Lotta awesome stuff from Ford on its way. They're talkin' a possible 20% increase in fuel economy--wow!-- New 2.7 Liter Ecoboost-- New 10-speed transmission-- 30 MPG??-- 20% better mileage than current models??Green Car ReportsKansas City StarUSA Today

Around town, and on acceleration the lighter weight will help.Once at speed aerodynamics become a larger factor. To get 20% better fuel mileage at speed they will need to reduce the truck's aerodynamic profile. (smaller body dimensions)The 2.7L engine is not going to be a tow hoss, so buyers will have to choose between a fuel sipper, or a truck that is work capable.

Have to be careful when putting the groceries in the back so not to bend it.

The 2.7 ecoboost is supposed to be 320 horse and 370 torque at 3000 rpm. If that is indeed the specs I would be willing to bet that it will out tow a ram ecodiesel.

Engineer9860 wrote:Around town, and on acceleration the lighter weight will help.Once at speed aerodynamics become a larger factor. To get 20% better fuel mileage at speed they will need to reduce the truck's aerodynamic profile. (smaller body dimensions)The 2.7L engine is not going to be a tow hoss, so buyers will have to choose between a fuel sipper, or a truck that is work capable.Interesting point about the fuel economy benefits of reducing wind drag vs. reducing curb weight, especially at higher speeds (above 45 MPH?). Makes sense that reducing curb weight would help fuel economy in city, stop & go driving. It certainly takes extra fuel to get that extra weight moving everytime you start accelerating from a dead stop--not as much of an issue once you get up to speed. From personal experience, just adding 15-20 lbs. to each axle with heavier wheels and tires (i.e., going from D to E load rating) can kill MPG's to the tune of 2-3 MPG. Of course this is rolling, dynamic weight which is very different from static weight on the chassis or cab.When I tow a jetski and trailer with my 1/2 ton V8, approx. 1100 lbs. gross, which has some wind resistance (very streamlined and low), I lose about 1 - 1.5 MPG at 75 mph. With this in mind, not sure reducing curb weight 700 lbs. (Ford's estimate) is gonna give 3-4 MPG (20%) better mileage on the highway. Maybe I'm missing something.Just thinking out loud here . . .

Im wondering if the weight reduction is going to result in some great payload numbers. Provided they keep the same gvwr's.

Ford's New Aluminum F150 - Huge Game-changer?!

LimogesMan
Explorer
Feb 22, 2014
Taco wrote:
The 2.7 ecoboost is supposed to be 320 horse and 370 torque at 3000 rpm. If that is indeed the specs I would be willing to bet that it will out tow a ram ecodiesel.

My 5.4L V8 makes 260hp and 350trq. Has been pulling my rig for over 10 years..imagine that! :)
gmcsmoke
Explorer
Feb 21, 2014
otrfun wrote:
Anybody have any thoughts on that 10-speed tranny? That is a lot of speeds! I'm no expert on tranny's, but gotta wonder at what point a CVT (continuously variable transmission) might be a better option.

It's interesting to note that Ram gets an additional 1/2 (city/hwy) MPG out of their 1500 Hemi by simply using an 8-speed tranny (vs. a 6-speed). I would assume an equivalent or better improvement with the Ford 10-speed tranny.

I don't think the CVT's can handle the engine torque
hone_eagle
Explorer
Feb 21, 2014
GM followed so of course its a game changer ,in 3 years 2/3 of the trucks offered will be alinuminum.
Question is will Ram stand still or announce a material change(even partial) in that time.
Bionic_Man
Explorer
Feb 21, 2014
Certainly pushing the market forward even if it doesn't prove to be a game changer. All the manufactures are chasing the CAFE standard.
fla-gypsy
Explorer
Feb 21, 2014
Not a game changer just another piece in a puzzle
45Ricochet
Explorer
Feb 21, 2014
BillyW wrote:
Taco wrote:
The 2.7 ecoboost is supposed to be 320 horse and 370 torque at 3000 rpm. If that is indeed the specs I would be willing to bet that it will out tow a ram ecodiesel.
This is the crux of all the Ecodiesel arguments. This engine may out tow the Ecodiesel, but will it score good mpg while doing it? I think the RAM will win that battle with plenty of room to spare.

X2

I'd take his money but I won't be able to prove it :( unless the Ram could tow 4 down. That there would be a game changer for me.
otrfun
Explorer II
Feb 21, 2014
Anybody have any thoughts on that 10-speed tranny? That is a lot of speeds! I'm no expert on tranny's, but gotta wonder at what point a CVT (continuously variable transmission) might be a better option.

It's interesting to note that Ram gets an additional 1/2 (city/hwy) MPG out of their 1500 Hemi by simply using an 8-speed tranny (vs. a 6-speed). I would assume an equivalent or better improvement with the Ford 10-speed tranny.
otrfun
Explorer II
Feb 21, 2014
BillyW wrote:
Taco wrote:
The 2.7 ecoboost is supposed to be 320 horse and 370 torque at 3000 rpm. If that is indeed the specs I would be willing to bet that it will out tow a ram ecodiesel.
This is the crux of all the Ecodiesel arguments. This engine may out tow the Ecodiesel, but will it score good mpg while doing it? I think the RAM will win that battle with plenty of room to spare.
IMO, the 2.7 Ecoboost may accelerate up-to-speed quicker than the 3.0 Ecodiesel while towing (more HP), but once up-to-speed the Ecodiesel's higher torque (420 vs. 370) will take over and deliver a more robust, relaxing towing experience, especially at highway speeds.

Have to agree with BillyW, if initial testing is any indication, the Ecodiesel appears to be a realworld, MPG-meister even under heavy load. Consumer Report reported 15 MPG with the Ecodiesel under aggressive, closed track, test conditions. Other high-torque competitors (V8's), including the Ecoboost, returned 10 MPG under the same test conditions. I'm guessing the 2.7 Ecoboost may get 1-2 higher MPG's than the 3.5 Ecoboost, not enough IMO to catch up with the Ecodiesel.

Of course, if the 2.7 Ecoboost F150 ends up weighing 700 lbs. less than the Ecodiesel, it's very possible that reduced weight may make some (or all) of the above moot---who knows.
TurnThePage
Explorer
Feb 21, 2014
Taco wrote:
The 2.7 ecoboost is supposed to be 320 horse and 370 torque at 3000 rpm. If that is indeed the specs I would be willing to bet that it will out tow a ram ecodiesel.
This is the crux of all the Ecodiesel arguments. This engine may out tow the Ecodiesel, but will it score good mpg while doing it? I think the RAM will win that battle with plenty of room to spare.
Mvander
Explorer
Feb 21, 2014
Im wondering if the weight reduction is going to result in some great payload numbers. Provided they keep the same gvwr's.