CreepinDeth

Keep in mind guys, I'm pretty sure 90% of EcoBoost owners
DO NOT get those FuelEconomy.gov ratings that Ford gave the EPA.
So quoting sticker fallacy's doesn't equal real world MPG's.

Don't believe me, check user input on Fuelly.com
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150...=&submodel_id=

There's no way a SuperCrew 4x4 is getting 21mpg for a full tank on the highway doing 70-75mph on cruise unless it has the 3.15 gears. That's where there's a difference.

Ford picked the most optimal truck for HIGHWAY ratings and used THAT as the example to give the EPA. That's not what the majority of people own tho.

Roger that.

I was going off my 2013 Sticker which showed only the $1100
surcharge for the Ecoboost with the FX4 package. IF it's doubled
then obviously the EcoDiesel becomes even more attractive an option
for people seeking uber-mpg's.

Power fanatics will undoubtedly prefer the EcoBoost though.
I'm a mix of both, but I would LOVE to get 27mpg.

Me personally I'm keeping my EcoBoost as I just about NEVER go on Chicagoland tollways. So the RAM MPG's would be great but the cost to gain for me at this point, it isn't there.

Blown F-150

Some are getting close to the EPA rating and I am one of them. My truck only had 5000kms (3000 miles) on it and I was able to get 11.1l/100km (21.2mpg) over a 1400km (870mile) stretch. It was in the prairies, flat and at an average of 110 kph (68mph).

I have a supercrew, 4x4 with 3:55.

But like I said previously, the issue with the ecoboost is that it isn't consistent enough across different owners. As shown in your link, the average MPG rating for the most users is only one mpg less that the EPA rating. That really doesn't seem that bad.

CreepinDeth

Ummm.....not sure where you saw that. My link isolates the Ecoboosts.

2012 - Average of 15.5mpg
2013 - Average of 15.8mpg
2014 - Average of 16.2mpg

The Fuelly users average MPG's is a combination of city and highway. You need to look CLOSER to see which users did majority highway to see if the EPA ratings are being met. The average should be obviously much higher and closer to 21 then 15. Most are not tho

Here's an example
70% highway, 15.1mpg average.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2013/xstix/365952

Here's an example
66% highway, 12.3mpg average -
Granted I'll say probably winter blend but that's VERY poor.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2013/bedpan/355758

Another example
62% highway, 15.7 mpg average
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2014/flyct/307857

This is not Ford bashing, or GM fanboi lies......these are real F150 owners telling the factual evidence of their experience. Any prospective buyers would be wise to heed these numbers and make their best decision from it. I wish I knew before I bought the truck honestly......I would have waited.

NASSTY

My Ecoboost gets better than EPA ratings with 34.5" mud terrains and MPT tunes.

CreepinDeth

LoL....

NASSTY

I know this pic means nothing, because the only thing that matters is the MPGs of the 217 Ecoboost F150s posted on Fuelly.

gregsf150stx

Now, that TRIP "A" screen shot is actually one that's believable.... Its got miles over time...

Blown F-150

Again, I agree that there are people out there that are not getting close to the EPA rating and Ford should be doing something about it, especially those that can't get City mpg's on the highway. Although, you can find those examples for any of the trucks out there (GM, Dodge, Toyota, Etc.)

The chart I was referring to was this one.


You can see that the two largest number of vehicles are within a couple mpg's of the combined EPA rating. Realistically, that's pretty good. You are comparing the number from a static test in a controlled environment to real-world users. Also, it is quite possible that some of the fuelly users are actually using their truck as a truck (Hauling or towing), which wouldn't be comparable to the EPA rating. Heck, we don't know if the ones that average low mpg's even check their tire pressure.

I'm not on here raving about the ecoboost and saying how awesome it is. All I am trying to do is ask others to look at the broader scope and not just focus on one number. The data can be looked at a few ways, but some just see what they want to see.

Here are some other examples showing that the ecoboost is indeed further off the EPA mark than the ecodiesel and the 5.0 (the diesel appears to be doing awesome). Other than the Diesel though and 5.0, not so much... (using 2013 model year other than ecodiesel as that year seems to have the most data in Fuelly. All half-tons with Crew Cab 4x4 configs) just trying to compare apples to apples by using the overall averages (some models may have more highway or city focused users than others)

F150 Ecoboost EPA 15 City / 21 Highway / 17 combined
Fuelly average 15.8
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/33203.shtml
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150...0&submodel_id=

F150 5.0 EPA 14 City / 19 Highway / 16 Combined
Fuelly average 16.1
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/33199.shtml
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150...0&submodel_id=

Silverado 5.3 EPA 15City / 21Highway / 17combined
Fuelly average 15.7
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32424.shtml
http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/...0&submodel_id=

Ram Hemi 5.7 EPA 13 City / 19 Highway / 15 combined
Fuelly average 14.3
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/33208.shtml
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ram/1500?e...0&submodel_id=

Toyota Tundra EPA 13 City / 17Highway / 15 Combined
Fuelly average 14.0
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/33211.shtml
http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tun...0&submodel_id=

Ram Ecodiesel EPA 19 City / 27 Highway / 22 Combined
Fuelly average 22.5
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/35819.shtml
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ram/1500?e...0&submodel_id=


So to me, the OP's main focus was MPG's and he made the right move going to the Ecodiesel. if I was solely focused on MPG's, I would have went that route too. But the additional upfront costs (comparable truck to mine was more than 8k difference here 2014 vs. 2014), new to our market motor and unknown resale (Ram half-tons have traditionally been terrible in my area), and the fit and finish/build quality once you got "under the skin" of the Ram all lead me to stay with Ford.

This example you provided is a good one.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2013/xstix/365952
He still is only 1.9 mpg off the Average EPA rating for the same conditions. But he is off by a long shot on the highway EPA rating by 5.9 MPGs (It shows the comparison at the bottom of the link as I am sure you know). Again though, we don't know what speeds he drives at or if he deemed it "highway" just because he was on the interstate, but could have had some gridlock commuter traffic.

So I gotta ask (not trying to be a douche), but based on the fact that all other gas examples were similarly off the EPA other than the 5.0 based on Fuelly, what would truck would you have gone with? I would pick the 5.0 based on this info, but glad I have a ecoboost that is getting decent milage and more power is just a tune away.

CreepinDeth

Not saying that at all. Trust me, not trying to be a dick here either.
SO hear me out......

What I am saying is, you changed the rotating mass size on the tires to MUCH more. My speculation is that happened WITHOUT a proper correction in the Computer, (In the old days it was a transmission gear for the speedo correction) it's going to show more MPG's then it should. Now I've absolutely NEVER seen a lifted truck with 34" mudders get even close to EPA ratings in history. Has anyone here ever seen this themselves ??? I don't think anyone has.......and those that claim it are going by their computer readings (if uncorrected....ya know)

We have how many threads in the F150 forum where people bought a truck with a lift and mudders and COMPLAIN about the terrible gas mileage no where near what it should be?? Those were corrected in the computer. A tune does not overcome the laws of physics and rotating mass increase unfortunately.

With all this being said, I see your post as claiming to have a Unicorn. However I have an opinion that more then likely the correcting of that tire size wasn't taken into consideration.So therefore I would speculate your computer is not reading this information accurately. If you did a hand calculation of several tanks on a looooong highway trip I'd love to see it though.

CreepinDeth

We agree here.
Plus combined with Chryslers most recent recall being the largest fine in history of $100+ million and buying back half a million RAM's , I'd say we made the BETTER choice on a risk / gain factor. Hopefully RAM has this rectified in short order. My brothers 2013 is a concern for us, but after a call to Chrysler it's not in the recall list. I'm working on determining if it uses the same recalled part numbers or not.

Absolutely a possibility with regard to gridlock, but I'd take it under consideration a rational user would indicate that as city MPG's. Being that so many are averaged BELOW 18mpg on a 65-70% highway ratio, much closer to 15 or 16 average MPG that was just my opinion that it's lacking.

Either way I'm glad to see people can debate this politely and professionally.

Me personally, I don't use my truck on the Chicago tollways much at all. So having said that, same reasons as you I wasn't buying a Ram EcoDiesel it's very 1st year. (But I bought in 2013 anyways) So that would have left that out of the equation for me anyways.

2013 I made the best choice that was there, the EcoBoost. Don't regret that. What I DO REGRET is getting the 3.73 rear end that plagues my highway MPG's. I'm literally seeing a ~20% loss of efficiency from the 21mpg that I expected. I'd like to see what the 3.15 trucks do on the highway. I have no need for uber-power launches in my ownership of a pickup. Got a Hayabusa, Harley, 2 LSx powered muscle cars for that.

However, as a NEW Buyer in todays market I would STRONGLY consider that Laramie Longhorn EcoDiesel as a longterm purchase. I really can't say 27mpg highway on a luxo-barge is something to turn my nose to. IF legit, that's a 50%+ increase over what my personal F150 gets for the same size vehicle. I find that hella impressive and very efficient.

The sacrificial lamb is the acceleration power, I could personally live with that for the trade of.
For gentlemen with no other toys to get their giggle factor from, I can see that being an issue.