Truck trends one year with ecoboost 14 mpg average

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

parkersdad wrote:

skipnchar wrote:
Ford doesn't talk much about it's being the most economical truck to drive. Their wording is the best COMBINATION of mileage and power. Lots of trucks may get better mileage with small V-8s or 6 cyl engines but certainly can't tow 11,000 lb. over 7% grades at over 12,000 feet elevation and do it in 4th gear.

My 2013 2500 Cummins can??

My 2004 tractor motor can.

My 2014 6.4L Can average 14.7mpg.
No turbo required
MM49

Exactly what was the purpose of all this ....All you studly 3/4 & over pickup truck owners know the 150 & Ecoboost isn't capable of any real world accomplishments & it shouldn't be towing anything bigger than a bread box. That's ok ... you guys just keep telling yourselves that and living in your little fantasy worlds.

Life is fantastic &
gettin better everyday

Ford has been called on putting out false mpg readings for several vehicals. I think that says something.

goducks10 wrote:
Say what you want but 18mpg and 80mph just don't belong in the same sentence. So you test drove a truck and got 18 @80mph.

Why? It doesn't sound outlandish to me. I have never figured out my highway mileage by when I hand calculate my over all mpg's on my 1500 Chevy, I consistanly get 15.8 to 16.5 mpg's. Now if it were a 2500 Hemi, I don't know. The best I ever managed to average with that animal was 13 mpg's.

goducks10 wrote:

otrfun wrote:

goducks10 wrote:

otrfun wrote:

My current truck is capable of getting it's rated EPA highway rating of 18 MPG at 75 MPH--which just happens to be the same MPG I got with the Ecoboost at 80 MPH--18 MPG. Yes, slightly better, but certainly not significant. Anyhow, I'm still happily driving my current truck with a bit less torque at 2k, but with a lot more jingle in my pocket--for now.

You must have one of those internet trucks. They seem to get their best mpg on the internet.

Ya know, goducks10, like you and everybody else here I'm presenting my opinion based on my personal experiences. Some may disagree, some may not--that's cool. I wanted the Ecoboost, but after comparing personal experiences with the Ecoboost and my current truck, I elected to keep my current truck. In my post I tried to be unbiased and truthful as I could.

Now, your comment that I must own one of those "internet trucks" accomplishes nothing in my eyes. It's just a shallow comment that just rings with negativity--which, of course, is your intent. Got it.

I got alright. Total BS. Say what you want but 18mpg and 80mph just don't belong in the same sentence. So you test drove a truck and got 18 @80mph. Not really conclusive IMO.

Who said my opinion was "conclusive", goducks10? I certainly didn't.

otrfun wrote:

goducks10 wrote:

otrfun wrote:

My current truck is capable of getting it's rated EPA highway rating of 18 MPG at 75 MPH--which just happens to be the same MPG I got with the Ecoboost at 80 MPH--18 MPG. Yes, slightly better, but certainly not significant. Anyhow, I'm still happily driving my current truck with a bit less torque at 2k, but with a lot more jingle in my pocket--for now.

You must have one of those internet trucks. They seem to get their best mpg on the internet.

Ya know, goducks10, like you and everybody else here I'm presenting my opinion based on my personal experiences. Some may disagree, some may not--that's cool. I wanted the Ecoboost, but after comparing personal experiences with the Ecoboost and my current truck, I elected to keep my current truck. In my post I tried to be unbiased and truthful as I could.

Now, your comment that I must own one of those "internet trucks" accomplishes nothing in my eyes. It's just a shallow comment that just rings with negativity--which, of course, is your intent. Got it.

I got alright. Total BS. Say what you want but 18mpg and 80mph just don't belong in the same sentence. So you test drove a truck and got 18 @80mph. Not really conclusive IMO.

In 11 months have about 12,200 miles on truck - 6K towing. Town I get about 16.8 - 17. Interstate and no load - just at 20 (rarely travel like that in this vehicle). Towing is a tad over 10 without headwind. With headwind, forget it, nothing will get decent MPG. Lifetime combined is 13.1.

No complaints!

Tystevens wrote:

otrfun wrote:
My current truck is capable of getting it's rated EPA highway rating of 18 MPG at 75 MPH--which just happens to be the same MPG I got with the Ecoboost at 80 MPH--18 MPG. Yes, slightly better, but certainly not significant. Anyhow, I'm still happily driving my current truck with a bit less torque at 2k, but with a lot more jingle in my pocket--for now.

Out of curiosity, what is your current truck?
. . .

I believe the real issue here is not one truck vs. another truck. The real issue is how does a truck with a given set of EPA MPG numbers find it difficult to obtain these numbers in the realworld. With the Ecoboost, we're not talking about one or two personal experiences here, we're talking about a very large sampling of experiences (and road tests).

So, IMO, the question begs to be asked. Why are EPA MPG tests more accurate with some vehicles, and less so, with others? Consumer Report tests quite regularly note disparities between EPA and realworld MPG's.

There's probably no clear cut answer.

My 2006 SCab F-150 with the 5.4L got excellent mileage as long as I kept my foot out of it. Cruising two lane highways at 55 to 65 I consistently saw 19 or 20 mpg. Around town but not city driving, 16 to 17 was common. Adding a Scan Gauge enabled me to get a good handle on how to maximize economy. Leaving a stop sign or light and keeping it under 2,000 rpm worked wonders. :C

womps wrote:
I put about 20,000 miles a year on my 2012 ecoboost. Half of these miles I carry a quad and equipment in the box totalling 700 lbs. My mileage doesn't vary whether I am loaded or empty. So if the 2015 Ford F150 is 700 lbs lighter I wonder what difference the mileage will be with the same poertrain. I average about 17 m.p.g. with 1/2 highway and 1/2 rural with very little city driving. Love the power but I got better mileage with my 2010 F150 with the 5.4 V8 powering it.

Interesting response; thanks for the real world numbers. Most people I know w/ a 5.4 don't get very good mileage out of it, so interesting that your EB isn't doing any better.

Yeah, I'm wondering just how much difference the 700 lbs will make for normal driving. For flat-land driving especially, aerodynamics is a much bigger part of the fuel economy equation IMO. For example, I've pulled a large 20 ft enclosed cargo trailer with a frontal area similar to my TT, but it was unloaded and probably weighed quite a bit less than my TT. I got the same mileage I always get w/ the TT (about 10 mpg). Conversely, I've towed a Suburban on a flat trailer, the combination probably weighing at least a thousand pounds more than my TT, but having a much better aerodynamic profile, and I got close to 14 mpg for that trip.