aliass24

With the new 10 speed tranny in the near future, the 150 might equal or surpass the new Ecodiesel.

Scrappy Doo

iTrader: (1)

This doesn't seem right.....Just sying.


Why would anyone in their right mind buy a 2.7 eco for 1 mpg city difference over the 3.5 eco?

aliass24

^Agreed

Jrob56

Price, at XLT level 3.5 Eco is a 1200 dollar option. Not really worth it if you don't need the extra towing to lose a mpg.

If you do a lot of stand still in traffic 2.7 gets another nod with stop/start.

CDC5.0

Good numbers! An 8 / 10 speed transmission should improve them by another 1 - 2 mpg.

26mpg hwy on the 2.7L in 2wd isn't too shabby at all!

Not too impressed with the 21mpg hwy for the 4wd 5.0 though...I was expecting better maybe 23 or 24? My 2013 4wd 5.0 will get 21 mpg highway without too much babying. I guess the increase in power output didn't do it any favors though.

All the 4wd drive configs are good for no better than 23mpg highway, I wouldn't be buying one of these things for the increased fuel economy that's for sure! But none the less good improvements by Ford all around, now for some real world testing to see if these claims hold any water

steevr

I also thought the 5.0 would have been a little better. I expected 1mpg behind the 3.5EB but not 2.

2ndchance

5.0 More power requires more fuel. Sounds pretty simple. All the numbers look pretty impressive to me. They look great compared to the other two companies and think about how much better they are than Toyota.

bsboothe

I'm sure one would get those numbers for driving at 60 mph with a 3.31 rear end. Once people get lower rear end configurations and driving +70 mph, I'm sure the numbers will be closer to 20ish. Very rarely have I seen any vehicle get close to its stated fuel economy.

greywolf11

I don't mean to be "Johnny Raincloud," but with all the talk about efficiency, weight loss, etc I'm wondering how the general public (folks that typically don't frequent boards like this) will take to the increased cost of aluminum construction, insurance, and repair costs to gain 1 mpg (in some configurations) over traditional steel bodied competition. All I have to say is Ford better darn well have this manufacturing process down pat, because a rough launch with problems could mean disaster for the best selling title. The 2.7 needed to be in the upper 20's and the 3.5 eco in the mid 20's to make a statement. Not sure if this is enough to justify all the changes. JMHO

jp1170

I'm still betting that in real world driving the 5.0 will get better than the ratings and the Ecos will be close to if not worse than ratings just because their fuel mileage is so dependent on conditions! I'm on my second 3.5 Eco and my mileage in both varied anywhere from 14.5 - 17.5 depending on temp., humidity, wind, etc. Combined between the two trucks I've had I've logged over 100,000 miles on the 3.5 and I really like the motor just haven't been as impressed as I thought I would be with the fuel mileage. Anyway thinking about switching to the 5.0 next fall when I'm due to trade up again if I stay with ford and don't try something else!