MPGs matter, it turns out, even to pickup buyers. Or, perhaps especially to pickup truck buyers.
Just four months after Ford added an EcoBoost engine option to its top-selling F-150 pickup truck, the company reports that fully 35 percent of the 2011 model's sales are fitted with either that fuel-efficient 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine or the even-more-efficient 3.7-liter base V-6.
"The No. 1 unmet need for full-size pickup truck owners has been fuel economy,” said Doug Scott, marketing manager for the Ford Truck Group. He said the 2011 Ford F-150 now has "best-in-class fuel economy, best-in-class capability and power, and more powertrain choices."
Ford has vowed that it will deliver best-in-class fuel economy in all of its new products.
The version of the EcoBoost engine used in the Ford F-150 pickup raises the truck's fuel efficiency to 16 mpg city, 22 mpg highway, for a combined 18-mpg rating, while the less powerful but even higher-mileage 3.7-liter base V-6 is rated at 17 mpg city, 23 mpg highway, for a combined rating of 19 mpg. All figures are for two-wheel-drive models.
The mileage of the base 3.7-liter V-6 is 12 percent better than the most economical V-8 offering, the 5.0-liter engine, which the EPA rates at 15 mpg city and 21 mpg highway, and 17 mpg combined.
A rise from 17 to 19 mpg may not sound very impressive. But in fact, it saves almost two-thirds of a gallon of gasoline every 100 miles, the same amount as raising the gas mileage of a smaller car all the way from 38 to 50 mpg.
That's because miles-per-gallon isn't a linear scale, and actually confuses a majority of car buyers. But we'll leave that discussion for another time.
Many pickup trucks get driven more miles each year than passenger cars, and for those trucks, the fuel savings and reduction in tailpipe emissions are even higher.
Ford's line of EcoBoost engines uses gasoline direct injection and turbocharging to extract more power from a smaller displacement. The company says its 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 (fitted to the Ford Taurus SHO and Flex models, and the Lincoln MKS and MKZ) offers the performance of a V-8 with fuel efficiency up to 20 percent better.
The company's EcoBoost lineup will expand over the next few years. It will launch a 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine in its Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX models, though release dates have not yet been set. And there are even smaller EcoBoost fours to come, though they will be used first for models sold in Europe.
[Ford]
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Have an opinion?
NoNameDenton Posted: 3/29/2011 3:35pm PDT
First where is the criticisim that Ecoboost costs $1,750 more than 3.7-liter V-6? You know that would have been mentioned if this has a hybrid. Also, why are we discussion the 5.0 L engine when Ford still offers the 6.2L V-8 with an lousy 13/18 MPG. Surely Ford could remove this option from their line-up and do more for fuel economy than offering the eco-boost.
It is great that Ford has more fuel efficient offerings, it would be even better if the deprecated their gas guzzlers.
You also fail to mention that some percentage of the people with pickup trucks could easily commute in a compact car.
In an article about the Chevy Cruze he is talking-down the significance of a change from 33 to 40 MPG as "only saves you half a gallon every 100 miles" which is a negative statement.
So saving 0.63 gallons in a truck is a positive thing but saving 0.53 gallons in the Chevy Cruze is a negative thing. Obvious bias. All the while he is hiding behind the dubious MPG delusional argument.
Note also that MANY pickup truck buyers simply won't consider anything other than a V-8 engine, whether logical or not, whether fuel savings are greater or not. So I surmise Ford must keep a "base V-8" in their pickup-truck lineup for quite a while yet, unlike passenger cars in which V-8s are rapidly becoming exotic high-end options.
mark godwin Posted: 3/30/2011 9:31am PDT
These arguments of many people "needing" large trucks and "preferring" V-8 really run into conflict with themselves and reality.
The reality is that many people (dare I say most people) don't "need" the F-150's that they purchased. I personally know people that use them for their daily commute in and out of Boston carrying zero cargo. I am sure you know these people too and you should be honest enough to admit it. Many (perhaps most) of these people don't need such a vehicle. No doubt it is the best choice for some people. But, are you seriously going to argue that some significant percentage of F-150 drivers haul 11,300 loads. It is laughable. It is probably the same as the percentage for 4x4 drivers that actually go off-road, i.e. a very small percentage.
NoNameDenton Posted: 3/30/2011 7:40pm PDT
I am not trolling. I am posting responses directly related to the articles and the biases of the author. Also, it is not my intent to inflame anyone but correct obviously wrong or biased content.
If anyone is trolling, it is John Voelcker. He is deliberately writing inflammatory content on a supposedly green car website.
NoNameDenton Posted: 3/31/2011 8:44pm PDT
The difference between fact and opinion is exactly what I was commenting on but you have missed that fact. Voelcker presents that fact that the F150 Eco-boost saves 0.63 gallons/100 miles. But then what is his opinion? This is a significant improvement. Early, he wrote an article about the Chevy Cruze stating the fact that it used 0.53 gallons/100 miles. But now what is his opinion? In this case his opinion is that there is no significant difference.
So the FACT is that Voelcker is inconsistently treating fuel savings.
Oh and one more thing. The few and far between obvious factual errors in a story, I send corrections directly to John Voelcker and he graciously fixes them without cluttering up the comment sections.
Thanks
John C. Briggs
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!