has a winner on their hands. If I were in the market for a light duty truck the only thing I would need to concern myself with is the trim level and color I wanted to go with...:)

dreeder wrote:
I get the towing at 65, that's what I tow at as well but you can't simulate towing mpg's without the wieght. If you are going for real world mpg's while empty you need to do the speed limit. The only thing this test showed was that if you drive 10 mph under the posted speed limit you will achieve Ford's and the EPA's posted 23 highway mpg's. Still impressive and I imagine the truck would have only lost a mile or two mpg's at 75mph but I still would have liked to seen it.

They are not trying to simulate mpg with a TT. There intention is to compare the mpg towing and not towing at the same speed. And just because that speed limit was higher than 65 mph does not mean all highways have a speed limit higher. they could just have easily chose a highway with a 55 mph speed limit. Where does the EPA mpg standard state that the hwy mpg is calculated at 75 mph?

I get the towing at 65, that's what I tow at as well but you can't simulate towing mpg's without the wieght. If you are going for real world mpg's while empty you need to do the speed limit. The only thing this test showed was that if you drive 10 mph under the posted speed limit you will achieve Ford's and the EPA's posted 23 highway mpg's. Still impressive and I imagine the truck would have only lost a mile or two mpg's at 75mph but I still would have liked to seen it.

FishOnOne wrote:

I understood it the same way. Also when driving slower than the rest of the traffic it allows you to drive more at a consistent speed too. I also noticed CO. sells 85 octane gas. Never heard of that.

You don't have 85 octane fuel where you are from? We have it here in Ohio. Diesel is about 50 cents more than 87 octane fuel here.

You can tow up to 75 mph, as long as you have other than ST tires on the trailer. My ST trailer tires are rated up to 65 mph. Therefore, I tow up to 65 mph.

dreeder wrote:
I like these guys and the tests, but the logic of only going 65 doesn't make sense. I would like to see real world mpg's for trucks in this category and real world here is 75 mph on the interstate and why simulate towing conditions without a trailer, 65 empty and 65 towing are two different ball games anyway. Last and probably least, you can tow a trailer here right up to the 75 mph speed limit unless otherwise posted. Anyway, still love this truck but his logic is ridiculous and actually doing the posted speed limit would have effected the mpgs of that truck.

Can always throw stones based on a test, but at least they did a good job of laying out the procedures.

I would like to see a comparison vs competitie engines (although I'm not sure exactly what those engines would be).

22.8 isn't much to complain about.

It would also be interesting to also see a comparison vs higher speeds. I drive that route frequently, and 65 is SLOW. Not towing, I set cruise at 80 MPH and get passed regularily (as supported by his comment at the end about "pissing off truckers left and right"). I am sure they wouldn't do a run at 80, but they could do 75.

Is 65 really a common speed in other areas? Non towing, that is very slow everywhere I travel in the West.

Trailer tires have a 65 mph speed rating. Never saw one that didn't. If you run LT tires on your trailer, that would allow for a higher speed, but ST (special trailer) tires are 65 max.

ib516 wrote:
They said they drove 65 so they could also test at the same as speed pulling a trailer at some point. I took it to mean that 65 is the limit when towing in CO.

I understood it the same way. Also when driving slower than the rest of the traffic it allows you to drive more at a consistent speed too. I also noticed CO. sells 85 octane gas. Never heard of that.