Ford releases fuel numbers for the new F-150

[TomSeller]

1. Tom already claimed that both testes were rigged and that he didn't think the 1,000 pounds shown on 1 test was actually 1,000 pounds.
2. Other said it wasn't on a grade, which was later proven to be incorrect.
.

1. It looked like sleeping bags, toilet paper, etc, didn't total 1000 lbs as I saw it
2. What part of the very first part of this page where they said they are "leaving the grade behind" and scrounging up a trailer don't you understand? The trailer test was on the flats.

 

[TomSeller]

You mean conspiracy. Ask Tom. It's all a conspiracy to bring Ford down.

I said if you read my post that it was biased against the Chevy. See my post below.

Also notable is that they did not tow up a grade, they towed on the flats. It looks as if they wanted to not have the Dodge left at the bottom of the hill behind the Ford and Chevy. This article is obviously biased against the Chevy and for the Dodge. The Dodge is a really good truck, but you cannot ignore towing at 60 MPH and passing at 65 and call it truck of the year. Fuel costs per mile are almost the same as the Ford once you adjust for the higher diesel price. Diesel is about 20% higher depending on where you live negating the 21% higher MPG figures they tout.

 

[TomSeller]

owners of Ford Pickups to be arrogant and exaggerate..........and I prefer humilty ...I actually like their engines (except ecoboost problems) had a 302 V8 in my driveway for many years, the rest of that one fell apart though. ... , and brotherinlaw 6.2 Diesel problems , .

Ford had a 6.2 diesel? Was it a 4 banger?

 

[wawajake]

Once again we get the arrogance and sarcasm..........I make a typo and they jump all over it.
My brother in laws truck was a Powerstroke 3/4 ton Ford pickup crew cab , 8 ft box I see that it was 6.4 now not 6.1........he just called it 6 litre, here is a picture of it parked next to my tractor .......it eventually had an engine fire and he sold it............

 

[jejeosborne]

5,000. Sound about right cruising down the highway pedal to the metal at 5,000 rpm's racing eco diesels pulling heavy trailers up hills and blowing the dodge off the road.

You obviously have no experience behind the wheel of an ecoboost either. Their main advantage and fame revolves around being the lowest rpm gasser in any pickup truck today.

Cruising rpms would be similar to the ecodiesel but as you suggest, yes the ecoboost can be pushed to 5000 rpms and blow the ram off the road. Unfortunately the ecodiesel peters out and peaks it's 240 hp at 3600 rpms. Best of both worlds as can be witnessed in real world comparison test as well as torque and Hp curves.

 

[wawajake]

Does anyone know whether the HP numbers are based on Ford F150 ecobuost using premium 93 octane or the 89 octane........because various sources show premium is suggested to be used...........and it would then be more level playing field to decide cost of operation if you include cost to use premium in these engines when always relying on HP for your decision making and comparing to other trucks. I wonder if the Ford tests used premium no ethanol gas.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Does anyone know whether the HP numbers are based on Ford F150 ecobuost using premium 93 octane or the 89 octane........because various sources show premium is suggested to be used...........and it would then be more level playing field to decide cost of operation if you include cost to use premium in these engines when always relying on HP for your decision making and comparing to other trucks. I wonder if the Ford tests used premium no ethanol gas.

My Ecoboost with 46,000 miles has only had 1 tank of 89 and 1 tank of 93. All other tanks were 87 and will continue to be. I saw no difference in running higher octane. The manual states is 87 is all you need but going to higher octane while towing will give better performance. I did not see it.

Even if 93 was required there would still be a $ 0.90 per gallon disadvantage vs diesel here in Indiana.

Chris

 

[tcartwri]

I would take a couple of tanks for the computer to adjust to the new parameters. I can see 2 mpg improvements in my truck, but it's not worth the extra 15~20 cents/L. Premium only when towing though.

 

[roadhunter]

My Ecoboost with 46,000 miles has only had 1 tank of 89 and 1 tank of 93. All other tanks were 87 and will continue to be. I saw no difference in running higher octane. The manual states is 87 is all you need but going to higher octane while towing will give better performance. I did not see it.

Even if 93 was required there would still be a $ 0.90 per gallon disadvantage vs diesel here in Indiana.

Chris

SSDD. Does it ever get old?

 

[jejeosborne]

Does anyone know whether the HP numbers are based on Ford F150 ecobuost using premium 93 octane or the 89 octane........because various sources show premium is suggested to be used...........and it would then be more level playing field to decide cost of operation if you include cost to use premium in these engines when always relying on HP for your decision making and comparing to other trucks. I wonder if the Ford tests used premium no ethanol gas.

Stated torque and HP numbers are using 87 octane on the ecoboost. The only trucks that require higher octane is Ram's Hemi which requires 89 octane and the GM 6.2 liter which requires 91 octane to meet spec'd HP and torque.

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/da...deos/02_pdf/15Silverado_1500_OwnersManual.pdf

My Ram Trucks: Ram Owners Service Manuals - Ram Cars, Minivans, SUVs

http://www.fordservicecontent.com/F...-Owners-Manual-version-3_om_EN-US_03_2014.pdf