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

EPA fuel mileage numbers.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-13-2014, 09:43 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Curmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,360
Received 333 Likes on 214 Posts
Default EPA fuel mileage numbers.

While we're awaiting the EPA numbers for the 2015 F-150s, it may be informative to note that EPA has rated the 5.0L engine in the 2015 Mustang at 16 city/25 highway/19 combined with A/T. Surely, the 5.0 in the F-150 can't improve on that...can it?
Old 09-13-2014, 10:08 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
PhiDeltDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 148
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
While we're awaiting the EPA numbers for the 2015 F-150s, it may be informative to note that EPA has rated the 5.0L engine in the 2015 Mustang at 16 city/25 highway/19 combined with A/T. Surely, the 5.0 in the F-150 can't improve on that...can it?
Probably not. I predict 14-15 city/23 highway/ 17-18 combined.
Old 09-13-2014, 10:57 PM
  #3  
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

Well, if we are comparing apples to apples, this is what the 2015 5.0 has to beat.
Attached Thumbnails EPA fuel mileage numbers.-2014.jpg  
Old 09-14-2014, 12:42 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Ron AKA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 310
Received 20 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by All Hat No Cattle
Well, if we are comparing apples to apples, this is what the 2015 5.0 has to beat.

My thoughts would be that weight reduction would have more impact in the city than the highway. Predict about 17 city, 18-19
Combined, and 22 on highway.
Old 09-14-2014, 07:16 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
2013SCREW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 175
Received 33 Likes on 17 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by All Hat No Cattle
Well, if we are comparing apples to apples, this is what the 2015 5.0 has to beat.
Chevy advertises their 5.3L as16 city/23 hwy mpg with 355 HP 383 lb-ft. I'd say that this is what Ford needs to beat with the 5.0L. They will probably beat it with the 3.5L eco but I think they need to do it with the 5.0
Old 09-14-2014, 08:53 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
PhiDeltDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 148
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 2013SCREW
Chevy advertises their 5.3L as16 city/23 hwy mpg with 355 HP 383 lb-ft. I'd say that this is what Ford needs to beat with the 5.0L. They will probably beat it with the 3.5L eco but I think they need to do it with the 5.0
Exactly.
Old 09-14-2014, 09:49 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Daytoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 352
Received 53 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PhiDeltDave
Probably not. I predict 14-15 city/23 highway/ 17-18 combined.
Which is precisely what the 5.0 gets (real world mpg) in our 2013 xlt screw 4x4.
With the weight loss, it better do better than that.
Fwiw we do mostly city driving in the xlt and it still averages 17-18 mpg. Plus if I used 100% real gas we could add another mpg or two to that number.
I use 100% gas in my RAM and I get 18-20 mpg week in, week out.

So if the numbers you guys are predicting turn out true, color me UNimpressed. They should be better than that considering the weight loss.

Last edited by Daytoman; 09-14-2014 at 09:56 AM.
Old 09-14-2014, 07:39 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
powerboatr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North East Texas
Posts: 1,070
Received 169 Likes on 119 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Daytoman
Which is precisely what the 5.0 gets (real world mpg) in our 2013 xlt screw 4x4.
With the weight loss, it better do better than that.
Fwiw we do mostly city driving in the xlt and it still averages 17-18 mpg. Plus if I used 100% real gas we could add another mpg or two to that number.
I use 100% gas in my RAM and I get 18-20 mpg week in, week out.

So if the numbers you guys are predicting turn out true, color me UNimpressed. They should be better than that considering the weight loss.
why do you only use 100% gas in the ram...but not the 150?
Old 09-15-2014, 12:11 AM
  #9  
The Macho King
 
TheWhiteBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 803
Received 139 Likes on 100 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 2013SCREW
Chevy advertises their 5.3L as16 city/23 hwy mpg with 355 HP 383 lb-ft. I'd say that this is what Ford needs to beat with the 5.0L. They will probably beat it with the 3.5L eco but I think they need to do it with the 5.0
With a 3.08 rear end. Talk about a dog.
Old 09-15-2014, 10:54 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Daytoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 352
Received 53 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by powerboatr
why do you only use 100% gas in the ram...but not the 150?
The RAM is a keeper and it's also my daily driver. I don't risk running corn fuel in it. I put a fair amount of miles on it. Plus I run the recommended 89 octane. It really responds well to the pure gas, both in mpgs and performance. I ran corn fuel in it a few times because I had no choice. The mpgs dropped big time so for the above reasons I can more than justify real gas in the RAM.

The F150 is my wife's grocery getter/soccer mom/weekend running family car. She doesn't put a lot of miles on it and it's a short timer. It will be sold in the next 6 months or so. I don't care if it burns corn fuel most of the time. It would take a loong time to justify the added expense and trouble of always finding real gas for her truck. I have very little reason to bother with the real gas in it.

Last edited by Daytoman; 09-15-2014 at 11:02 AM.



Quick Reply: EPA fuel mileage numbers.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19 PM.