Ford EcoBoost

LB 270 · #1 10-25-2016, 12:44 PM

I'm impressed with this truck, my first Ford. I have a 2.7 litre EcoBoost engine in my 2016 F150. I have 1000 lbs of engine oil pails in the box and this is the mileage I'm getting going to fox creek. I have zero complaints, coming out of a 5.7 litre Tundra the difference is mind boggling.

LB

Twisted Canuck · #2 10-25-2016, 12:50 PM

You can't be going to Fox Creek, your speedo says you are doing under 120 kph, and we both know that every pickup on hwy 43 has to go at least 140....but that is good mileage for sure.

Dom4 · #3 10-25-2016, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

You can't be going to Fox Creek, your speedo says you are doing under 120 kph, and we both know that every pickup on hwy 43 has to go at least 140....but that is good mileage for sure.

True and we all hope a passenger took the picture.

lmtada · #4 10-25-2016, 01:03 PM

Looks correct. Back off to 100 km. Then can receive 9.5/100km. Normal city 13.5 l/100k. Decent little truck. Smaller feel than big diesel. Hard give up diesel torque. Addictive.
Congrats.

Quinn · #5 10-25-2016, 02:12 PM

I hear reports of this mileage, but everybody I know who owns one gets 14.5-15.5 L/100K.

Stinky Buffalo · #6 10-25-2016, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

I hear reports of this mileage, but everybody I know who owns one gets 14.5-15.5 L/100K.

So did we - But we did get less than 10l/100km at one point, driving 90-95 km/h for several hours.

Some of the discrepancies are differences in configuration - 2wd vs. 4wd, supercrew vs. reg. cab, differential ratio etc. These are all factors that can affect the mileage you will get..

And of course, driving style/habits make a difference as well. I found I typically got better mileage when I was driving, vs. those who like to "put their foot into it".

fn1949 · #7 10-29-2016, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

I hear reports of this mileage, but everybody I know who owns one gets 14.5-15.5 L/100K.

that would be the 3.5 twin turbo. I just traded my 2012 off for the 5 litre
Better gas milage.

wind drift · #8 10-25-2016, 10:02 PM

Fuelly.com seems to be a good resource for real-life fuel economy info.

000496519 · #9 10-26-2016, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LB 270

I'm impressed with this truck, my first Ford. I have a 2.7 litre EcoBoost engine in my 2016 F150.LB

I didn't realize Ford made 2 different ecoboost engines. I have 2013 F150 3.5L and it usually sits around 15L/100km cruising at about 120-130 on Hwy#43. The only way I see my economy get that low is by coasting downhill at 120kmh.

blgoodbrand1 · #10 10-26-2016, 01:08 PM

If it make anyone feel better I get 18 with my 35"s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ETOWNCANUCK · #11 10-26-2016, 02:27 PM

I have the 3.5 in my 15 supercrew. I have a canopy on the back of mine and I think that attributes to the mileage.
I did get 1000 K out of a tank on a recent trip to Saskatoon.

I'm impressed with the 2.7 getting that mileage in a supercrew. I thought it would be under powered.

Alberta Bigbore · #12 10-27-2016, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blgoodbrand1

If it make anyone feel better I get 18 with my 35"s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol!

notorious · #13 10-27-2016, 11:14 AM

I am really considering getting my hands on these ecoboost. I just am skeptical about reliability of these trucks with those motors.

bobinthesky · #14 10-27-2016, 02:11 PM

The early 3.5's had a moisture build up problem in the inter-coolers. It happened under certain circumstances and the problem was rectified after the first year of production. Apart from that you need to change spark plugs every 50 or 60 K and those are the only ongoing issues that I've found. Sure, they get crappy fuel mileage if you have a lead foot but they're pretty good if you don't.

There's lots of negativity about the 3.5 engines rampant on the internet but it was the same with the 6 liter chevy's, every internet expert claimed they were blowing up whenever the sun went behind a cloud but there was never any real evidence to back it up and the engine had a great reputation after a few years.

fordtruckin · #15 10-27-2016, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious

I am really considering getting my hands on these ecoboost. I just am skeptical about reliability of these trucks with those motors.

Well seeing as how they've been out what 6 years now and all the $$ Ford put into R&D, the fact they are expanding the ecoboost lineup AND by far the majority of F150's are sold with this motor, I wouldn't be worried about the reliability.

Tungsten, · #16 10-28-2016, 06:38 AM

6 years X average 20K a year is only 120K.10 more years then will know for sure.

You think they'll still pull 6000 lb trailers with 250K on them?

I would have bought one last year (3.5 ford) but just cant get past that little motor lasting 300K like my 6.0L GM.

4thredneck · #17 10-28-2016, 11:40 AM

i guess if your happy with that I should be happy with mine. Not a Ford but a Dodge ecodiesel.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

caver77 · #18 10-28-2016, 11:50 AM

They can be good, the milage can be great! Ours started having severe issues at about 150k km . It appeared cheaper to trade the truck off than fix it

, ended up with a Ford diesel, think we'll be going back to Dodge diesel or Chev down the line.

couleefolk · #19 10-28-2016, 11:59 AM

our sales guys with the 5l f150s were averaging the same as the guys with the ecoboosts. I think if you aren't trading off regularly, you would be better off without the ecoboost.

Tungsten, · #20 10-29-2016, 07:23 AM

Eco engines with 200+Km are hwy Ks.Not the normal for us city folk.20K a year is a lot for most.

Back in the day the V6s ford and gm where pretty much worn out after 200K.They burned oil and had no pulling power left, this is why i ask.

At 6 years old the Eco V6 is just not old enough to know for sure.

Now if someone could put a Gm 6L and there heated seats in a Ford crew cab I'd buy one tomorrow.