(Partial) costs of the F150 engines & the cost of a few mpg
 

Hi All,

I compared the start-up and fueling costs of the various engines that the F150 comes with and I'd like to share the results with you: I assumed $3.00/gallon gas and edit: $3.30/gallon diesel. I also considered the opportunity cost of not being able to invest the monthly fuel savings/startup costs @ 4% CAGR.

Enjoy -- bottom line, engine choice is thousands of dollars. Feel free to double check my estimates of course!

Using 2019 EPA combined MPG, and all compared to 3.3 V6, 15k miles/year for 10 years:
2.7 V6: roughly $1.5k more expensive
3.5 V6: roughly $5.3k more expensive
5.0 V8: roughly $6.0k more expensive
3.0 V6: roughly $5.2k more expensive

Using 2018 Fuelly numbers instead, and comparing to the 2.7 V6, 15k miles/year for 10 years:
3.5 V6: roughly $6.1k more expensive
5.0 V8: roughly $6.1k more expensive
3.0 V6: roughly $5.2k more expensive

Edit for more info so depreciation is less of a factor:

Using 2018 Fuelly numbers instead, and comparing to the 2.7 V6, and instead running out to 15 years, 15k miles/year:
3.5 V6: roughly $7.8k more expensive
5.0 V8: roughly $8.0k more expensive
3.0 V6: roughly $5.5k more expensive

Using 2018 Fuelly numbers instead, and comparing to the 2.7 V6, and instead running out to 20 years, 15k miles/year:
3.5 V6: roughly $11.1k more expensive
5.0 V8: roughly $11.5k more expensive
3.0 V6: roughly $6.2k more expensive

Except you aren't considering the trade-in value, the limitations that some engines aren't available in some packages, etc.

$4.29 for super here in Orange Ca :(

Interesting!

Looks like my 3.5 EB is gobbling up quite a bit of $$$. Problem is I love the way it runs! Guess I’ll just have to write off the extra money as the cost of doing business.

Yeah...I used to drive a jeep wrangler that got 13 mpg avg probably. I kept telling myself it was about the smiles/gallon.

Ha, run the numbers for that price. I bet its significantly more!

Thanks.

This is half-true for the diesel, I used the difference in price between it and the 2.7 when purchased in a lariat.

If there is a good way to estimate that, please feel free to copy my numbers and add it in :thumbsup:

Interesting info.

When spread out over 10 years though, that $6100 breaks down to $50/month. The enjoyment I get from my 5.0L truck is worth that to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm always looking to get the best economy I can, and my truck does better than the Fuelly average(yes, I am using Fuelly to calculate), but I'm not too butt hurt over the extra fuel expense. It's a truck. Trucks use more gas.

Yes, the 2.7 and the 3.5NA are by far the most cost effective choices. However, no 'real' truck driver would be caught admitting that they don't need the 5.0, 3.5EB or 3.0. You know, the ones that might tow 6000 lbs, but need the 13000 lb tow rating (that really is only 9000 lbs when payload is considered). And no, the 5.0, 3.5EB and 3.0 do not retain a higher percentage of initial cost to offset the higher initial cost and operating costs.

Yeah, for sure. I'm mostly posting this for people who haven't already purchased so they can find the truck that best aligns with what they need and what they want.

I would have to argue that last point. I bet it is much easier to sell an up optioned engine versus a base V6 down the road, and for a higher price. It's not a matter of recouping all the initial cost or expense, it's the ease of selling in a saturated market.

Same here, coming from a Wrangler that was lifted running 35's. MPG was something I chose not to look at, I figured it was the cost of having an awesome ride. Fortunately I do not have to commute for work (full-time work from home), so I don't worry so much about MPG, just want that smile when I stomp on the skinny pedal. :)

It would be as hard to sell on the resale market as it is on the retail. So if the 3.3L sells considerably worse than the others, then yeah there is going to be a tougher sale at resale. But he included the 2.7L, which is in the top three highest selling F-150 engines for 2018, so its resale is probably not overly difficult. Not enough to account for a $5-6k front loaded cost anyway.

The above coming from the point of buying an F-150 mainly for light towing and commuting work, if you have good use for the 3.5TT/3.0 Diesel, then the choice is pretty clear.

Is nobody else interested in Ford's new "5.0 V6"??




:devil2:

I argue with the financial people in my business all the time that the "assumed investment loss" they tack on some projects is just rubbish. Once you press past say year 3. you can't assume you can carry a 10 year investment at ____ % all the time.

When I ask where is all the saved investment money from last year I get no answer.

Anyway I agree with most of your assessment other than that bit. meanwhile your second chart doesn't so the 2.7L against the 3.3L on fuels. Are you saying they break even. So get the 2.7L regardless

I bet if you check NADA or KBB - and compared 3, same set 2017 models. 2.7 vs 5.0 vs 3.5 - all XLT's or I guess Lariats. I bet the 2.7 is the lower resale model. But I also bet the spread is less than 1K.

Hmm didn't know the 3.3 was available in the Platinum. So the 5.0 in a similarly configured Platinum to mine is $15 more, yet would be hard pressed to get the 20+ MPG that I get. My fuel costs over 19922 miles has been $2473.61. Can't get a 2.7 either in the Platinum, and not even going to consider the Diesel since it is a different fuel and maintenance option.


I honestly am not seeing the point of this thread though, the 3.3 is the base engine, and anyone looking to do any sort of towing will want the more powerful engines to begin with. Besides if MPG were so important and not needed for towing, there are these cars called Prius that get really great fuel economy and cost far less than even a base F150.

The problem I see with Fuelly is that you record every fillup. I tow a lot of the time with my 3.5L EB, that's why I bought it. I can imagine that % wise, more owners of 3.5EB tow than 2.7 EB owners. If I wasn't towing, I would have bought the 2.7.

For sure the 2.7 gets better mileage, but I believe the 3.5EB numbers are skewed since many "fill ups" involve towing.

lol

This is true, for sure. The EPA mpg numbers are uneffected by this, of course.

Always nice to figure in different aspects.
No right or wrong answer, as everyone's needs differ.
I have a 2.7 in my 'Pavement Princess'.
Lotsa 3.5's and 5.0's were available at the time, but I didn't want/need anything those engines had to offer.
Can't say I saw very many, if any, 3.3's either.

Yup half ton trucks are becoming more mainstream for your average American family now. I'd bet the majority can get by with the 2.7 fitting all their needs even without the tow package.

The point of this thread (which, I'm surprised isn't apparent) is to discuss the marginal increase in operating costs depending on which engine you purchase.

BTW, I own a Prius as well! The in-town MPG of my vehicles is 10, 19, and 50.

I suppose depreciation is guesstimate-able, given that the 10-year average depreciation is known and the initial costs are known. In leu of doing that, I'll run my numbers out to 20 years, 300,000 miles and update my original post. The differences in resale value at that point should be very small.

I'll have to have a friendly counter argument about this :).

Would you raise this as an objection?
If you wouldn't, then you're casting doubt against the ability of people to keep a budget in one case but not the other. In many cases, your prejudgement won't be accurate. I know people who internally count saving for retirement as the single most important cost to save for. It's buying your ability to live when you cannot support yourself, after all.

Maybe we'll have to rename this guy to No real trucksman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I'm a real truck owner, I made a real estimate of my towing needs, and I didn't need the 5.0, 3.5EB, or the 3.0. I needed more than the 3.3, so I bought the 2.7, which was the smallest engine/F150 that met my GVW, GCW requirements.

Haven't read the whole thread but the numbers would be much better looking when comparing the actual mpg I get with my 18 5.0 4x4 screw. Did one long round trip and was able to averag 27 mpg or something like that (8.7 l per 100km).

I'll have to friendly disagree with this, fuelly global averages are better (not perfect) than single instances. The numbers would also skew to the towards the 5.0 V8s benefit if we used my 16 mpg average from my 2.7 when taking short trips to work only in the winter. It would certainly be unwise and inaccurate to make the general claim that the 5.0 gets nearly 70% better gas mileage than the 2.7.

The epa mpgs are a fair more reliable indicator of the relative efficiencies. (Whether or not an individual's driving mimics the EPA tests are another matter.)

A 3.3 would have been less initial cost and would also have been capable of everything I need done with my 19 crew cab. (BTW, a crew cab is a bit of an overkill for folks like us { a household of two }, but,,,the extra room inside does help keep the ice cream from turning into liquid on the way home.)

Really don't even need a 'truck' but the utilitarian factor every now and then is a hard thing to be without. (A Ridgeline would be fine for my needs, but I just couldn't talk myself into one, no matter how hard I tried!).

For ~$995~ more than a 3.3, you get the 2.7 and the 10 speed. Nothing wrong with Fords 6 speed, but after owning a vehicle w/8 speeds, I gravitate towards the 'more gears is better' camp.

Why not a 3.5 or 5.0? In the past, I would have opted for whichever one I could modify the most for 'MO POWAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!'.

Today, eh,,, I'm quite happy with the output (and efficiency) of the 2.7, and I'll leave that extra cash where it is,,,(working for me and not in someone else's pocket.)

Funny how ones priorities change over time. Kinda neat to be able to look back and 'see both sides'.

(P.S. While depreciation and resale are ~relevant~, I've 'been down that road' several times with boats, motorcycles, and jet ski's. Let's just say,,,, after all that,,, I don't fret a lot about an F150! LOL!!!)

I don't think the 3.0 should be included in this comparison. In most places, diesel is significantly more expensive than 87 octane gas. I do realize that's not the case everywhere, but it's still not a fair comparison to assume diesel and gas are equal in price.

Otherwise, this is a good comparison. I made a spreadsheet with a very similar breakdown before I bought my 2019 5.0. In the end, I realized the cost differences were not a big deal based on how many miles I drive per year.

I didn't, the math used diesel as 1.1x the price of gas. (I do get how the phrasing I used could be misleading.)

Great, thanks for clarifying. Did you mention that previously? I totally missed it if you did.

No, I'll edit the original post.

Well, some people buy the engine to suit the use of the truck, so for them this is irrelevant. Today hauled over 1000 pounds of horse goods and still managed to get over 20 MPG, with a head wind, and can guarantee that 3.3 V6 would not. In fact EPA rated only 1 MPG difference between the 3.5 EB and the 3.3. Besides, you can't get the base motor in the Lariat or Platinum trim :)

I would friendly disagree with this. To me, part of the use of the truck was to efficiently fulfill use-case. For instance, if the diesel made economic sense, I would have preferred that.

All thinks equal, it basically takes X amount of fuel to push Y amount of weight down the road at Z mph. (IE, different engine in exact same truck/same load/same fuel/same speed)

In this scenario, one may be surprised at how close the amount of fuel consumed between a 3.3 and a 3.5 may be.

With speed at a constant, one exception would be the ability of one engine to sip fuel when the power wasn't needed while another potentially larger engine can't burn any less w/o reducing rpms,,,

(Lord knows how many tens of thousand of miles I've travelled on the freeway with a 5, 6, or 7 liter gasser spinning away @ ~3k~ rpm or more),

IMHO, this is (and continues to be) a significant factor in Ford (and other manufacturers) decision to utilize smaller displacement turbo-engines in lieu of 6 or 7 liter NA's.

The power of a larger engine only when needed combined with the efficiency of a small engine otherwise.

I applaud Ford for bringing turbo-gas light-duty trucks to the US market. I believe Chevy has introduced a turbo 4 engine to their light truck offering, while Ram is still kinda fiddle-fartin around with an old-school 2 valve V-8 (that runs on 4 every now and then),,,

This brings up something I've been thinking about and that is resale value. I ran my F150 which is a 2018 Lariat with 20,000 miles on Kelly Blue Book.

2.7 Engine is $31,879-$34,851
5.0 Engine is $31,723-$34,704
3.5 Engine is $32,738-$35,719

Then I went to Ford and built a 2019 with the engine options

2.7 Engine is $48,330
5.0 Engine is $49,330
3.5 Engine is $49,930
Diesel Engine is $52,330

This is the Lariat 500A with 4wd. I don't think gas money is an issue but it does seem the 3.5 is the better option if you are looking at trade in value.

Interesting, I would have expected the 5.0 to be between the 2.7 & 3.5.

I don't know that's going to be true and it might well be area dependent. More on this later.

Object - I object to all sorts of ****. But I'm usually easy to disagree with. :jester: I'm in for a good discussion. My background however is engineering no finance so I argue with them alot because the benefit per dollar is in some cases very hard to justify. Either way mind you.

My point here - most likely poorly worded - is that outside of 3 years it's really hard to gage what fuel prices or even vehicle prices will do. Back in 07 - had you told me in under a year I would pay 5 per gallon for gas I would have laughed in your face. But even here in the SE US I was paying 5 per gallon for a while - it was insane. 2 years before that I was paying 2 or less. That's my point you have to set a price - for me when I do my sheets on a car I use the 5 year average in my area - thanks gas buddy. And it's an average I'm inputting into - so it's no random per say. It's just as possible the bottom might fall out - and gas price could plummet. It happened once before.

I also use Acar - or Fuely app to track what my fleet does on MPG's and prices I pay etc. SO I know my numbers - in my area - where I go. Not everyone does this.

So around here - for used trucks - and I was having this discussion at church just yesterday. The 5.0 is the prefered so the price is always higher used. The guy I was talking to even said the words. Well you know you have to avoid those 3 year old 2.7L - they're traded in because they're all used up. I had to explain to him that you know the common lease was 3 years or so - and today it's common for a person to swap cars every 3-4 years. It's not about used up. But I was wasting my breath.


Point is - for some resale value doesn't play on the sheet. I don't give one IOTA what the resale value is because in 10 years time it doesn't much matter but I will look at trade in - if I'm doing a vehicle swap. It depends on what I'm buying and why. In the case of the F150 my sheet didn't have any resale thought on it - and it didn't have any trade in number on it. New purchase for new need that wasn't going to go away soon. vs - new daily for me, might trade in the current one, will buy something, probably finance it because rates, and soe it's gas dollars and MX dollars of current vs fuel and finance dollars on new. No it doesn't balance out yet but it might if MX dollars or gas dollars keep going up

If Guns kill people, Spoons cause Diabetes


Actually it Forks and cans/bottles that cause diabetes

The massive amount of money you lose in depreciation from keeping any new vehicle for only a few years far outweighs any differences in resale value of the engines. Same goes for mpg. Buy the engine you want and you will keep the truck longer.

KBB is dependent on your ZIP

Running data is useless if it doesn't account for the advantages as well as negatives.

E.G. The 5.0 is a flex fuel motor while the others aren't. If you were to run the 5.0 with flex fuel price and MPG compared to premium for the EB motors it would show potential that the others don't have. Same issue with all the hp comparisons.

Regardless: The only thing this data can potentially prove is that more powerful and more desirable engines cost more money to operate, which is a big "no ****".

Hey when did they change from Thanks to Likes?

^ I knew you'de like that post.

Ill take my 5.0 over either of the v6's because of the wonderful sounds it makes :)

Former V8 guy here, loved the way Magnapacks sounded in my 4.6L Mustang GT.

However, getting a bit older and out of that phase, I love the turbo spool of my 3.5L. Its subtle yet profound.