Topic Sponsor
2015 - 2020 Ford F150 General discussion on the 13th generation Ford F150 truck.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Any else notice that the MPG is less on the 2016 3.5 Ecoboost

Old 10-20-2015, 02:42 PM
  #1  
Member
Thread Starter
 
F150White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts

Default Any else notice that the MPG is less on the 2016 3.5 Ecoboost

It went from 17/23 to 16/22 per the Ford website. Just wondering if the TSB for the transmission hard shift effected it somehow or if there was another change.
Old 10-20-2015, 02:44 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Livoniabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: SE Michigain
Posts: 5,679
Received 1,266 Likes on 843 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by F150White
It went from 17/23 to 16/22 per the Ford website. Just wondering if the TSB for the transmission hard shift effected it somehow or if there was another change.
Did the 5L change also?
Old 10-20-2015, 02:45 PM
  #3  
Member
 
cwm180's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 51
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

It looks like they also added a category for fuel economy with the payload package. With that option, the 3.5EB only gets 15/20/17. Additionally, some of the other numbers are different as well. For instance, my truck was listed at tow capacity of 9000#. The same configuration as a 2016 is 8900#. Not a huge difference obviously, but intriguing nonetheless.

Last edited by cwm180; 10-20-2015 at 02:55 PM.
Old 10-20-2015, 02:46 PM
  #4  
Member
 
cwm180's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 51
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Livoniabob
Did the 5L change also?
Nope. Still 15/21/17.
Old 10-20-2015, 05:06 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
L.T.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Des Moines, Ia
Posts: 188
Received 36 Likes on 31 Posts

Default

My window sticker is listed as 16/22/18.
Old 10-20-2015, 05:22 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
130428's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 2,923
Received 708 Likes on 486 Posts
Default

I read something about the different payload packages rated differently too, as mentioned.

otherwise, since EPA ratings dont mean crap to begin with, 1mpg more or less shouldn't be a deciding factor... or they should call VW and get that sh&t straight! 40mpg F150 anyone?!
The following users liked this post:
crockett56 (10-20-2015)
Old 10-20-2015, 05:27 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
dstrat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 112
Received 57 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

maybe they are just being a little more honest
Old 10-20-2015, 10:43 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
All Hat No Cattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lost Wages
Posts: 3,337
Received 1,000 Likes on 667 Posts

Default

maybe they are just being a little more honest
Looks like they are being more accurate, taking the GVWR into account.

For 2016 there are 14 trucks listed.

For 2015 there are 8 trucks listed.
Old 10-21-2015, 12:00 AM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
SeatGuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,168
Received 866 Likes on 375 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by dstrat1
maybe they are just being a little more honest
It's the extra weight of the smart trailer backup **** and the updates to the cooling seats...

Old 10-21-2015, 01:05 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Livoniabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: SE Michigain
Posts: 5,679
Received 1,266 Likes on 843 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by twakefield
It's the extra weight of the smart trailer backup **** and the updates to the cooling seats...

Which the 5.0 can handle with ease and while not sucking more gas.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Any else notice that the MPG is less on the 2016 3.5 Ecoboost



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:09 PM.