Kudos to Ford for the new power plant 2.7l (compacted graphite/iron block -same as the 6.7 Powerstroke and VM's 3.0 diesel). The start/stop feature is probably going to be the biggest fuel saver (good thing it automatically disables the start/stop when towing & in 4wd). I wonder what insurance is going to cost with the Al body? I also wonder why they released the other new engine-3.5l (283hp/255#/ft), it must be for fuel mileage? Too bad Ford didn't compare it's own engines in the test and include mpg--now that would have been informative-as a potential costumer.
2015 F150 Tow Test vs. Dodge and Chevy
- Thread starter CLinton_in_FL
- Start date
- Views: 26638
fordmantpw
Veteran Member
Exactly!
A good read on how the '15 F150 was developed and some of the testing they went through to ensure aluminum to meet Ford's toughness standards: Ford
Last edited:
Reyer Farms
Platinum Member
Well I'm no engineer. They have done so much so fast it's hard for folks to keep up. I'm not very happy with steel bodies that have to be reinforced with band-aid braces adhered to panel to stiffen it either.
jejeosborne
Veteran Member
I am with you. The Hemi just slightly trails the 3.5 ecoboost now that they have a 8-speed to keep the hemi in its narrower powerband. The Hemi is the 1500 Rams top engine thus this comparison to the mid engine choices. If one were to run this test with the top engines, Ford would still beat the 6.2 liter GM and the hemi with the 3.5 liter ecoboost.
I test drove the Ram Ecodiesel and reported in another thread that I found it to be strong off the line but ran out of steam just as this video demonstrated. Lots of torque but too little HP for this type of test. No doubt the ecodiesel fuel usage would trump the ecoboost towing. Unloaded the 2.7 and 3.5 ecoboost will be cheaper cost per mile with better giddy up and go.
Actually the ecodiesel has the best fuel mileage for any 4wd and according to the epa it's $550 less expensive to drive a year than the 3.5l ecoboost.
Compare Side-by-Side
fordmantpw
Veteran Member
I think he is referring to the '15 F150, which will be lighter, more aerodynamic, and surely get better fuel economy.
ruffdog
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,656
- Location
- southern wisconsin
- Tractor
- Bobcat Toolcat 5610G, Deere X744, Cub Cadet IH 982
It is good that ford learned from their mistakes. After seeing plenty of rods sticking through the aluminum blocks of the 3.5, they went with the cast iron block in the 2.7. Chrysler knew that back with the PT Cruiser and their turbo. The turbo's get the iron block.
fordmantpw
Veteran Member
As sld mentioned, the block is not cast iron. It is CGI - Compacted Graphite Iron.
I don't recall thrown rods being a big issue with the 3.5L EB. Like your cast iron block comment, I'm sure you were just misinformed and you thought you had to relay that bit of misinformation here to attempt to make a point. Besides, the 3.5L EB will carry on in the F150, mostly the same as it is today.
jejeosborne
Veteran Member
I did mean for the 2015 model year but when I do the math, the ecoboost in the 2014 model is dead even in cost per mile with the ecodiesel. Using U.S. Regular Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon) , the national average cost for diesel for the past two years was $3.94/gal vs $3.49 for regular gasoline. Plug those numbers into your side by side comparison using the personalize link and you will find that the Ram is $350 cheaper in 15,000 mile year. That $350 is fuel savings only. Doesn't consider DEF and Higher cost oil changes. Cost per mile is basically a wash while the engines have similar torque curves and the ecoboost has 52% more HP.