When we published the 2015 Ford F-150 order guide, we focused on the trim level changes (the FX4 and STX trims are gone, while the police-oriented SSV package is back) while forgetting three very important letters. SFE.
On other Ford models, the SFE package is used to denote a high fuel economy trim – think the 1.0L Fiesta Ecoboost. As The Motley Fool’s John Rosevar found out, the volume XL and XLT trims of the F-150 will have an SFE package with smaller 17″ wheels, a special tonneau cover and the new 2.7L Ecoboost engine. The SFE trim will only be available in regular or SuperCab configurations, not the popular crewcab style.
Depending on how you look at it, Ford has two targets to hit. The Ram 1500 HFE, which is a V6 model with active grille shutters, start-stop and other technologies that provide incremental gains in fuel economy, can hit 25 mpg on the highway. The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel, which uses a diesel V6 engine, can get as much as 28 mpg.
If I were to place a bet, I’d say that Ford will go for broke and try to at least match the EcoDiesel. That would give their much-touted aluminum truck the em-pee-gee bragging rights in the entire segment. And from there, it’s only a matter of time before the 30 MPG truck arrives.
I think they will go for the 28mpg +. They tried for 30mpg on the Explorer with the 2.0t Ecoboost, but couldn’t quite get there. Maybe a light weight pickup with a small motor turbo will do the trick.
Let’s not forget about the ten speed transmission that should be ready for the 2016 model
I gotta wonder if having a transmission with many more gears results in a weaker unit?
Plus if they go for 28, they can advertise that it gets the same MPG as the EcoDiesel Ram, only on “cheap” gasoline instead of “expensive” diesel.
Low weight improves city mpg, but aerodynamics & gearing improve hwy mpg. The new engine should help the hwy number, but I don’t know if they can get it that high without more than a few tricks (suspension that lowers at speed, lots of other aero improvements, cylinder deactivation or just the usual & deceptive trick of not being on boost for the mpg test).
However, they really need to consider if they go for broke and the numbers end up like their hybrids, i.e., overly optimistic, how bad will the backlash be.
>> Low weight improves city mpg, but aerodynamics & gearing improve hwy mpg.
Weight matters on the highway. Lighter weight means better highway fuel economy on hilly terrain.
Yes but maintaining speed over hills (that typically have a down slope to further help things) is very different from accelerating from a stop repeatedly over the majority of your trip. Aero matters in town also but not nearly as much as it matters on the highway and the inverse is true of weight.
Grammar nazi time:
“If I were to place a bet, I’d say that Ford will go for broke and try and at least match the EcoDiesel.”
“If I were to place a bet, I’d say that Ford will go for broke and try to at least match the EcoDiesel.”
That use of “and” was killing me.
“That use of “and” was killing me.”
Shouldn’t that be:
“The use of “and” was killing me.”
It implied “particular”. To say “The use of “and” was killing me.”, would imply all uses of “and” were improper.
im unedjucated and i read what you meant, and knew that that “and” was the paticular “and” you werent likeing! now correct my summerscooled for life gramhar so ill learn how to use some commas and periods lol JK round
Actually, it wouldn’t imply the use of “and” was improper. Just that the use of “and” was killing you.
Perhaps, instead of referencing “that” instance of the word “and”, you could have made reference to which “and” you were specifically referencing. It was implied you meant the “and” that preceded the preposition “at” which started the phrase at the end of the sentence.
You may also want to change your name to “They are rolling” or “They have been rolling” since “They Be” is a far worse grammar faux pas than an extraneous “and”.
For US English, that usage of periods, commas, & quotation marks is all buggered up.
Thank you for your version of correct English. It’s kinda like being in Las Vegas, your up $1000 and someone starts handing out pamphlets on the hazards of smoking and gambling addiction. Someone always has to the party pooper.
I want to see TESLA build a truck with like 1000 pounds of instant torque.
You can buy a forklift that does pretty much this.
I’m sure they could build one that would go about 5 miles in everyday driving…
Well, the Model S is pretty compact. If Tesla built a truck with twice the number of batteries under the bed, it would have an excuse to be big, get twice the range and be able to haul…
right?
The Tesla-Camino! Or perhaps a Tesla-Ranchero?
Teslamino or Teschero?
“I want to see TESLA build a truck with like 1000 pounds of instant torque.”
The entire pickup bed could be used to house the 74,398 lithium ion laptop batteries that would be required to give it a real world range of anything over 30 miles, too.
Heh. Maximum payload: 2 lawn chairs and a beer cooler (empty).
2lawn chairs & a cooler……
98% of the time thats all non-buisness PUs carry.
“98% of the time thats all non-buisness PUs carry”
,..And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that!
:)
The only time my truck carries an empty beer cooler is the 1 out of 7 days of the week I’m pulling my boat back from the lake and all the beer has been depleted.
Trucks are good for quality of life upgrades.
Maybe a 6-pack and ice if I order the towing package?
An empty beer cooler? That just won’t do…
Perfectly compensated for by full bladders as it happens.
I agree, for the reason same reason electric motors provide motivation in trains and ice breaker ships.
http://www.balqon.com/electric-vehicles/nautilus-xe30/
Just throw a bed on this
So does Elon Musk. It’s on their to-do list, but not for a few years.
Ford would have to go diesel to match the Dodge
exactly!
they can too, the duratorque 5 cyl is fine. id buy one, xl reg cab 8ft bed 4×4 with ac and cd player only things ill need.
Would you pay the $2500-4000 premium over the 2.7T?
Remember that the 2.7T is a $500 option over the base 3.5L. The EcoDiesel is a $3000 option above the Pentastar in the RAM.
Would you pay 25-27k for it though?
That depends on how much attention they’ve paid to aerodynamics, and we know they’ve paid attention to weight loss. We also don’t yet know what sort of effort they’ve put into tuning the 2.7 Ecoboost so that it doesn’t have to run super rich under load to protect valves and pistons (like other Ecoboosts do – outside of the speed and load required to pass the EPA tests).
Still, I’m more interested in the real-world figures, and I have my doubts about seeing 30, or 28, or 25 mpg US real world in anything this big and heavy, aside from driving steadily at 50 mph or below.
@Brian P – look up direct injection. You don’t get detonation without fuel in the cylinders.
I know about direct injection. The Ecoboosts inject fuel during the intake stroke at full load – they are not like diesels. They are less prone to detonation, but they can still overheat pistons and exhaust valves. They run RICH at full load.
Ecoboosts are pretty good at belching out a black cloud when the driver mats the accelerator … seen it many times, not always, but it happens often. They’re worse than modern diesels. Only reason they get away without a particulate filter is that the EPA test procedure doesn’t include those load conditions.
+1
How about we really go back to the 70s and 80s and try axle ratios numerically lower than 3.00?
Or perhaps someone will give us the first CVT in a full size truck in a desperate bid to out fuel economy each other.
I believe that those axle ratios were because the only transmissions they had were three speed automatics. I don’t think they’re necessary with the seven and eight speed transmissions they have now.
And also because the average consumer expects a modern vehicle to be able to keep up with speed limits over 55 mph, which I don’t think is an unreasonable expectation.
The overall drive ratio is what matters – not just the final drive ratio. And you can’t just arbitrarily use tall final drive ratios; it will eventually get to a point where the engine won’t pull a ratio that tall (so top gear will become useless). The new transmissions have tall enough overdrive ratios that tall final drive ratios are no longer needed.
Ram already has an 8-speed transmission; GM will follow shortly; Ford and GM together have a 10-speed under development; at that point there is no purpose to using a CVT and the geared transmissions will be stronger.
The new transmissions not only allow tall overdrive gearing but also have upper gear ratios close enough together that they can leave the torque converter locked much more of the time. At the same time, the torque converter is still there to be used when needed, such as when starting a heavy load up a hill.
We are seeing that. The standard rear axle in the Chrysler LX cars with the V6 8AT is a 2.62:1. Luckily, the large ratio spread of the new transmissions lets them still move out pretty well.
I wonder how many Ford will actually sell? I’m sure this package was requested by the marketing department so they can plaster the ad’s with high MPG numbers. In reality, I’ll bet that most people will buy a regular model.
I would think it’s actually targeted for city folks that want to drive a truck but shudder at paying for the fuel/destroying the environment, or need to appease their spouse in either of those areas.
Get the dealer to take off the stickers for you and no one will know that you’re driving the city slicker version.
“Hey honey, let’s go check out the new F-150!”
Said by no city slickers ever.
I can assure you, as an inmate of a large city, my people are not interested in this as a daily driver…unless it’s part of some escapist fantasy involving cattle, Montana and canoes.
I’m pretty sure people round these parts would think you were talking about a radio station or something if you said “F-150” to them.
Seriously though, a full size pickup would be impossible to park in any large urban center.
+1
I like the inmate crack.
“ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK… In the NEW Ford F-150 SFE!”
I was thinking more about suburb land where I live, but I can see how that came off as urban.
“ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK… In the NEW Ford F-150 SFE!”
“And with 28 mpg, escape from New Jersey as well!”
An F-150 will fit into any parking space that takes a Tahoe or Expedition, which are extremely popular in large urban centers and beach communities. So are fullsize pickups. They’re everywhere you find people. You just have to be good at centering a vehicle. Something that’s not necessary in a tiny car.
Ford will eventually have a 30 MPG F150. If it isn’t the 2.7T/6-speed combo, they’ll have something else down the road.
I feel like somebody who paid attention in math class could help us figure out how much energy is required to move this thing at 70 MPH, and then, extrapolating from the energy density of gasoline, figure out how efficient an engine would be required to get 30 MPG highway. I know it’s doable, but I’m staring at the scientific calculator on my phone and it occurs to me that I must have been doodling when this was covered, because I have no idea where to start.
It’s not hard if one knows the drag coefficient and frontal area. We don’t know the frontal area, but can take a reasonable guess – 4 square metres. We also don’t know the drag coefficient, but can also take a reasonable guess: 0.4.
I have to do this calculation in SI units. 70 mph = 113 km/h = 31.3 m/s. Use standard air density 1.2 kg/m3.
Drag force = 0.5 x 1.2 x 31.3^2 x 4 x 0.4 = 940.5 N
To this we have to add the frictional drag, which we also don’t know, but let’s take 1.5% of the truck’s weight as a guess. This will be 2200 kg x 0.015 x 9.807 = 327 N. Aero drag being around 75% of the total at highway speed is not unreasonable. So the force it takes to push the truck through the air and against tire and brake drag is 1267 N.
The work is the force x speed = 1267 x 31.3 = 39670 W (for the metric-challenged, this is 53 horsepower, a not unreasonable number)
Do that for an hour and it will take 39.67 kWh = 142.81 MJ of mechanical energy.
Gasoline contains 45.7 MJ/kg of chemical energy so if the engine were 100% efficient, this would have required 3.12 kg of gasoline, about 4.1 litres, or 1.1 US gallons, and this took you 70 miles down the road. If we are stuck with the weight and drag of this truck and we had an imaginary 100% efficient engine, it would get 63.5 miles per US gallon under those conditions. Don’t forget that we have not considered the efficiency of the transmission and driveline in this – only the rolling friction and the aero drag.
A 100% efficient engine is not possible, but we can estimate fuel efficiency for a few powertrain options.
The most efficient current-technology automotive diesel engines are a little over 40% efficient at their best efficiency point. If we hypothetically assume that the transmission is perfect and the engine is sized just right so that it is at the best efficiency point in this condition, you get 25 mpg, and that illustrates the magnitude of the problem at hand when you are trying to move something this big that fast. Plug in a more plausible efficiency for an oversized gasoline engine (we need 53 horsepower, not 353!), say 25%, and you get 16 mpg … which is pretty much bang on what I would think something like this will get in the real world if you drive it at 70 mph. A good gasoline engine that is not oversized could likely do 33% efficiency, 21 mpg, and this is still assuming that the transmission is really, really good.
I would say that 30 mpg US for real world 70 mph highway driving is not achievable without reducing the drag coefficient, the frontal area, and to some extent, the weight.
Impressive math skills, Sir!
I would think that bringing the truck’s underside closer to the pavement at speed (air suspension) and utilizing spoilers that would be effective at that height would help a lot.
And cost a lot, too.
SFE or any of these packages are okay for playing games with mpg ratings or live in sunny southern California where snow exists only on “Charlie Brown’s Christmas”.
I’d rather know the mpg of the truck loaded or with heavy ply tires.
I find it interesting that Ford is thinking about playing the MPG game at all since their problems of having to reduce the ratings on numerous models.
They can’t just stop playing the MPG game just because they got wrist-slapped once, everybody else is playing it. What I’m waiting for is the downsizing of the full sized truck to mid-size. Eventually, that will be the only way to get truck mileage up where the feds are taking it.
And by “mid-size” you mean the size real manly-man trucks were before they got stupid over the past 20 years? 1/2 tons are just sedans with a veranda. If you need actual heavy-dutyness, that is why 3/4 and 1 ton models exist. It’s high time that light duty trucks were actually light duty again.
They have to play. Competitive MPG actually matters a lot in pickups, because commercial buyers look at total cost to own over the working life of a vehicle. Think about how many pickups get sold to big contractors, oilfield-services companies, mining operations, utilities, etc. Ford loves that commercial-fleet business, makes good money out of it, and wants to get as much of it as they can.
Thanks for the link, Derek.
Let’s just say… I don’t think they’re going to match the EcoDiesel, I have a reason for thinking that, and I think they’ll still be able to make plenty of “best in class” marketing hay out of beating the gasoline Ram.
Just heard this Twain quote:
“I could easily learn to prefer an elephant to any other vehicle, partly because of that immunity from collisions, and partly because of the fine view one has from up there, and partly because of the dignity one feels in that high place, and partly because one can look in at the windows and see what is going on privately among the family. The Lahore horses were used to elephants, but they were rapturously afraid of them just the same. It seemed curious. Perhaps the better they know the elephant the more they respect him in that peculiar way. In our own case we are not afraid of dynamite till we get acquainted with it.”
– Mark Twain
Not the usual, stenographer take:
“Ford is Scared”
http://dailykanban.com/2014/08/03/ford-is-scared/
Naah, it’s the usual Bertel take. I like Bertel, but he has a pretty iron-clad view.
10 speed transmissions. 30 MPG full size trucks. The future is now.
The key to Fords MPG in the 2015 F150 is the flexibility of the CGI based 2.7 v6 EcoBoost engine!!
The can easily increase the Compression Ratio to 15:1 and more like a Diesel n get great low end torque like 375 ft lbs and efficiency without high turbo boost and use advanced engine controls to avoid knock…!
This is their secret weapon… A great gas engine that really performs like a diesel snd its Less Than $500 upgrade!!!!!
That’s is the Game Changer!!!!
RIP Ram EcoDiesel…!!!
Here’s a data point: a couple of years ago pickuptrucks.com did a comparo of a bunch of 1/2 ton pickups, including a drive loop in central Michigan pulling an 8000 lb. trailer. They used multiple drivers for each truck to try and minimize the effect of different driving styles.
On that loop, the F-150 Ecoboost achieved a fraction over 10 mpg. The then-new Chevy/GMC twins with the new 5.3 liter DI 8 cylinder, achieved a bit over 12. These engines are rated at something like 5 hp less than the Ecoboost. The point being that turbocharged engines loaded up seem to be fuel-suckers.
If your use of a pickup is essentially like a car, I suppose this doesn’t matter. But if you plan to use its carrying or towing capacity, then it matters a lot.
Diesel engines generally seem to suffer a lesser fuel economy hit under load than even normally aspirated gasoline engines; perhaps because gasoline engines are forced to spin at higher rpms to develop their power. Turbocharging would seem to be the answer, except for the fact that the extreme cylinder pressures associated with forced induction apparently require a rich mixture to keep things from getting crazy.
Bottom line, if Ford claims to have a turbocharged version of the F-150 that gets the same highway mileage as the diesel RAM 1500, I’d take the diesel in a second, if real world fuel economy were important to me.
That’s all true, but I think it simplifies things a bit too much. (Also, I’m not sure 3.5 EcoBoost and the 5.3 are really equivalents, but whatever).
The reason to tow with the EB is the torque, not the fuel economy. I have a feeling what Ford is going for is a drive train that tows like a much more powerful engine that is fuel efficient when not towing, which makes sense for the half ton. If you are really towing all day every day, you should get a 3/4 ton and be done with it. Towing MPG is never going to be spectacular, and if I towed occasionally I would rather have the extra acceleration that the EB can get me.
Diesels are great for towing, but again how often am I towing with a 1/2 ton? At the same price point, I would take the diesel, but all indications are that the diesel is much more expensive. How many miles do I need to drive while paying for (usually) more expensive fuel to make up for that difference? Then again, lots of people have paid extra for hybrid drivetrains that won’t pay off for decades just so they can feel slightly better at the gas pump, so maybe Ram is on to something.
I’m sorry, at 5000 lbs, with a large frontal area and a box in the back, Ford is NOT going to get 30mpg at 65-70 in real life, now or ever.
I coaxed 20mpg from a 2008 Chevy Silverado 5.3 V8 ext cab 4wd averaging 63 mph, with everyone passing me. It had cylinder deactivation too. It weighed 5600 lbs, I think.
My 2011 Malibu is good for 32-34 mpg at around 70 mph. It is much more aerodynamic than a truck, much smaller frontal area, with 2.4 liter 4 cyl doing about 2200 rpm at 70.
Unless there is some radical change, most all of the “accessible” waste in the internal combustion engine has been squeezed out.
Unless one of the car makers is willing to go back to 1979, when a base 2wd pick-up with an IRON engine weighed around 4000 lbs, and was lower to the ground (infintely more practical), where the body and frame were less stiff (but still robust enough to carry a load and last for decades), 30 mpg highway in a ‘full-size’ truck ain’t gonna happen.