EPA Notes Fuel Efficiency of 2015 Ford F-150
Although it hasn't been officially announced yet, we will be hearing a lot about the federally mandated corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 mpg set to go into effect in 2025. Christopher Grundler, the director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency, noted at a recent seminar in Traverse City, Mich., that many of today's vehicles are close to meeting those standards already.
Grundler made special note of the two-wheel-drive 2015 Ford F-150 with the new 2.7-liter EcoBoost (shown above) as practically meeting those 2025 standards. As first announced by the EPA several years ago, the new standards will factor in variables such as gross vehicle weight, new technologies (like fuel shutoff and high-tech transmissions) and footprint (overall size).
No doubt the F-150 was used as an example because Ford has received tons of attention for its decision to make the vast majority of the pickup's body panels out of aluminum alloy instead of conventional steel. The move to more exotic (and sometimes more expensive) materials, composites and high-strength steel is typically done to help reduce overall weight in order to meet the more stringent federal fuel economy targets. Ford is the first to make the big move to alternate materials, but GM, Ram and Toyota are said to be looking hard at lighter materials for future products as well.
The real issue, and the issue that has been and will continue to get a great deal of attention, is how much more will it cost to insure and/or repair a vehicle made from these less common materials. At this point, the jury seems to be in full deliberation mode. Ford wants us to believe that body panel repairs and other repair costs for 2015 models are identical to or better than the cost to repair 2014s.
However, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety has also done its own crash-testing with both 2014 and 2015 Ford F-150s. In every one of its experiments, IIHS found that pricing for the new F-150 made from aluminum (whether a front-end or rear-end collision repair) was more costly and took longer than repairs for the 2014 F-150 made from steel.
It's going to take some time to before we get all the data needed to make a comprehensive comparison and arrive at a conclusion. As more certified repair shops get up to speed on aluminum F-150 repairs, common sense would tell us those prices are likely to come down as more repair shops, outlets and dealerships get more competitive. For now, there's only a limited amount of data, some interesting and cautionary anecdotal stories, and a pretty steep learning curve ahead for the repair industry.
Cars.com image (above) by Evan Sears; IIHS image (below)
Comments
So this site is not only pro ford, but now they are spinning stories? Where is the EPA mileage for the ford? This site is pathetic!!!!!! It's no wonder so many from years past has moved on to other sites!
I was hoping the guy from the EPA would call out Ford for exaggerating its fuel economy perception. The 3.5 ecoboost is only tested with the 3.15 Axel ratio when the vast majority leave the factory with the 3.55
I don't have data on 2015 but the Axel ratio breakdown for 2014 was as follows:
3.5 ecoboost
3.73 18%
3.55 56%
3.31 23%
3.15 3.2%
Ford only offers the 3.15 for advertising purposes. The 3.73 ecoboost is no better than the tundra in power and mpg
Ford is always cheating the system, only the furd Kool-Aid drinkers believed/believe the ecobust hype.
Smart truck buyers are going with V-8's, ig you have to roll the dice on a first/second year Ford. get the 5.0, this Alum vs Steel thing is not the issue, Furd had to lose weight.
Finally for bragging rights Furd loves to talk payload and towing and the numbers are impressive but when you get to the upper end of both, smart buyers go with the HD's, this is why Furd F150 always rides like a55 unladen and doesn't handle as good as the GM Twins.
GM makes the best well rounded 1/2 pickup, best powertrains, longest reliability, simplier to fix, and any of the three engine choices will outlive any ecobust, beat them in FE, that's the facts.
The anti-Ford fanbois are coming out of the woodwork again with complete meltdowns. smh.
2.7-liter EcoBoost is a huge hit, powering 30 percent of F-150 retail sales in July 2015!
I just drove a 2015 F-Series this weekend and it was an amazing truck.
If so many think this site is so pathetic, then WHY do they keep reading and posting?
I can see this topic is going to be another where pro-GM and anti-Ford troolls lose their composure and bloww their top. Oh well. What you gonna do. smh
What would it take to actually get some moderators on this site?
Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
G
UTS
G
LORY
RAM
http://news.allpar.com/index.php/2015/08/ram-1500-meets-2021-epa-fuel-standards-29580
Ram 1500 meets 2021 EPA fuel standards
by Bill Cawthon on 2015-08-06
Today, the director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAC) said that the Ram 1500 pickup already meets 2021 fuel efficiency standards.
At the Center for Automotive Research’s Management Briefing Seminars, Chris Grundler said that the newest Ram 1500 and Chevrolet Silverado 1500 are both already compliant with proposed standards, while the V6 turbo F-150 meets the 2024 standards. He noted that the 2025 standards are not set in stone.Ram-2015-LaramieLonghorn
Grundler was quoted in by Automotive News as saying, “The EPA administrator makes the final decision, and he will work for the next President.”
54.5 mpg standards have been officially proposed but the final decision won’t be made until a review in 2017 and 2018. The EPA will consider fuel prices and consumer acceptance of fuel-saving technologies. The first report is due in June 2017, followed by public comment, with a decision on the standards to be announced in April 2018.
Migration to pickups and SUVs will cause fleet fuel economy standards to automatically adjust. Grundler said, “We are not forcing everyone into small cars.”
The EPA has found that consumers like most of the new fuel economy technologies except for stop-start systems and continuously variable transmissions. The EPA also expects that the internal combustion engine will still be the most common in 2025.
G
UTS
G
LORY
RAM
http://news.allpar.com/index.php/2015/08/ram-1500-meets-2021-epa-fuel-standards-29580
Ram 1500 meets 2021 EPA fuel standards
by Bill Cawthon on 2015-08-06
Today, the director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAC) said that the Ram 1500 pickup already meets 2021 fuel efficiency standards.
At the Center for Automotive Research’s Management Briefing Seminars, Chris Grundler said that the newest Ram 1500 and Chevrolet Silverado 1500 are both already compliant with proposed standards, while the V6 turbo F-150 meets the 2024 standards. He noted that the 2025 standards are not set in stone.Ram-2015-LaramieLonghorn
Grundler was quoted in by Automotive News as saying, “The EPA administrator makes the final decision, and he will work for the next President.”
54.5 mpg standards have been officially proposed but the final decision won’t be made until a review in 2017 and 2018. The EPA will consider fuel prices and consumer acceptance of fuel-saving technologies. The first report is due in June 2017, followed by public comment, with a decision on the standards to be announced in April 2018.
Migration to pickups and SUVs will cause fleet fuel economy standards to automatically adjust. Grundler said, “We are not forcing everyone into small cars.”
The EPA has found that consumers like most of the new fuel economy technologies except for stop-start systems and continuously variable transmissions. The EPA also expects that the internal combustion engine will still be the most common in 2025.
My boss' 3.5 ecoburst averages at best 16.5mpg and thats literally 99% hwy.. fords numbers are a joke...
I see it this way.
Firstly, the changes may mean that the other manufacturers will not need to move to aluminium, or at the least they only need some more aluminium parts.
Second, likely FE improvements will allow for existing construction materials.
The cost of aluminium repair will reduce further, but how much? This story is the opposite of what had given a week or so ago.
I really don't envisage this as much and issue, it will help the other pickup manufacturers and keep their costs less than Ford.
This decision might make it more challenging for Ford to produce competitive pricing and/or retain the levels of profits it had been used to.
On insurance I'm real curious why everybody thinks it's more to insure??? Only 2 parts of your insurance cover your vehicle on you.... Comprehensive..... hail damage, windshield, basketball hoop falling on it etc etc and then collision that covers your vehicle at an at fault accident. If you don't cause an accident and somebody else is at fault there insurance covers damage to your vehicle. Also do to 5 star safety and the nannies involved in help drive prevent a crash your medical coverage on insurance may go down as well as the number of claims per truck may go down do to less at fault collisions do to the nannies engineered into the truck. Who really cares if it cost more to repair cause the driver has more affect on insurance rates then the vehicle and if you don't cause accidents your insurance will not really go up that much.
Wonder how much each variable allows for mpg calculation bonuses!
Where is the July fastest and slowest report???
@Scott having myself had a license to sell/service insurance in my state (Florida) years ago, I can tell you that your insurance ALWAYS covers the loss under no fault.
It then becomes the insurer's job to collect from the at fault party's insurance, or to ask a judge to help collect from the other party in the event that their coverage is not sufficient to cover damages.
Bottom line, if the at fault party fails to cover their responsibility, it will eventually increase YOUR rates. No free lunch. Lesson? Yes, it makes sense to care what it costs to fix your Ford.
Isn't that what 6 months at $20 or so for the 6 months of under and uninsured coverage is for???
My brand new vw tdi golf is $150 or there abouts every 6 months more then a 2014 super crew raptor..... I can tell you exactly later tonight. A lot of it is in medical and collision do to more people run little cars like they are racers and worth a total for fender bender
"Ford is always cheating the system"
"Ford's numbers are a joke"
Blah blah blah
The only part of a chevrolame that runs well is the driver's mouth...
"Isn't that what 6 months at $20 or so for the 6 months of under and uninsured coverage is for???"
@Scott,
Well that's boring. So there isn't an issue.
What will the next publicity stunt be?
'Murican! Nice way to steal a joke it goes "The only part of a Fordolame that runs well is the driver's mouth... LOL Know Fords suck so bad the owners got to steal jokes!
Ford girly men lose.
And GM wins AGAIN.
its incredibily entertaing to watch people whom define themselves by their possessions get incredibly defensive on these forums. your brand loyalty makes you a sheep, a follower, devoid of any critical thinking skills.
its incredibily entertaing to watch people whom define themselves by their possessions get incredibly defensive on these forums. your brand loyalty makes you a sheep, a follower, devoid of any critical thinking skills.
As far as fuel mileage....Ford needs to offer the 5.0 in the new Transit....I have a 250 mid roof....with 3.7....averages 14 miles per gallon in town....had a 95 E 350 Extended Van..with 351 v8...that was this good loaded...the mph computer is not correct apox 1.5 miles over...I check miles tank fill...that 5.0 with 6 speed would have been a great option....and I would have paided extra for it.....didn't want the Ecoboost as hearing all the realibity problems of turbos that can come up after warranty is off..have friends that have them and say not again...they go back to v8....other than engine really like the new van
Ford = Turd
The eco boosts mpg are actually worse than most V8's when towing or loaded.
I could make a fortune selling cheese on this site. It'd sure go well with all the whine.
"Federally mandated corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 mpg set to go into effect in 2025"
Where did this exact number come from? If we are waving a magic wand here, why not make it 1,000 mpg? and why not go out to more decal points, to make it sound even more scientific? Carbon tax and climate change (Skippy's magic buzz words) have got to be in there somewhere as well.
big 3 just need to band together and tell the Feds to shove it and make what people want and if people want to pay more for fuel on a lesser mpg truck that's their business..more gov. BS..what would the federal jerks do if the big 3 were to do that???
Regardless of the non speak story the 2015 F 150 of any engine size still gets less mpg than my 1999 GMC Sierra 5.3 Vortec. One day, Ford may be able to build a pick up truck that men want, right now they keep the girlies happy.
@hemiv8, ram=recalls and buybacks!!
Another new low for PUTC. Just when I think its not possible for you to become anymore pro Ford, a story like this comes out. Unbelieveable. On paper the mileage of the 2.7 is impressive, but I'd be willing to bet NOBODY is seeing that mileage. That would only be possible with a tailwind downhill and in neutral! Real world driving, that thing is high teens at best. No one complains about Ecoboost power, but 100% of the people I know who have one complain about the mileage. The 2.7 is no exception......performs well but gets lousy mileage for such a small motor.
Nice to see Mike Levine still running this site....
This site is owned or receives a big influence from Ford, I tried to dismiss that back in the day but it's clear as ever now.
I drove a 2.7 F-150 rental around Orlando in stop and go traffic for one day and then drove it to Tampa and back the next day ..overall avg of 22.3 mpg. 2wd crew cab
That's my experience and from what I have read, my eperience is not uncommon.
As repair shops learn the ins and outs of repairing aluminum costs will come down. Chevrolet will start using aluminum as Ford has in 2017. All companies do whatever to get the best ratings. It's not just Ford.
The "ecoboost" bashing is not justified. Properly tuned combustion through forced induction is more efficient than naturally aspirated, that's fact. My father in-law just purchased his first Ford, a 2015 crew cab 4x4 with the 2.7 ecoboost. He drove from Michigan to Missouri and averaged 22.5 and he said he drove 70 whenever he could. That was with only a couple thousand miles on it. He said that his day to day in town has brought it down to 20, but that is better than I have seen from another crew cab truck. After all of his praise I am now looking for one.
@08fx4
@cm
Mpg by computer ,or calculated ? I guess empty.
@08fx4
@cm
Mpg by computer ,or calculated ? I guess empty.
CM,
What efficiency are you discussing? Thermal efficiency?
A turbo engine is not necessarily more efficient. Your father who you claimed returned 22.5mpg at 70mph is not that fantastic on a highway this day and age, especially when a heavier Ram can return up to 30mpg achieving the same work.
The Ram is returning a 1/3 better FE. This is not to be sneezed at.
papa jim,
I did go to a body shop and looked at the tooling and talked to the owner regarding the aluminium F-150 repairs.
He stated there is no way in hell that an aluminium repair will be equivalent to a steel repair. Even with competition the prices will not drop dramatically.
Aluminium repair has been around for decades and there is much technology already out there for these repairs.
They are not going to re-invent the wheel concerning aluminium repair overnight.
@CM
22.5 doesn't sound that great to me. I have a lifetime average of 19 mpg (over 10,000 miles) on my 2015 2wd GMC crew cab which includes 2000 miles with an 18 foot car hauler attached ruunning 75 between TX and AZ. I've also averaged 24 mpg on a trip from San Antonio and to Galveston. Running back and forth to work I average 21 mpg.
So for all 'hi tech' ecoboost and 'military grade' aluminum Ford's strategy doesn't appear all that advantageous.
@somar ..hand calculated .. miles driven divided by gallons required to refill the tank.
@Jack .. the drivability difference between the 2.7 ecoboost and the 5.3 in the GM twins is night and day.
I can't speak of towing numbers but I would assume the V8 would be more efficient towing than the boosted engines. But remember, the whole concept of the 2.7 is that it is designed for people that do not tow frequently. Therefore, fuel economy while towing will not be an major factor for them.
@08fx4
BullSh#@, Ford positioned the 2.7 as the direct competitor to the 5.3 and ecodiesel in it's own promotional video towing a trailer.
'Drivabiltiy' is a subjective and completely a personal choice. However, GM has sold way more 1/2 ton trucks than Ford in 2015 so it would appear that the market perfers the 'drivability' of the GM trucks to Fords.
Wow
@chuckz that would be the right thing to do but companies don't have the balls to challenge the all powerful all knowing comrade barry and his marxist regime
Lol, Ford's 2.7 is soooo far from getting mileage like rated.
Whether it is reading the 2015 V6 annual physical, In which the F – 150 was only getting 23.8 mpg (rated at 27) and a whopping 9.8 mpg towing a 4200 pound trailer- Holy cow, I could get that towing from my old 2010 1500 Dodge 5.7, 4wd quad cab with 275/70 17s, Ford needs aluminum, a smaller cab, ( super cabs are smaller than Quad cab Rams) 245/70–17 inch tires, and 3.31 gears!
Or if you read Motor Trends comparison, the moment they put a sort of load on the 2.7, mileage was gone!
Where are these folks now that insist that the F-150 needs an even smaller 4 cylinder, so it needs boost everywhere, and all the time, when not at idle?
My hemi Ram 4x4 8 speed averaged 22 mpg on a 1000 mile trip hand calculated averaging 72 mph, no aluminum or turbos just a big v8 and 8 speed
The 2.7 ford does all the performance stuff faster then a hemi so if they slow down in these test to the weakest competitor mpg's would be better. The goal of all these test is to put the foot to the floor and do everything as fast as it can. Even the 3.5 ecoboost in putts test got the best mpg of top tier engines while in the towing portion.
Oh it does, Scott? From what test do gather that info?
The 2015 Annual Physical and the V-8 Shootout had some comparable specs, cause they did some same/similar tests. The Ford 2.7 Great buy on some of those comparisons, well if you were to compare them, they were different test on different days.
Plus the V-8 Challenge required they test crew cabs with four-wheel-drive, while the V-6 annual physical was testing (in Fords case) they tested a lighter cab Supercab with 4x2, 245/70 17 small (read; they help the Ford get moving faster and better economy) tires, and less options.
Now in some of the loaded 0 to 60 and quarter-mile tests the Ford 2.7 won.... Oh, and they also ran 160 less pounds weight in the V-6 annual physical, then they did in the V-8 challenge.
So add your extra 160 pounds of cargo that the Ram Hemi was tested with, and 80-100 pounds or so to bring the Ford up to the weight of a crew cab, add 200 plus pounds to the F – 150 to make it way what a four-wheel-drive does, and then you go retest it, OK Scott ?
And while you're at it, why don't you put on some big tall tires on that Ford and see how it would do?
Or test the Ram with 265/70 17s.
Can't compare the towing weight because the Ford 2.7 towed 4200 pounds in the physical, and the Ram towed 6700 pounds in the V-8 challenge.
And all that with the aluminum and it can barely keep up? Really, Scott?
All the crying that we hear about the eco-diesel not being fast enough, I bet it's every bit as fast as a Vortec 350, Magnum 360, Ford 5.4, I don't remember everybody complaining about how slow they pull when they were all in their prime.
I mean, some people didn't like them and probably would complain about the speed that the V-8 s pull with, but some of those people would never be happy anyway.
I drove a 2.7 F-150 rental around Orlando in stop and go traffic for one day and then drove it to Tampa and back the next day ..overall avg of 22.3 mpg. 2wd crew cab
Posted by: 08fx4 | Aug 10, 2015 8:21:38 AM
I call you a lair.
Ford = Turd
The eco boosts mpg are actually worse than most V8's when towing or loaded.
Posted by: HEMI V8 | Aug 9, 2015 10:31:41 PM
I agree with the post just don't know why you don't use your own blog name?
The comments to this entry are closed.