Yes, what is the incentive for those that like the V-8 to get the '15 instead of the '14?? The rebates would way offset the 1 mpg fuel gain. Oh, and can someone PLEASE tell me the point of the 3.5 NA - how is this low torque turd an improvement over the strong and reliable 3.7??
The 2.7tt will be all over the place on a 4x4. Some will claim 30 mpg, while others will say they only get 17 mpg. It will be a gamble and not worth it just like the 3.5tt on some of the last gen trucks. The difference this time is the 5.0 will have more towing capacity with little increase in price. That was not the case for the 3.5tt vs 6.2 last time.

 

True everyone has different driving habits but in order to get the best gas mileage you would have to drive like a old person. Lol

 

Glad to see 1-2 mpg improvement on the current transmission. Hope for another 1-2 mpg (possibly) next year with the 10 speed trans.


Curious to see how handheld tuners/programmers will effect fuel economy in econ mode when driven a little less spirited

 

X2 on the 5.0 vs the 3.5tt mileage and marketing. Once 8 or 10 speed trannies become available the turbo engines will really separate from the the n/a engines with improved mileage by keeping the revs low and utilizing the efficiency gain of the turbo.
If I had to guess, the 3.5 n/a is a cost reduction plain and simple.

One other comment about marketing. I find it funny how well automotive marketing has convinced the masses that bigger cost much more to build. Has anyone given thought to how a 2.7tt 24v engine costs any less to manufacture than a 3.5tt 24v?! The manufacturing cost is probably less than $50! ...food for thought.

 

I'd think the opposite. It's cheaper and easier to just make a big V8 that makes 300 HP versus adding turbos, forged parts, etc. to squeeze that much power out of a baby 6 cylinder.

 

Automotive marketing 102: more hp=more $! 5.0 makes more hp than the 2.7, thus requiring more $$. Wait. Shouldn't that mean the 3.5tt should now cost less than the 5.0?

 

What about all the other things they did, not including the 700 lbs diet.

Like the active grille shutters, redesigned tailgate, aerodynamic advances like the cuts by the headlights to "break" the air as the truck goes through it.

What happened to the gain from all of that. I'm partially disappointed at the results quite frankly. I was expecting near 30 MPG. It is a truck however and 22 is double what I'm getting now so let's see where it goes from there.

 

The mass decrease is the single largest factor. All of those other things are incremental improvements at best.

Also you have to admit that a large portion of yer poor mpg's are self-inflicted. Do those same sorts of mods to a 2015 and expect the same degree of impact on mileage.

BSB

 

I thought that those would play a larger role in things, guess not

Yes, I may have aided in the decreased MPG on my current ride just a bit but to be fair it was pretty craptastic from the start (maybe 15 mpg I can't even remember )

The point where it all went downhill was when I added the exhaust, from that point on the MPG's were terrible (~12) and really there was no change from leveled, to larger tires, and now lifted with a big ol steel plate on the front .

 

I could see the 2.7L Eco costing less after R&D/tooling costs are paid (likely within the first 2years of production)... Look at Chrysler's HEMI, I think I remember reading that it was cheaper (build cost-wise) for them to throw a (5.7L) HEMI in everything than the 3.6L Pentastar -by about $600 -yet they were up-charging a little over $2k for the option. The main catch were EPA regs. requiring higher mpg(s) across a division.

 

R&D probably already paid for the 3.5 TT is in so many vehicles from ford now. The 2.7 TT is built on technology and things ford already does so I couldn't imagine it costing a lot of R&D. The 5.0 is probably the cheapest to build for the new truck (no turbos intercooler etc) why it cost more in the new truck bc of numbers. Right now has the highest payload not by much but I think also people will look at it being more money and opt to buy a Eco. Especially when looking at mpg numbers. I believe ford will eventually try to do away with the v8 all together in the f150. Only thing is thinking stopping them is people that want a v8 would probably buy a different brand which ford doesn't want to lose customers.

 

do you really think the F-150 will get the same gains from a new transmission as they did from their efforts in going aluminum?! I highly doubt it. A lot of people here are in denial here. the 6r80 is not that bad.

Agreed on the 3.5 NA make sense. The 10 speed MIGHT gain some for city driving, but if it was a simple as keeping the revs low, they would just give the 6-speed a taller gear. As for the turbo engine getting better gains from a transmission with less revs than the NA engines, that is just silly. The guys towing with the EB trucks are towing at low revs, but they are not getting stellar towing mpgs.

x2 - the only thing I can think of is that they low-balled the numbers a bit. Why would they do this? So when the 10 speed comes out, they can claim 2 mpg gains over the 6 speed and still have accurate mpg ratings. It would be a reason for those that bought the 2015 to trade in for a 2017 even though their under rated 2015 is only getting .5-1 mpg less than the uber 10 speed. It seems 'black helicopter' but who knows.