BrianBM

REAL mpg on F-150 w/ 2.7 engine

17 posts in this topic

Someone here doubtless has some significant miles on an F-150 with the 2.7 engine, especially if it's a 4WD version set up for going off road.

 

I'm not too concerned about mileage, because my next vehicle need not be a daily commuter. I'm retired. I could go for the 3.5, an engine that has sex appeal, but I'm not towing, and Smith Point County Park is not the Rubicon Trail.  When my wife retires next year, though, I'd like to do some serious vacationing on the road.  The AF museum in Dayton, visit the USS North Carolina there, etc. No reason to spend money unnecessarily on gas, which I do NOT think will stay cheap. I DO expect a sharp spike in gasoline costs, sometime soon. (Reasons too political for easy discussion here.)

 

I have an impression, which the real motorheads here can address or dispute as they like, that while Ford's heavy use of aluminum has lowered vehicle weight substantially, the EcoBoost engines and their turbines have not given Ford's pickups any significant edge in mileage over competing vehicles.  Reliable, yes, supremely fuel-thrifty, no.  Comments on that issue too are solicited. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My buddy has the 2.7 with 20" wheels and tires with a tall sidewall.  He claims 14-15.  The turbo seems tricky to drive economically.

 

I have a 2017 with the 5.0.  Lower profile tires, but a somewhat aggressive tread.  I'm clocking 16.5 mpg currently.

 

On the open road I'm sure it'd improve.  We're kind of rural here so not alot of cruise control driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i must drive like a grandpa or something.... 2017 3.5 EB, normal sport package with 18" wheels... i have been running 93 lately and getting 21-22.

When i put the rack and rods on the top, i get around 20, and that includes driving on the beach in 4x4.

Im in your local area too Kbetts... its FLAT, you guys must be gunning it every ware.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

buddy of mine gets 14ish with the 3.5.. hand calculated.. flat driving.. fords window sticker mileage never matches real life. 

i'd get the 5.0 engine.. best of the bunch 

5.7 on my tundra getting 13 around town. 18 highway just like the sticker says.. no complaints 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've considered going to 93 since I don't drive alot.  I'm pretty easy on it but I can't lie....the roar of the duals is wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure if you keep your foot light you can squeeze some nice MPG out of the small turbo engines, I have to ask you guys that own these 4 & 6 Cyl EcoBoost engines how is the reliability?

I worry about the longevity of a Turbo Charger Equipped gas engine, does anyone out there have any serious miles on one of these EcoBoost engines? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My MPG isn't hand calculated, its via the computer, which i have up the entire time, in the center screen on the dash.... i have heard the computer isnt as accurate as hand or computing yourself, its probably on the high side, BUT i use it mostly to see when im driving how much fuel im burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unibrow said:

buddy of mine gets 14ish with the 3.5.. hand calculated.. flat driving.. fords window sticker mileage never matches real life. 

i'd get the 5.0 engine.. best of the bunch 

5.7 on my tundra getting 13 around town. 18 highway just like the sticker says.. no complaints 

Thats what my dad gets on his EB...city/highway all around.  I'm getting 18 on my 5.0.  Supposedly the 3.5 sells better than the 5.0 but i think Ford is marketing it way more aggressively.  I still think the 5.0 is better and that's what i'd get if i had to buy another tomorrow.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no replacement for displacement, the old saying goes.

Or is it, injection is nice, but I'd rather be blown?

I wonder how sand, salt water mist, and turbos mix?

Aren't the turbo intakes located near the bottom of the truck?

 

That concerns me, as a beach driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a good friend who is a mechanic at a ford dealership . He has many ecoboosts coming in with 200k+ with only routine maintenance being done. im a big fan of my 3.5 ecoboost for sure. only have 130k on mine had it since 23k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 10:51 AM, luckyOC said:

i must drive like a grandpa or something.... 2017 3.5 EB, normal sport package with 18" wheels... i have been running 93 lately and getting 21-22.

When i put the rack and rods on the top, i get around 20, and that includes driving on the beach in 4x4.

Im in your local area too Kbetts... its FLAT, you guys must be gunning it every ware.

 

I get better mileage burning 93 octane too... but the better mileage gets eaten by that higher price per gallon over regular.

 

Simple fact of full size 4X4 PUs is that if you worry about MPG, then you need to buy something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.