Ford Announces Mileage Figures for the 2011 F-150 3.7-liter V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8

Ford Announces 3.7-liter V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 Fuel Economy Figures for the 2011 F-150
By Robby DeGraff

Ford says the all-new 3.7-liter V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 engines for the 2011 F-150 (please see our first drive review) will lead the light-duty segment in expected fuel economy.

The 302-horsepower, 3.7 F-150 4X2 is expected to have an EPA mileage rating of 16 mpg in city driving and 23 mpg on the highway (as we reported earlier); the 360-hp, 5.0 F-150 4X2 is expected to deliver 15 mpg in the city and 21 mpg on the highway. Both engines can run on E85 fuel.

For comparison, the 2010 Ford F-150 was rated at 15/21 mpg city/highway with the old 292-hp, 3-valve 4.6-liter V-8 and 14/20 mpg city/highway with the discontinued 310-hp 3-valve 5.4-liter V-8.

The 3.7's 23 mpg highway number is tied with the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Two-Mode Hybrid, but the Chevy's alternative powertrain combines batteries and a transmission with two electric motors with a 6.0-liter V-8.

"Seventy percent of F-150 customers said better fuel economy is what they'd like improved most in their truck," said Doug Scott, Ford’s Truck Group's marketing manager.

Ford is pulling out all of its technical tricks to deliver those fuel economy numbers, even though power figures and performance are improved considerably over last year's engines.

Both engines use driver-input monitoring at more than 60 times a minute with new twin independent variable camshaft timing, or Ti-VCT. Ti-VCT varies intake and exhaust valve openings and closings throughout the power band to improve low-end power, emissions and mileage.

The 6R80 six-speed automatic transmission has been engineered to match up with each of the F-150's new engines and given new features, like Manual Shift Mode and Progressive Range Select.

Replacing the conventional hydraulic steering system is an all-new class-exclusive electric power-assisted steering system (offered with the 3.7-liter V-6, 5.0-liter V-8, and 3.5-liter V6 EcoBoost engines) that’s 4 percent more efficient than the hydraulic system it replaces, as it draws power from the engine only when needed.

"The all-new engine lineup for the 2011 Ford F-150 is focused on delivering what matters most to truck customers – best-in-class power, capability, durability and fuel economy," said Barb Samardzich, vice president of Ford’s Powertrain Engineering. "Each engine offers an unequaled combination of these attributes."

Ford has yet to announced fuel economy figures for the twin turbo gasoline direct injection 3.5-liter V-6 EcoBoost engine.

The 2011 Ford F-150 arrives in dealerships later this year.


Well, at least the 3.7 in the F150 has better mileage than the ranger did with the 4.0.

Nice numbers. Great to see the V8 is gonna have a power boost and a respectable MPG rating. The EcoBoost is going to be a hot seller with the numbers it's starting to show.

Not bad at all, particularly considering the increased output of the new engines.

Sad day for Ford indeed!

These are not EPA numbers.

Underpromise, overdeliver.

Expect 24mpg hwy, on the 3.7L.

I would expect 16/23. Maybe 17/24. But 16/23 is the same as Jeep got with its GC and the new Pentastar. It's not bad at all, and is definitely class-competitive. It won't replace the Ranger, but definitely a good second in the fuel-economy perspective.

I would bet money that the Ram with upcoming Pentastar will get about the same numbers as the F-150's getting, based both on the fact that the GC got these numbers and all three are in about the same weight class. And that's not bad news at all. Full size truck fans are going to keep on getting good choice in the segment from highly competitive, fuel efficient full sizers with great power. I'm sure Ford will continue to sell the best and deliver the most, but I like competition, and I think it's better to have many good choices than just one.

Glad to see the 5.0L getting good milage. I can't wait to get one next summer.

@D57H Are you just trollin?

"The 3.7's 23 mpg highway number is tied with the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Two-Mode Hybrid"

Owned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GM bites the dust.

"Well, at least the 3.7 in the F150 has better mileage than the ranger did with the 4.0."

Close, with a 4.10 rear diff I get 17 city 22 highway with my 4.0. Driving like I have places to be at that

Not bad, I think Ford should offer MDS on the 5.0 to get a couple more hwy miles out of it, but I'm guessing they don't want to get to good of mileage with the 5.0 or they will be to close to the Ecoboost numbers which is really what Ford wants to sell.

Bob, MDS is very expensive on OHC engines and adds minimal gains. I doubt we will see it in the future with things like more efficient transmissions and LRR tires used to lower hwy mileage instead.

Now Ford just needs to do something with the front end on these trucks, It make me puke up a bit looking at it.

"Now Ford just needs to do something with the front end on these trucks, It make me puke up a bit looking at it."
That's what the aftermarket business is for. Change them to your taste.

Nice, should be interesting to see how the ecoboost does. Now it does say that their expected to hit those numbers so they might even get a slight bump up with how fords been doing things lately.

Gas 6 cyl in trucks suck more gas than an 8 cyl...

Now once again real world driving the V-8 will be the same(or better) mpg as the 6 cyl..they always are !!

Sad day for Ford fans,they thought their V-6's would get 25 average mpg..real world driving the 6 will be 13-17 mpg,same as a V-8 truck !!

The Eco boost will average 13-16 mpg mixed driving,as the lighter Flex gets 16-18mpg average mixed driving !!

6 cyl gas engines in trucks are turds...they suck up the same fuel as a V-8 and you get the 6 cyl turd sound...

Sad day for Ford 6cyl fans....though the 5.0 sounds like a winner..better than my 5.4,it will average out the same mpg as a 6cyl in the same body style truck !!! (dont compare a 2wd single cab 6 cyl to a crewcab 4x4 V-8 as many people do)

23, really?! A real human driver will be pressed to hit 20. Not good enough. Bring the new Australian Ranger over here.

Well the V6 motors usually lack power, this new one is up there for power and with a good driver the mileage is not hard to match. The 5.0 does seem to be the best package though. I wouldn't bash the flex on mileage because it is AWD which does hurt it.
Can't complain with slightly better mileage and a nice boost in power!

@ F

Come on a for 5.0 that only gets 21MPG's with 360HP???? A Ram 5.7 push rod engine with 390HP and a old school 5speed auto still manages 20mpg on paper. Color me not impressed with this high RPM engine in a truck application!

Not as good as I had hoped, since the old 5.4 in 4x2 was rated 14/20. One mile per gallon- big deal. Where is the up to 20% better mpg that they have been
talking about for months

The ecoboost had better be better

"Gas 6 cyl in trucks suck more gas than an 8 cyl...

Now once again real world driving the V-8 will be the same(or better) mpg as the 6 cyl..they always are !!

Sad day for Ford fans,they thought their V-6's would get 25 average mpg..real world driving the 6 will be 13-17 mpg,same as a V-8 truck !!

The Eco boost will average 13-16 mpg mixed driving,as the lighter Flex gets 16-18mpg average mixed driving !!

6 cyl gas engines in trucks are turds...they suck up the same fuel as a V-8 and you get the 6 cyl turd sound...

Sad day for Ford 6cyl fans....though the 5.0 sounds like a winner..better than my 5.4,it will average out the same mpg as a 6cyl in the same body style truck !!! (dont compare a 2wd single cab 6 cyl to a crewcab 4x4 V-8 as many people do)"

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen on here. You do realize these new V6s have a lot more power than most of the old V8s? A truck is not going to magically just suck down more gas because it is a V6 compared to a V8 unless the driver is beating on it constantly trying to get more power out of it.

My experience is that my 4.3L (160 HP)'91 C1500 got 24 MPG and my '96 5.0L (230 HP) C1500 gets 21 MPG. That's not single trip, that's the average MPG over 215,000 miles for the '91 and 145,000 miles (so far) for the '96. They're both 2WD, single cab, 5-speed, long bed with A/C, and they both had the same driver. The 5.0 accelerates better, but since the 5.0 is limited at 97 MPH the 4.3 actually had a higher top speed. The 4.3 had 3.08 gears while the 5.0 has 3.42. (I would have orderred it with 3.08 if I could). Given the current economy I'm not in the market, but if I was the 3.7L Ford would be pretty attractive. I wish somebody would sell me a manual transmission though.

I disagree with the v6 in the f150 vs the v6 in the flex. My whole reasoning is that the F150 geared for torque, it should come with atleast 3.73 if the transmission is doing it's job then you could move along just fine with out mashing the throttle.

My whole premis is that the gearing should do the work, that is why have a 6speed other wise just stick with the 4 speed.

Exerpt - best-in-class power, capability, durability and fuel economy.
I'm not seeing much in the way of "best in class" fuel economy.
I would of expected better with all the pre-introduction PR going on.
PR pukes get involved, overhype things, then make the engineers look bad.
I guess having a 1 mpg or so advantage over the competition gives the PR spin doctors something to work with and come up with some stupid advertising claims.

I am truly impressed by the fact that these engines have more power than the previous engines and have a slight MPG advantage.

Ocellaris, I don't know about your 5.4, but mine averages nowhere near 20mpg. And nobody was expecting it to AVERAGE 25mpg. If it got better than 16 on the highway, it's already better than my 5.4. And I don't care if the 5.3 gets better mpgs than the 5.4, I hate driving a truck with that motor too it is completely gutless down low. So if the EB V6 gets better than 21 highway, and averages better than 15, it is much better than any V8 gasser. I average about 13.5!

@ Alex - I'm getting 13 - 14 mpg city with my 2010 5.4 (3.55 gears) Supercrew 4x4 6.5 box F150. I only have 1,400 miles on it. I'm surprised that I'm close to the EPA ratings and the truck isn't really broken in.
I haven't had the chance to take it out on the highway yet.

Ocellaris was critiquing gooey bum's post.

It is so predictable how some people will respond to this kind of news. The truth is that both of these motors will deliver very respectable fuel economy numbers that will almost certainly be best in class for 2011. I bet Ford is predicting the lowest possible numbers that the motors could be rated. If the final numbers are the same, then no surprises. If the final numbers are even 1mpg better, then that is just icing on the cake.

16/23 for a 302hp V6 is impressive, but 15/21 for a 360hp/380tq V8 is amazing. Those are serious power numbers in an affordable package with good mileage. You guys can say what you want, but I plan to buy an F150 with a 5.0.

15/21 for a 2wd, so 4x4 will probably by 14/19

Best in class fuel economy for the V6 only is what I see. Autoblog reports a 12/17 for the 6.2. Also, the Ford ratings are 2wd in the article.

GM does 15/21 with the 5.3 (2wd or 4wd) and does 13/18 with the 6.2 (2wd) and 12/18 (4wd).

Where Ford takes it is the V6. The 4.3 rates at 15/20 2wd.

Now, it's time for the EcoBoost ratings!!

D57H The Ram has a MDS 5.7 and the only way you get 20 if its running on the 4 cylinders LOL Ford don't have too they run on all 8 cylinder and also anly 8 plugs instead 16 plugs on Hemi..Same way with the Chevy 5.3 MSD but has only 8 plugs also. So Ford are doin pretty good job I think. But I like all 3 of these trucks. I drive a 99 Silverado extended Cab with a 5.3 n 3.42 gears and is rated at 16 n 20 with a 4 speed Trans. Now the point is its depend how a driver drives.. I think if they would build a 5.7 Hemi with just 8 plugs over head valves and no mds and put a 6 or 8 speed would be great. that should get the rpm down. My Truck runnin 60 mile per hour at 1500 rpm the Ram is 2000 rpm with that 5 speed trans. thats high.. I don't know what the Ford 5.0 rpm is at 60... Do you know Mike Levine?

Chevy does get 15/21 for both 2wd and 4wd models, probably because the 4x4 doesn't ride much higher and has the same drag where a 4x4 Ford rides about three inches higher over a 4x2 model.


You do realize that the that with both the Ford and Chevy engines that they take Platinum plugs and the Ram runs copper cores right? My 16 still costs less then there 8 and that is about 2 changes worth to there one in cost! My 04 does not use MDS and I still manage 25MPG's hwy with a cold air intake and exhaust with 3.55 gears! No I do not know ML thow someday hope to meet him! :)

25 mpg downhill with a tailwind

@D57H- you realize your hemi Ram recommends mid-grade fuel and the Ford recommends regular 87 grade fuel. There's no question the Ford has the lower cost of ownership.

@RLM: Hello, the only 4th gen (2009 2011) Ram truck that will turn more rpm than your Chevy, if same diameter tires are used would be a 3.92 & 4.10 RT geared trucks. Do the math: yours is .75 4th gear X 3.42, and a Ram is .67 X 3.21 (4x2 only), 3.55, 3.92, and 4.10 for the RT-which I believe is rated @14-20. Your assuption that the rpm in a Ram is 2000@ 60 mph is WAY off! Try 1700 RPM, with 3.92s and a 31.4 inch tire, which by the is about the smallest diameter tire a 3.92 geared Ram will have. Actually, it's 31.6". A few less rpm. And you only need to go down to your local Dodge dealer to find overhead VALVES...since the 50's? Maybe you meant overhead CAMs?? Look at a 4.7, ok, it's only a 2 valve per cylinder. Look @ the new Pentastar 3.6 V-6 for 4 valve overhead cam. Maybe that will one day be a V-8 version? The Ram 1500 only needs 6 EVENLY spaced like each gear 70% of the lower gear it just shifted out of. Not an 8 speed. That be for people using 2500s and pulling MUCH more weight. The 8 speed (1)Weighs more (2) More rotating weight (3) cost alot more! The problem is the current Ram 5 speed, which is really 6 speeds, has the prime 2nd (used for downshift or upshift while in tow haul-ratio 1.5 to 1) so close to the actual second gear of 1.67 to 1. Then 5th (.67 to 1) is TOO close to 4th (.75 to 1) IF-The Biggest 2 letter word-they would use the case they currently have and put proper gears in it, it would put the hurt on the Fords and Chevy's mileage! And be better liked by those that want to tow 7,000-10,000 pounds in a 1500 truck? Wanta tow more? Look at at 2500 or 250. I had a truck somewhat similar to your 99 Chevy. It was an 06 ext cab 4x4 3.42 gears, 310 hp alluminum 5.3. Alot of hunting for gears, lots of downshifting to get up the ozark mountains. ping ping ping! I'll never buy a NEW ext cab truck as Chevy still makes! It did get 19.6 mpg going thru Kansas @ 74 mph on its not very 4x4 Goodyear SR-As! And you folks that wanna compare your 90s model trucks to the newer ones, look what the crash testing results are for all of the newer ones vs. your older ones....reason your weight is so light, but not as much structure to handle a crash The Dodge and Ford will take a head on the best, Toyotas close...but they beat out the Dodge cause it doesn't have a 2nd side airbag, just one. There are more head ons than side impacts, and with more folks in a smaller vehicle, I aint worried! BUT, point taken. Dodge needs the actual 6 speed. I'll do ok with my 2010 4x4 Ram 1500. I only need to tow a max 6,000 pounds and I don't drive over 65 mph much cause I don't live right near an interstae.

@ Joe

Recommend and requires are two different things! Heck I run 85octane here in mine here in Co and NEVER had a issue. I would like to see proof of how and why Fords have a lower cost of ownership.

excellent post, right on, right on. A true 6-speed is what Dodge needs, with 4 gears to 1:1. My 2010 Ram 1500 Crew gets the same and oftentimes slightly better mileage than my dad's '09 Chevy 5.3

His truck is turning 2000 rpm at 68mph with 373s and mine with 392s and the stock 20s would run about 75mph at 2000 rpm, with my 34s, it runs about 82 at 2000 rpm.

Make mine a V8!!

These fuel mileage fiqures for the V6 are not good enough, when GM will probably get that good with there V8!

Someone please stuff the 3.7 into a Ranger and recreate the Ford Ranger lightning bolt my favorite ford concept ever

@Mopar21277 What trans does he have in the Chevy? I would think the 6 speed, which I believe is a .67 6th gear? Or he has small tires in the high 29s? Or the 4 speed? Thought that was just used behind the 4.8 (there's a messed up combo, has to be revved up so high to make a little torque, they need to quite wasting time on that short stroke engine!) The smaller tires are getting the norm with the ford & Chevy...ok for a 2wd shortbed, maybe a med sized wheelbase 4x2 Ford, but the long one or any 4x4, forget the 30" tires. Does good for their mileage numbers tho!

My 05 F150 XLT gets 18.7mpg tops... :(

One of these days I'll get a real truck

Nice... Agreed on the ugly front end; & Where The Heck is The Diesel??? Ya know, 5 litre, maybe 500#ft torque & 30-ish MPG...? Then I'll trade in my '08 Sierra 4dr. ...Love that GMC!

Wow. I get 18 city 23 mpg hiway in my Cummins 1 ton diesel. These litttle trucks should be getting 30 mpg in this day and age. I got these mpg numbers in 1978 with my half ton GM truck with a 350 V8 and a 4 speed standard..??

@snowman - are you converting an Imperial gallon to a US gallon? If you are not - that means your 18/23 (Imperial) = 14/18 (USA)

@snowman; If a 350 powered pickup got even close to twenty that was its best day, at 55 mph. Woulda been a 2wd with the smallest factory size tires, once again, comparing older trucks with not as many safety features and emissions requirements. I still have one of those, '83 W150 long bed, 318 4 barrel, 4 speed.15 mpg was about it's best on smaller tires...lots of wind noise @65 mph

Looking at one part of the equation theses numbers may not seem all that but compared to any other truck out there you can't get this combination of power and fuel economy, not to mention Ford is the only company I know that comes in so many different this 2010 almost 11 y offer a V8 with less than 250 horsepower what's the point?

good mileage numbers and power

The only thing is that the 5.0 has only 360 hp as to the hemi 390 with 20 mpg

thats not that great i was hoping for was shooting for 23 or more on all vehicles

the 3.7 will have competition soon from mopar and gm.

i think the pentastar will beat it in mpg and power now that ford launched there motors first.

Goals for mopar should be-

3.6 v6= 325 hp
5.9 hemi based magnum with 425 hp and over 400 torque
6.4 should pump out 480 or more hp and more torque
for premium hd models and sport edition 1500's


justifiable because the old 5.9 v8's from the past were torque monsters of their time. 330 trq

i know the big three can pump out a hell of a lot more hp and torque than they do.

call me crazy but if i was in a high position given the choice in development. i would assume that a customer wants his truck to boast a huge hp number and be able to achieve GREAT MPG not decent for a truck. the customer should recieve the best bang for his buck

My 2007 ford Ranger with 3.0L and 5 speed manual with 4.10 ls 235/75r15 goodyear rs-a tires got 24 city and 28 highway consistently and ford says the f-150 w/ 3.7 is supposed to be its replacement?

If the old 360 (5.9) can be considered a torque monster at 330 ft lbs, then I guess my 351 (5.8) in my 95 F-150 should be considered one as well at 325 ft lbs. And with 186,000 miles on my Ford, I average on the free-way about 20 @ 65-70mph. I think unless you go diesel it will be hard to obtain more than 25mpg without more gears or a loss of weight. Its a tight rope walk to keep capability and add good fuel economy. I would be highly suspicious of a truck that had 400 hp and gets 25+ mpg. What was sacrificed?

The comments to this entry are closed.