zero Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Ford news, not Toyota news. BUT - Toyota is mentioned in the news story. It's about the new aluminum bodied full-size Ford F150 with the 2.7 "Eco-Boost" 2.7 liter, four cylinder, turbo-charged gas engine. The key combined rating for the 2015 F-150 is the best for any gasoline-powered full-size pickup, and even beats the four-cylinder version of Toyota’s smaller Tacoma pickup, Ford’s head of vehicle development said at the automaker’s Dearborn test track Friday. Chrysler officials note that its diesel-powered Ram 1500 still has the best fuel economy for a pickup. What Italian Chrysler fails to mention is the extra $5000 for the diesel option and the fuel cost differences. The gas engine Ford is cheaper to buy and cheaper to drive with diesel fuel often costing more then a dollar per gallon then gas. 2015 Ford drives 500 miles down the highway for $56.70 in gas. Also drives 100 miles "in town" for $15.52 in gas. 2015 Dodge diesel drives 500 miles on the highway for $78.39 in diesel fuel. Also drives 100 miles "in town" for $21.95. 2015 Toyota Tacoma with 2.7 four drives 500 miles for $59. Drives 100 miles "in town" for $15.52. 2015 Toyota Tacoma with 4 liter six drives 500 miles for $70.23. Drives 100 miles "in town" for $18.43 2015 Toyota Tundra with 4.6 liter V8 drives 500 miles for $77.63. Drives 100 miles "in town" for $19.60. I'm impressed with Ford the only US automaker who has stood on their own (no tax dollar support). I'd love to try a 2.7 Eco-Boost engine in my Toyota RV but I probably will die of old age before used engines are for sale cheap enough to be cost effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Probably not going to rust away either Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snail powered Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Which one has the best rating for heavy loads on the rear axle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Which one has the best rating for heavy loads on the rear axle? Well for starters that 2.7 engine is a V6. Weird to have such a small engine and be a V6. Payload capacities do not look good. You wouldn't be able to mount most full sized campers with a max payload of 2250 lbs http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/payload/ Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share Posted November 23, 2014 Good Lord - it's a half -ton truck! With a max payload capacity of over 1 ton, it's rated to carry more then some 3/4 ton trucks. For someone who feels they need to drive around with more then a full ton of cargo -perhaps a bigger truck ought to be considered. Ford has an "extended weight" package for a F150 that probably means a bigger engine. More weight isn't just about axle load. It's the engine's ability to accelerate with added weight, brakes, cooling system, springs, wheels and tires, etc. I know that this year's F150 can be had with a payload capacity of 3,120 lbs if the special package is ordered. I didn't know the 2.7 was a V6. Just assumed at that size it would be an enhanced version of their four-cylinder 2.5 used in the Escape. Being a V6 and small like that makes think it's a modular engine. "Modular" meaning the engine series is based on one piston and cylinder size and the same parts will be used in 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s, 8s, 10s, or whatever. It's an amazing engine considering it makes near the same power as a Chevy 5.3 V8. Running near 20 PSI of turbo boost - I hope they put it together with good stuff. That 2.7 had internal pressures near what a gas engine has. It is also a "square" engine (equal bore and stroke) which seems unusual to me for a truck - but I guess the turbo boost makes up that that. In the past, long stroke versus bore was the usual formula for high torque. I guess time will tell if the engine holds together well. 2.7 V6 Ford Eco-boost: 325 HP, 375 pound feet of torque 2,5 V6 (In my Chevy/Suzuki Tracker): 167 HP, 162 pound feet of torque 2.7 I4 Toyota: 159 HP, 180 pound feet of torque 5.3 V8 Chevy: 355 HP, 383 pound feet of torque In regard to rear axles - the Ford F150 still uses a 9" rear axle, still with a max rating of 3600 lbs. Just a hair more then a Toyota semi-floater that's rated around 3300 lbs. That is JUST the rating of the rear axle itself. Axle ratings posted on specific vehicle will usually be lower due to whatever springs, brakes, shocks, wheels, tires, etc. are installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Your right, half ton truck. When I think of Ford I think huge. Awesome power for that tiny V6 too. Hmm wonder if it would fit in a Toyota Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maineah Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I have a 2011 4L Tacoma my over all mileage is right about 20MPG. The Ford is too big for my purposes but. Ford shaved 700# with the use of aluminum body parts this is right off the top that means that they gain 700# of pay load with the same running gear nothing wrong with that. What I can tell you the Eco Boast 150 towing mileage drops to 8-10MPG I have a couple of camper friends with them and they all say the same, great until you make it work. Don't get me wrong if I had a need for a big truck it would be a Ford and I would keep my fingers crossed and hope it doesn't break because they are a bear to work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share Posted November 23, 2014 What I can tell you the Eco Boast 150 towing mileage drops to 8-10MPG I have a couple of camper friends with them and they all say the same, great until you make it work. Don't get me wrong if I had a need for a big truck it would be a Ford and I would keep my fingers crossed and hope it doesn't break because they are a bear to work on. I kind of figured the mileage would drop like a rock when worked hard. But that's the magic of having a small engine with a lot of turbo boost. It's like having two engines. A small one when not working hard and wanting good fuel mileage. Then add a lot of boost to it and it behaves like an engine twice it's size to do intermittent hard work. It's a bold move for Ford and hope it works out for them. There hasn't been a full-size truck with an engine that tiny in a very long time. Amazing that Ford has done this during a time when consumers have little to no tolerance for vehicles that don't take off like rockets when they hit the gas. Smallest engine in a full-size truck that I can recall is the 2.5 four-cylinder engines offered in early 60s International Harvester 1/2 ton pickup trucks and those things were absolutely gutless. Not very good on gas either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.