Rambo 2

So a 4x4 3.5 EcoBoost is rated at 23 mpg. If it falls completely on its face and gets terrible mileage it should get 20 mpg hwy no problem. I'm happy with that.

Jerry44

I think it's a no brainer for me now to go with the 3.5 ecoboost. I was hoping for better from the 2.7 4x4.

aliass24

^Yes, I didn't expect it to loose 3 mpg in the 4x4 model.

freedomIDI

23 is lower than I thought but all the other numbers seem great. Very happy with the 3.5 for sure.

DR9

Maybe I should get a 4x2 plat... but that will hurt resell/tradein value and I 'll have a reminder forever with a coin slot in the location of the ****.

MattN03

It'll be great when they start showing up, and we get some real world numbers. Very exciting to see so far!

Logan24

Something's a little funky with these numbers...how is a NA 3.5 going to get the same mileage as a Twin Turbo 3.5? Seems like maybe Ford is being a little generous with the Ecoboost numbers. The numbers should be right around the 5.0L mark in my opinion...

blck012

So let me get this straight..

All engines across the board gain at least 2mpg highway, except the 5.0L.

4x4 ecoboost 2.7 and eco 3.5 get the exact same mileage. 2.7L eco gets better than 3.5 NA.

Yeah, seems legit, nothing wierd about that.

Kansas Transit

I swear Ford is playing games making the 5.0 "look" worse than the V6's, reason being, I can match or EXCEED the MPG numbers given for a 2015 4x2 5.0,

And I am driving a 2014 Scab 4x2 5.0, so how is it that the weight drop improved the mileage of the other trucks, but not the 5.0?

Scratching my head here, and my mileage may get better, as it just turned 5,000.

GearheadGeek

I'm not particularly surprised that the 5.0 didn't see big fuel economy gains, since it has fairly healthy output gains. It's not as easy to tinker with the performance envelope on a port-injected, normally-aspirated engine as it is a DI forced-induction engine.

The base diff for the 2.7 Eco 4x4 is different from that for the 3.5 Eco 4x4. I suspect a 3.5 Eco 4x4 with the 3.55 diff will get slightly lower MPG than the 2.7 on a comparable truck.

Similarly, the base differential for the 3.5L NA is higher than that for the 2.7 Eco in each of 4x2 and 4x4 configurations. Now, keep your foot in it all the time, with the 3.5 NA getting a little more efficient (because the throttling losses go down) and the 2.7L drinking gas (because it's producing WAY more power in that situation) you'll burn more with the 2.7, but you'll be getting a lot more performance for your gallon of gas in that case.