F150 2.7 22MPG vs Ram ED 23MPG

Tystevens wrote:

otrfun wrote:
This is simply not the case with the 3.5 Ecoboost. The vast majority of comments online, plus the Ecoboost owners I've talked to, say the same thing: "love this engine, love the torque, but . . . a bit disappointed with the fuel mileage." I've driven a number of Ecoboosts. It requires a conscious effort (i.e., hypermiling) to even approach anything close to it's EPA fuel mileage rating.

Since the 2.7 Ecoboost has a similar design as the 3.5 (turbo V6), one could easily assume it will also have a difficult time obtaining its EPA estimates.

Just curious, in your opinion do most drivers of all vehicles get the EPA mileage? It seems to me that most do not. I don't think that 'lower than EPA' mileage is endemic to the Ecoboost line of engines.

That said, yes, I'd bet that more drivers will get closer to the Ecodiesel's ratings in the real world when compared to EB drivers.

FWIW, I'm right at EPA ratings for my '11 Ecoboost, over 8 months tracking every tank.

I've rented a******load of cars and trucks through the years. If I'm willing to take the time to experiment, I can usually obtain EPA Fuel Economy Estimates. Unfortunately, some require a******load more experimentation than others to do so.

Thumbs-up on obtaining EPA Fuel Economy Estimates with your 3.5 Ecoboost. It would be interesting to see what kind of mileage you'd get with an EcoDiesel using the same driving style you're using with your EcoBoost.