Topic: Test Drive: 2015 Ford F-150 FX4 EcoBoost

[Autos_Editor]

Latest F-150 and new EcoBoost engine work towards a compelling new truck.
Read More...

[JohnnyMac]

I'll take the Ram Ecodiesel please.  I find the interior is better in the Ram.  If I'm looking for real world fuel economy there's no substitute for diesel.  Everything I've read about these Ecoboost is that you can have either "Eco" or "Boost" but not both, meaning you can have fuel economy or maximum hp.  So to me this means I'd have to drive the Ecoboost like a Prius in order to get the claimed fuel economy, whereas the Ram I could drive it normally and possibly beat the posted fuel ratings.

[bone]

Took delivery of a 2015 Lariat  4x4 Supercrew with the 2.7  Ecoboost last week. Traded a 5 Litre Lariat on it and am stunned at how much better the Eco performs. Of course the weight reduction due to the aluminium body helps but I see no reason to buy anything bigger than the 2.7 unless you are towing a heavy trailer at times. Also, in Quebec you avoid the registration surcharge because the engine is under 4 Litres. A win win situation.

[Danno001]

Of course the weight reduction due to the aluminium body helps but I see no reason to buy anything bigger than the 2.7 unless you are towing a heavy trailer at times.

Unless you want to plow. Only the 5.0L has factory plow package for 2015. Apparently the plow blocks intercooler flow so the 2.7 and 3.5 are a no go.
Assumes staying within Ford guidelines when mounting a plow.

[Danno001]

I'll take the Ram Ecodiesel please.  I find the interior is better in the Ram.  If I'm looking for real world fuel economy there's no substitute for diesel.  Everything I've read about these Ecoboost is that you can have either "Eco" or "Boost" but not both, meaning you can have fuel economy or maximum hp.  So to me this means I'd have to drive the Ecoboost like a Prius in order to get the claimed fuel economy, whereas the Ram I could drive it normally and possibly beat the posted fuel ratings.

Just don't use the Ecodiesel in sub-freezing temps.
Significant engine issues have been encountered with hydro-locking cylinders in such conditions.
As well, your post does not take into account higher initial purchase cost of the diesel engine - a $5,000 surcharge over the price of the Hemi, really poor real world payload capacity (800ish lbs), higher fuel prices and high regular maintenance costs.
I have a friend that purchased a 2008 Grand Cherokee with the diesel 3.0L. While it was about 25% better on fuel that a comparable V8, the ongoing engine maintenance issues, higher by at least 10% fuel prices vs gasoline and lack of competency at dealer for service had him buying a 2015 Santa Fe XL.

[JohnnyMac]

I'll take the Ram Ecodiesel please.  I find the interior is better in the Ram.  If I'm looking for real world fuel economy there's no substitute for diesel.  Everything I've read about these Ecoboost is that you can have either "Eco" or "Boost" but not both, meaning you can have fuel economy or maximum hp.  So to me this means I'd have to drive the Ecoboost like a Prius in order to get the claimed fuel economy, whereas the Ram I could drive it normally and possibly beat the posted fuel ratings.

Just don't use the Ecodiesel in sub-freezing temps.
Significant engine issues have been encountered with hydro-locking cylinders in such conditions.
As well, your post does not take into account higher initial purchase cost of the diesel engine - a $5,000 surcharge over the price of the Hemi, really poor real world payload capacity (800ish lbs), higher fuel prices and high regular maintenance costs.
I have a friend that purchased a 2008 Grand Cherokee with the diesel 3.0L. While it was about 25% better on fuel that a comparable V8, the ongoing engine maintenance issues, higher by at least 10% fuel prices vs gasoline and lack of competency at dealer for service had him buying a 2015 Santa Fe XL.

All great points.  I'm just not sold on Ford's Ecoboost program.  Anything above 1.6L seem to disappoint in the real world fuel economy.  One of my main reasons for liking the Ram over the Ford is the interior is better in the Ram. 

[OliverD]

Minor nit pick: The title of the story should contain the trim level which is XLT. FX4 isn't a separate trim like it used to be and rather is an option package available on several trims.

It’s a handsome looker, especially with the FX4 grade tester benching the glitzy grandpa chrome for a more casually sporty look.

This isn't true. The FX4 package is an off-road package and doesn't include anything visual aside from the badging. The sporty look is provided by the sport appearance package.

This is different from last year. Ford now offers a sport appearance package and the FX4 package on the XL, XLT, and Lariat trims. Allows for a lot more flexibility when you're speccing your truck.

[AvgCdnMale]

14.6L/100km

Ecoboost?

Ecobusted!

[G.Bombay]

If I’m buying for fuel economy the Ram would be my choice. I just priced an SLT 4X4 Big Horn Crew with Ecodiesel ($3700) for $48,795 almost the exact same as the F-150 XLT Crew with 2.7EB less a bunch of options on tester. Towing often would push me even more towards the Ram. Yes fuel will cost more, but traditionally resale will also hold higher values for diesel trucks.

[redman]

I'll take the Ram Ecodiesel please.  I find the interior is better in the Ram.  If I'm looking for real world fuel economy there's no substitute for diesel.  Everything I've read about these Ecoboost is that you can have either "Eco" or "Boost" but not both, meaning you can have fuel economy or maximum hp.  So to me this means I'd have to drive the Ecoboost like a Prius in order to get the claimed fuel economy, whereas the Ram I could drive it normally and possibly beat the posted fuel ratings.

 
 

I'm not buying the benefit of the Turbo 6 vs the N.A. V8 for this application. The benefits seem to be greater for the manufacturer than the consumer. I'd rather have a less strained cheaper to maintain tried and tested V8 in a full size pickup than a T6 with costly future turbo replacement. Also seems that the gains in F.E. seem more related to weight savings than the engine choice here.
Turbo in a diesel vs gas setup spins dramatically less, increasing reliability. Turbo diesel setups also have higher more justifiable gains vs gas especially in the application. Just not sold on Ford's EcoBoost approach.

[revalations]

Exactly why would I buy a small turbo V6 in a large heavy (still) pickup truck just to get the same fuel economy I can get with a proven V8 powered rig? So far, I've yet to see any 2015 F150 reviews with decent FE numbers.

If I were to buy a Ford it would have the 5.0 in it. Otherwise, give me a sierra with the 6.2/8sp or Ram Ecodiesel.

[Concerned Commuter]

14.6L/100km

Ecoboost?

Ecobusted!

Did you not read the article?  That was what he achieved combined, including extensive use of the 4 x 4.  Show me what a Hemi would get under similar driving situations.  I own a 2014 FX4 Ecoboost - my real world highway is around 12.0 litre/100km, though on a recent trip of 350 mile round trip I achieved 11.0 (or 25 imperial MPG).  Towing a 16' trailer I also got 17.3 litres per 100 km on an 8 hour round trip.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

14.6L/100km

Ecoboost?

Ecobusted!

Did you not read the article?  That was what he achieved combined, including extensive use of the 4 x 4.  Show me what a Hemi would get under similar driving situations.  I own a 2014 FX4 Ecoboost - my real world highway is around 12.0 litre/100km, though on a recent trip of 350 mile round trip I achieved 11.0 (or 25 imperial MPG).  Towing a 16' trailer I also got 17.3 litres per 100 km on an 8 hour round trip.

12L/100kms on the highway is disappointing for an engine that is supposed to be engineered to return good fuel economy.

BTW, I think the front of this truck is U.G.L.Y.

[MR2Pritch]

also have to remember: testers are almost never completed in terms of break in. This one wasn't. Figures will improve once the engine gets some miles on it, maybe between 10 and 20 thousand clicks. So the numbers I reported, given that it was 1) the dead of winter 2) i used the remote start a lot and 3) I think this one had about 8,000 clicks on it, compared to other non-broken in pickups, is pretty good, in my opinion.

[greengs]

14.6L/100kms is awesome for a full size truck in winter in real life conditions.

3.5 Ecoboost didn't really offer much in a way of fuel econ benefit over NA versions of different makes and the 5.0 Coyote, hopefully the smaller 2.7 does better in that dept. 

[.l..]

One of my main reasons for liking the Ram over the Ford is the interior is better in the Ram.

Your opinion may differ...

If I’m buying for fuel economy the Ram would be my choice. I just priced an SLT 4X4 Big Horn Crew with Ecodiesel ($3700) for $48,795 almost the exact same as the F-150 XLT Crew with 2.7EB less a bunch of options on tester. Towing often would push me even more towards the Ram. Yes fuel will cost more, but traditionally resale will also hold higher values for diesel trucks.

Except you forgot it's still a Dodge...with a Fiat engine in it. http: //www.ram1500diesel.com/forum/ram-1500-diesel-general-discussion/2833-engine-blew-up.html Boom! That's just one...probably many more to follow.

12L/100kms on the highway is disappointing for an engine that is supposed to be engineered to return good fuel economy.

BTW, I think the front of this truck is U.G.L.Y.

It looks better with the chrome grandpa grill...IMO.  I must be a Conservative.  We can't both be right.

I own a 2014 FX4 Ecoboost - my real world highway is around 12.0 litre/100km, though on a recent trip of 350 mile round trip I achieved 11.0 (or 25 imperial MPG).  Towing a 16' trailer I also got 17.3 litres per 100 km on an 8 hour round trip.

So the whole trip was downhill? Nice! Or was the trailer in the box, or was it just flat and empty? A snowmobile trailer without the snowmobiles?

[Fobroader]

Good article!! Love the tires on that thing, again, good to see manufacturers finally putting some tires worthy of a 4x4 truck on them from the factory instead of weaksauce all seasons. For me, I would go 5L, no issues, the fuel mileage is about the same. When it comes to trucks, for me, its between Ford and GM, I wouldn't even step into a Dodge showroom, the interiors and reliability are not something I would want to deal with.

[EV-Light]

I'll take the Ram Ecodiesel please.  I find the interior is better in the Ram.  If I'm looking for real world fuel economy there's no substitute for diesel.  Everything I've read about these Ecoboost is that you can have either "Eco" or "Boost" but not both, meaning you can have fuel economy or maximum hp.  So to me this means I'd have to drive the Ecoboost like a Prius in order to get the claimed fuel economy, whereas the Ram I could drive it normally and possibly beat the posted fuel ratings.

But the Ram is so slow...it takes long 10s to get to 100km/h - that's like driving a Prius! while the Ecoboost take 6.5s! and say whatever you like about fuel economy, but the diesel is more expensive and it would take years to pay off the upfront cost.

This is an interesting comparo from TFLC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22gKIEKeM6g

[Fobroader]

I'll take the Ram Ecodiesel please.  I find the interior is better in the Ram.  If I'm looking for real world fuel economy there's no substitute for diesel.  Everything I've read about these Ecoboost is that you can have either "Eco" or "Boost" but not both, meaning you can have fuel economy or maximum hp.  So to me this means I'd have to drive the Ecoboost like a Prius in order to get the claimed fuel economy, whereas the Ram I could drive it normally and possibly beat the posted fuel ratings.

But the Ram is so slow...it take 10s to get to 100km/h, while the Ecoboost take 6.5s! and say whatever you like about fuel economy, but the diesel is more expensive and it would take years to pay off the upfront cost.

Diesel in a 1/2 ton.....no way. I would take a 3/4 or 1 ton diesel simply for the added power, but in a 1/2 ton, meh, it can only tow or haul so much.

[Minou]

also have to remember: testers are almost never completed in terms of break in. This one wasn't. Figures will improve once the engine gets some miles on it, maybe between 10 and 20 thousand clicks. So the numbers I reported, given that it was 1) the dead of winter 2) i used the remote start a lot and 3) I think this one had about 8,000 clicks on it, compared to other non-broken in pickups, is pretty good, in my opinion.

This is salesman BS.  at 8000 km, 99% of the gain in fuel economy will be coming from warmer temperatures and driving regimen/style.  Especially at this time of the year.

I played with some configarators recently and a moderately equiped 1/2 ton from GM or RAM with the standard V6 can be had for +/-40K.  Thing is, perusing dealer stocks near me, all RAMs had the Hemi ($1300.) or the Diesel ($4200.) with no V6 available.