Ford finally came to their senses

[RollingsFarms]

Just wanted to update this thread really quick. Someone asked me if my mpg "lie-o-meter" was accurate and I was curious as well. This is my first tank of gas and the meter was showing 21.7. I hand calculated it at 21.5 so 0.2 difference. That's pretty accurate in my book. I haven't done any highway trips with the truck or towed with it yet, this was riding on back roads of 55mph and some city traffic. I did set the cruise control to 58mph on the 55mph roads and didn't use cruise in town.

 

[TomSeller]

Just wanted to update this thread really quick. Someone asked me if my mpg "lie-o-meter" was accurate and I was curious as well. This is my first tank of gas and the meter was showing 21.7. I hand calculated it at 21.5 so 0.2 difference. That's pretty accurate in my book. I haven't done any highway trips with the truck or towed with it yet, this was riding on back roads of 55mph and some city traffic. I did set the cruise control to 58mph on the 55mph roads and didn't use cruise in town.

When the 2.7 Eco first came out there was a lot of press that it didn't get any better mileage than the 3.5 Eco. It looks like it is doing better actually?

 

[fordmantpw]

Just wanted to update this thread really quick. Someone asked me if my mpg "lie-o-meter" was accurate and I was curious as well. This is my first tank of gas and the meter was showing 21.7. I hand calculated it at 21.5 so 0.2 difference. That's pretty accurate in my book. I haven't done any highway trips with the truck or towed with it yet, this was riding on back roads of 55mph and some city traffic. I did set the cruise control to 58mph on the 55mph roads and didn't use cruise in town.

That's great mileage for a full size truck! Also, if you didn't fill the truck up for the first tank (if it's the tank that came from the dealer), then it could be off a bit because of that. The meters in the newer trucks seem to be very accurate. My '08 F250 is usually off at least 1 MPG, sometimes more. Of course, it reads higher than actual.

When the 2.7 Eco first came out there was a lot of press that it didn't get any better mileage than the 3.5 Eco. It looks like it is doing better actually?

I think that was mostly from the auto journalists that were driving the trucks like they stole it. Most reports I've seen from people that have the 2.7 love the engine and the mileage.

 

[Ford850]

The problem with the EcoBoost engines is they produce tons of power and torque down low, and are extremely quiet. (problem?) When driving them, you find yourself stomping the pedal more often than you would in a traditional engine since there is little engine noise to judge how hard it's working. When I first drove one, I compared it to an electric cart, with silent power on demand.

 

[ovrszd]

I'm not a fan of building power thru small displacement by applying technology.

I see it is possible. I question it's longevity.

I forsee buyers that rarely work these similarly equipped trucks touting their sucsess. I forsee those that work them hard touting their shortcomings.

 

[PILOON]

Where's the bed? My gosh they get smaller and smaller.

That is because those trucks are designed for tailgate parties at sports events.

e.g.; 4 passengers + beverages for them and one BBQ & 4 folding chairs.
Research showed that the short bed was = to max beverage capacity consumption of 4 males .
They shortened the bed when LED TV's became popular.

 

[fordmantpw]

I'm not a fan of building power thru small displacement by applying technology.

I see it is possible. I question it's longevity.

I forsee buyers that rarely work these similarly equipped trucks touting their sucsess. I forsee those that work them hard touting their shortcomings.

From a thread on another forum discussing the EcoBoost reaching 1 MILLION sales in the F150:

"I run into a lot of them in commercial use (f150 3.5L), mainly oil and gas. From what i know they are holding up very well; and they dont have any easy life. "

Ford built this thing to last, and to be worked hard.

 

[dieselcrawler]

I'm not a fan of building power thru small displacement by applying technology.

I see it is possible. I question it's longevity.

I forsee buyers that rarely work these similarly equipped trucks touting their sucsess. I forsee those that work them hard touting their shortcomings.

Richard, I agree, for the most part...

I think they have their place in the world... for the occasional towing of a bass boat, smaller trailer, mostly daily driver type use, they will likely be just fine. The owners/drivers need to understand its limits, it's no F350, and not going to do what a superduty will on a regular basis. It IS just a half ton truck, after all. But if 98% of its miles are unloaded, the fuel economy will be making a nice difference. It's almost double my daily driver, the ol dually is getting about 11.5 mpg. But that's also double the displacement, and 150% of the weight...

 

[RollingsFarms]

This truck will work but it won't be towing anything heavier than a 5x10 trailer, 6x12 double axle, 6x10 dump trailer, Polaris Ranger, 1100 lb zero turn, etc. No camper or anything like that. I wouldn't have bought the 2.7 if I'd planned on towing more than 50% of the time. I bought it simple to tow once in awhile but I didn't need overkill (3.5 ecoboost), wanted good gas mileage when I wasn't towing, and I felt the power was plenty. It really came down to it and the 5.0 but finding those is tough. I saw a lot in Scabs and more optioned up trucks but they all had 3.31 gears. Dealers love ordering the worst gear for an engine it seems like. 3.55 was my minimum, would have picked 3.73 if I had the choice.

 

[dieselcrawler]

RF, I think your new truck will do well for you... and look good doing it!

The loads you describe are what I was referring to, and that's not to say it couldn't handle more... with care. As I said in my first post, I do like the looks of these newest 150's... keep us posted with your thoughts in the months and years to come.