2.7 eco boost gets 18.5 mpg average according to Motor Trend

Is 18.5 good? (Yikes...)

Will love to see how those ecoboost engines stand up to high miles. I still feel a non turbo v8 will have less trouble and lowest cost of ownership with high miles, than a twin turbo v6. Maybe time wiil prove me wrong,? we will see.

Fordlover wrote:

buddyIam wrote:
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.

You know.... Women are allowed to buy and drive trucks these days :)

Some men will always cling to the V8 (or V10) or diesel, etc. And that's great, I imagine Ford will continue to make them, even if in smaller numbers. There is a powertrain option for nearly everyone, unless you like your F-150 powered by a battery pack.

I dunno, we'll see. There is no V8 option for the Expedition in 2015. Ecoboost is the only option. I believe the 6.2 is going away from the F150 as well, leaving just one V8 and 3 V6. I expect it will be a while, if ever, before they drop the 5.0 v8 from the truck lineup, but if the Ecoboost lineup significantly outsells the v8, I can see it as a possibility.

And I'm fine with that! I like my EB enough that I don't really care to own another V8 at this point!

Golden_HVAC wrote:
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 don't get it. They're two totally different testing arenas. Neither one has any bearing on the other.

buddyIam wrote:
My point is that some of this stuff is amazing. That corvette can get 29mpg. Then still be capable of something like 170mph.

My 2014 GT500 gets 22 MPG, is shaped like a brick, weighs 3900 pounds, and has 670 horsepower, and a top speed of 200 MPH. I get what you are saying, when I bought the car there wasn't even a gas guzzler tax.

buddyIam wrote:
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.

You know.... Women are allowed to buy and drive trucks these days :)

Some men will always cling to the V8 (or V10) or diesel, etc. And that's great, I imagine Ford will continue to make them, even if in smaller numbers. There is a powertrain option for nearly everyone, unless you like your F-150 powered by a battery pack.

My point is that some of this stuff is amazing. That corvette can get 29mpg. Then still be capable of something like 170mph.

buddylam wrote:
Corvette 6.2 gets 29 mpg hwy.

That beats all the eco boost, eco diesel, eco anything.

And your point is?? Put that 6.2 in a pickup and it's not going to get anywhere near 29 mpg highway. Put an Ecodiesel in a very light, aerodynamic body like a Corvette and it will probably get 50 mpg.

jus2shy wrote:
You guys are probably not aware of this, but the US is producing more fuel than Saudi Arabia. Fuel prices are predicted to remain stable for about 10 years.

edit - also, aver per vehicle mileage has also dropped though total car ownership has increased. Our total vehicle mileage peaked in 2005 thus far. That's about 2 or 3 years before the recession.

I disagree with the fuel prices being stable long term. The worlds oil reserves are shrinking and the oil company's are mainly focusing on exploring locations that can provide oil and gas with less investment.

You guys are probably not aware of this, but the US is producing more fuel than Saudi Arabia. Fuel prices are predicted to remain stable for about 10 years.

edit - also, aver per vehicle mileage has also dropped though total car ownership has increased. Our total vehicle mileage peaked in 2005 thus far. That's about 2 or 3 years before the recession.