2016-2017 F150 4x4 EcoBoost - Real world experiences??

ebrabaek

Adventurer
Just got back from our Grand Junction,CO to Yellowstone NP and back.
Several mountain passes, numerous stuck and go in the NP, and a few 80mph freeway runs.
Highest we saw was 25.7 mph on one tank full.
4 people and the 5.5 foot bed filled 2/3 with camping and all kinds of luggage.
The truck does not fatigue you at all. Rides more like a Lincoln truth be told.
Snow, rain, sleet and hail, we saw it all.
Have a ARE camper shell in the back with roof tracks installed.
Very impressive.
523716
 

Todd780

OverCamper
HD package is only for the 5.0L V8, it's what I was looking for when I settled for a left over 2018. The biggest issue I had when looking for an F150 was trying to find one with a tow package and a 6.5' bed, the dealers around me were ordering the trucks and just adding the $95 hitch which limits your tow rating to what a Mid size truck can tow.
You can get the HDPP with the 3.5 as well. I believe if you select the HDPP & Max Tow it is only available on a 3.5 truck.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
Learned something new, HDPP is available for the 3.5, but as you said only with the Max Tow package.
The HDPP trucks and Max Tow trucks come with a thicker frame.
 

D45

Explorer
The HDPP trucks and Max Tow trucks come with a thicker frame.

Maybe that's why my mpg is garbage, haha

Different steering ratio too, atleast it was on the older ecos

I have a 6.5 bed, 3.73s, max tow and max payload package
 

rajacat

Active member
Just got back from our Grand Junction,CO to Yellowstone NP and back.
Several mountain passes, numerous stuck and go in the NP, and a few 80mph freeway runs.
Highest we saw was 25.7 mph on one tank full.
4 people and the 5.5 foot bed filled 2/3 with camping and all kinds of luggage.
The truck does not fatigue you at all. Rides more like a Lincoln truth be told.
Snow, rain, sleet and hail, we saw it all.
Have a ARE camper shell in the back with roof tracks installed.
Very impressive.
View attachment 523716
Do you have the 2.7EB? Probably should subtract ~ 1 MPG for the generally optimistic mpg gauge. Nevertheless, very impressive! Sometime I wish I got the 2.7 instead of the 3.5 because I don't tow.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
Maybe that's why my mpg is garbage, haha

Different steering ratio too, atleast it was on the older ecos

I have a 6.5 bed, 3.73s, max tow and max payload package

Oh... The max tow trucks always get the worse fuel mileage of the F150 family...lol. When I bought mine I intentionally avoided 4x4, the 3.5, and the 9.75" rear end. I went for fuel economy and simplicity...lol (well, as simple as a new truck can be).

You has a larger radiator, different hitch, stiffer springs, and a few other goodies that the other F150s lack.

I can't wait to find a totalled one so I can snatch the radiator and larger fuel tank.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
Sometime I wish I got the 2.7 instead of the 3.5 because I don't tow.

Unless you need to tow more than a 2.7 truck is rated for, there is no real benefit to the 3.5... Unless you like to spend cash on aftermarket goodies to go fast....then it really shines.

I have had 9k behind my 2.7 and it handled it just fine. While I could " tell it was back there" I had zero problems merging or getting to the top of the hill while maintaining my speed. Now that I have a tune, down pipe, and larger intercooler its a whole different animal!
 

Amp34

Member
May have already been mentioned in here but:

2.7 Eco, most fuel efficient but check the payload - their max payload is usually down by 200-300lb compared to the larger engines. Something that may be especially important with two kids.

3.5 Eco, good engine, more “peppy” than the 5.0, in part because it usually comes with a different gear ratio than the 5.0. Real world fuel consumption is basically identical to the 5.0, even though on paper it’s supposed to be better.

5.0, same fuel consumption as the 3.5 but lacks the 10 speed in the 2016-17 age range, if thats important to you. Currently the 6 speed seems to be a lot more reliable than the 10 speed.

Base trim Lariat is basically an XLT 302A with Sync3, leather seats and most importantly 4x4A, although I’ve heard mixed things about reliability when it’s used regularly.

If you pick up a 3.5/5.0 supercab with 6.5’ box and mid level XLT package (301A for example) you’ll have a payload of around 2000lb, which means you could get a FWC or small/light camper on the back. Alternatively you could pick up a GFC or Vagabond Drifter (when they eventually release the full size - any day according to CS) and have plenty of payload left to kit out the inside with proper camper like amenities.

I have a 2017 5.0 XLT supercab, and chose it for the reasons above - payload over the 2.7. I was preferring the 3.5 but couldn’t find one with the other specs I wanted. Should be fitting a GFC on it in the next month and have most of the interior built ready for it.

Fuel wise, I usually average around 11l/100km (21mpg) with mosy highway and some town driving, and sitting at 110km/h (70mph) in non subzero weather get around 10l/100km (25mpg), goes up to around 11l/100km (21mpg) at 80mph. Although that was with stock wheels and tonneau cover. It’ll obviously go down with AT tires and a camper.

Edit: and ignore the FX4 option. Shocks are so so apparently and you can easily buy better ones for a couple of hundred $. Tires can be changed and most importantly the hill descent option costs $15 aftermarket. It’s a single setting on forscan - the $15 is for the OEM switch you fit into the pre existing wiring.


That leaves the skid plates, which can be bought extremely cheaply. Alternatively a set of proper plates from RCI.
 
Last edited:

ebrabaek

Adventurer
Do you have the 2.7EB? Probably should subtract ~ 1 MPG for the generally optimistic mpg gauge. Nevertheless, very impressive! Sometime I wish I got the 2.7 instead of the 3.5 because I don't tow.

I have the 3.5 EB. The times I have checked the LOM against the math after a fill up it have generally been within 0.5 mpg. On either side that is.... :)
 

ebrabaek

Adventurer
May have already been mentioned in here but:

2.7 Eco, most fuel efficient but check the payload - their max payload is usually down by 200-300lb compared to the larger engines. Something that may be especially important with two kids.

3.5 Eco, good engine, more “peppy” than the 5.0, in part because it usually comes with a different gear ratio than the 5.0. Real world fuel consumption is basically identical to the 5.0, even though on paper it’s supposed to be better.

5.0, same fuel consumption as the 3.5 but lacks the 10 speed in the 2016-17 age range, if thats important to you. Currently the 6 speed seems to be a lot more reliable than the 10 speed.

Base trim Lariat is basically an XLT 302A with Sync3, leather seats and most importantly 4x4A, although I’ve heard mixed things about reliability when it’s used regularly.

If you pick up a 3.5/5.0 supercab with 6.5’ box and mid level XLT package (301A for example) you’ll have a payload of around 2000lb, which means you could get a FWC or small/light camper on the back. Alternatively you could pick up a GFC or Vagabond Drifter (when they eventually release the full size - any day according to CS) and have plenty of payload left to kit out the inside with proper camper like amenities.

I have a 2017 5.0 XLT supercab, and chose it for the reasons above - payload over the 2.7. I was preferring the 3.5 but couldn’t find one with the other specs I wanted. Should be fitting a GFC on it in the next month and have most of the interior built ready for it.

Fuel wise, I usually average around 11l/100km (21mpg) with mosy highway and some town driving, and sitting at 110km/h (70mph) in non subzero weather get around 10l/100km (25mpg), goes up to around 11l/100km (21mpg) at 80mph. Although that was with stock wheels and tonneau cover. It’ll obviously go down with AT tires and a camper.

Edit: and ignore the FX4 option. Shocks are so so apparently and you can easily buy better ones for a couple of hundred $. Tires can be changed and most importantly the hill descent option costs $15 aftermarket. It’s a single setting on forscan - the $15 is for the OEM switch you fit into the pre existing wiring.


That leaves the skid plates, which can be bought extremely cheaply. Alternatively a set of proper plates from RCI.

There is no way the 3.5 EB and the V8 gets the same mileage.
At least not the ones I have driven.
In my experience the 3.5 gets about 2-3 mpg better economy.
This is at 5000 plus field elevation.
 

Amp34

Member
There is no way the 3.5 EB and the V8 gets the same mileage.
At least not the ones I have driven.
In my experience the 3.5 gets about 2-3 mpg better economy.
This is at 5000 plus field elevation.

I live at 4000ft and get those ones mentioned above, which is in line with the 3.5 consumptions others have mentioned in this thread. It’s a pretty common observation around the net.

The numbers on the window sticker are different (and towing too) but for normal highway driving there’s very little in it.

That said, some of that may depend on the axle ratio. Most 5.0s are 3.55 and I believe most 3.5s are 3.73, so will use more fuel than if they had the same ratio.
 

ebrabaek

Adventurer
I live at 4000ft and get those ones mentioned above, which is in line with the 3.5 consumptions others have mentioned in this thread. It’s a pretty common observation around the net.

The numbers on the window sticker are different (and towing too) but for normal highway driving there’s very little in it.

I was not citing numbers on the sticker but rather what I have seen driving both.
Just sharing what I have seen by driving both of them.......: )
 

Amp34

Member
I was not citing numbers on the sticker but rather what I have seen driving both.
Just sharing what I have seen by driving both of them.......: )

Just did an edit about axle ratio which may be one reason for the variation. One of the issues with comparing consumption on trucks. Supercab or Crew, what trim, engine and what axle ration all make big differences on fuel consumption. Unless you’re driving identical trucks with identical everything except the engine it’s difficult to really tell.

On aggregate, there’s basically no difference in the real world: Fuelly stats show a 0.1mpg difference - https://www.fordf150blog.com/2018-ford-f-150-ram-1500-and-silverado-fuelly-mpg-comparison/

The 2.7 is significantly more economical and would be the engine to go for IMO if you aren’t worried about the loss in payload.
 
Last edited:

rajacat

Active member
The 10 speed helps eliminate much of the difference in MPG between rear end ratios.

I had a 2017 2.7 6 speed and it didn't get much better MPG , if any, than my 2018 3.5 10 speed. Now that the 10 speed is offered with the 2.7 the mpg has gone up.

The new 5.0's are having issues with excessive oil consumption. I'd hold off on buying a newer 5.0 until this is sorted out. https://www.f150forum.com/f118/anyone-riding-out-5-0-oil-consumption-448028/

Fuelly should find a way to separate towing MPG from the rest. Towing really drags down the average. There should be a separate data set for towing.
If you're going to tow heavy the 3.5 is a towing monster. Lock out 9 and 10 gear for better mpg.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,201
Messages
2,903,716
Members
229,665
Latest member
SANelson
Top