Twin snail putput

Pp

dalola

I really don't know how you guys with 2.7's that don't tow or haul anything, or do much city driving, are averaging under 20 mpg. I will occasionally drive like an idiot just to see if I can get under 20 for a tank.....usually not.

Could one of you describe your typical tanks worth of driving? I'm very curious.

nubbins_

I don't get this logic. If you can only get 17.5 avg with the 2.7, chances are it's your driving style or area that dictates your fuel economy; so, what makes you think you'll get anywhere over 14 MPG in the same conditions with the 5.0?

Conversely, if you average 20 MPG in the "city", what makes you think that everyone else's conception of "city driving" is the same easy cruising-along-long-winding-roads in the remotest reaches of the "city"? Have you ever driven in any truly urban setting ever, and tried attaining 20MPG in anything larger than a CR-V?

E. Manuel

On Fuelly they are in the 18mpg range.

Did you calculate your by hand or are you going by the LOM?

KWS 2.7

Do you really think that company trucks with either 2.7 turbo will get any where near to 24 mpg? My guess would be 18 at best more likely 16 because the drivers could care less how much gas they use. I know I'm a lead foot but when I worked for att it turned out I was easier on the trucks than most. You dont have floor a turbo motor to suck gas just get the rpm up above 3k and listen to it suck. Just saying

doug97gxe

he isn't doing anything wrong .. and no his driving style doesn't dictate on a NA motor it will be the same.. as i said before but was so quickly shot down and told i don't make any sense .. driving anything with turbos or with lots of TQ down low is harder to keep the MPG down from something that has a linear power

dalola

Unfortunately, fuelly rolls up everything, which is fine in an all-encompassing comparison. My question is to these guys who claim to do no towing, heavy hauling or city driving, and yet still get cr@ppy FE. I really don't understand how they are driving to average under 20mpg in a 2.7 F150.

I initially hand calculate to determine how far off my LOM is, then just subtract after that. My current truck is about .4-.6 optimistic in most conditions.

gthrift

Oh God no . We're a pest control company, so we are 95% city traffic and like I said, as a fleet we are getting 16 (actually 15.8) mpg. They are in XLs with either 3.3 or 5.0 motors. A 2mpg improvement would get us to 18mpg, which is what I based my $25k on. That 2mpg increase is totally doable with the 2.7.

In my 2018 2.7l screw I get a hand calculated avg of 21.1 mpg avg. That is a 4mpg improvement over my 2014 5.0 screw that actually saw more highway miles than my current truck.

Outlook214

I tow a 5,300 lb TT, probably about 5,600 lbs loaded with gear. I can tell you with out a shadow of a doubt, this thing pulls easier than my 2008 5.4 pulled my old TT that weighed 4,300 lbs dry. I think that 5.4 was rated around 8,500 lb. My 16' is rated around 7,900 lbs, but it would tow easily more than the old 5.4 Triton. Both Scab 4x4 with 3.55 gears. This truck / chassis does not feel quite as stable as my 2008, but, I had aftermarket E load tires on that truck which likely made a big difference. I will admit that when the 2015 Aluminum trucks were unveiled I was disappointed to see a 2.7 EB. After the not so great real world 3.5 EB mpg from the 2011-14 trucks I thought "here we go again". Then I started reading reviews and specifically remember car and driver testing a 4x4 Scab w/3.55 gears and getting a 0-60 time of 5.7 seconds all the while they were just being blown away by the engine. I did not buy my truck because it had to have a 2.7, but it had to at least have a 2.7 EB. Just happens that it's the truck I liked. I have no regrets. 39k trouble free miles (not counting freezing doors & a vibration that was fixed). The EcoBoost engines are great truck engines in the F-150. Almost a hybrid of sorts with low rpm diesel like torque and high rpm horsepower. I have gotten over 24 mpg hand calculated on our vacation last year down the east coast. Truck showed like 23.9 on the comp. Towing, they drink gas like any other engine if you're putting your foot in it, but they get the load moving so effortlessly that I still think they have a slight mpg advantage, but we can call that a wash. There is a certain learned driving method to achieve max mpg out of this 2.7 EB. I am considering a 5.0L if I trade in, but only because I think it narrowed the performance gap with the 2.7 with the switch to the 10 speed. With the old 6 speed, the 2.7 was a quicker ( I'm not saying better ) option that did everything performance wise slightly better than the 5.0 did. Again, if my current truck sat on the lot with a 5.0L, I would have bought it. To those who "have to have" one versus the other, it's not worth bickering about IMO.

Helltime

Winter time 14-15mpg, remote start, 32 miles a day for work, 4 miles at 40mph or less, 14 miles at 63mph and 14 miles at 75-85mph (depending on traffic) and remote start probably adds up to 10-15 minutes a day of additional idle time. Same driving minus remote start in the summer gets me 18mpg.