Time for a New Truck--MPG is a Priority

[rruff]

How many 3.3 on Fuelly are work trucks though?
Associates 2.7 is around 15-16 MPG in fleet kit and duty.
Plus nobody posts axle ratio or other important info. Half the trucks I click on are just the default 50/50 city/highway pie chart.

I figure if there are enough data points, then the anecdotes pretty well average out. It's good for comparison purposes. If you want to guess what you'll get, then compare your current MPG to what they say for your rig, and use that same ratio for the one you are looking at. For instance, 17 mpg for your 3.7 vs 19 for the 3.3 is a 12% improvement. If you can think of a better way to guess then use it!

 

[phsycle]

Mine gets 17 leveled on 34” bfg a/t’s. I don’t drive it hard or easy probably average.

Yeah, once you start upping tires, I noticed mpg went down exponentially. I upped to 33” AT’s and it took a 2-3mpg hit.

 

[rruff]

Yeah, once you start upping tires, I noticed mpg went down exponentially. I upped to 33” AT’s and it took a 2-3mpg hit.

An alternative data point... I went from 32", 255mm wide, 39 lbs... to 34.6", 325mm, 74 lbs... and mpg improved. Not on the freeway at high speed (more air resistance), but everywhere else. Most ATs suck for rolling resistance but not all. It's a shame that tires aren't tested so we know what we are getting.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Which tire did you get?

 

[BrianPatrick]

I went on the Ford Builder site and just found I could not get a SuperCrew F150 with the 6' 6" bed with the 2.7. I need a bed of at least 6' so continuing looking at options. My wife just mentioned to me I have never had a truck that I did not put larger tires on, except for my Ram EcoDiesel and to be honest I thought it need some larger tires, so I need to keep looking at my real need and use.

This has been very helpful.

 

[rruff]

Which tire did you get?

Hankook ATM. They don't make them anymore, but the AT2 might be similar.

When I was researching the affect of different parameters on rolling resistance, greater width, larger diameter, and lower profile were all factors which helped lower resistance. But I'm sure the biggest ones are the compounds used (lower hysteresis), and maybe something different about the design? It's also possible that the gearing change was beneficial on the Tundra, but it might not be on your truck. I don't run high pressure... only ~35 psi unloaded.

 

[phsycle]

I went on the Ford Builder site and just found I could not get a SuperCrew F150 with the 6' 6" bed with the 2.7. I need a bed of at least 6' so continuing looking at options. My wife just mentioned to me I have never had a truck that I did not put larger tires on, except for my Ram EcoDiesel and to be honest I thought it need some larger tires, so I need to keep looking at my real need and use.

This has been very helpful.

You’ll need to prioritize what you want.
No go on the 2.7 with 6.5’ bed. But honestly, my 3.5 has been excellent. Maybe 1mpg less than the 2.7. Plenty of power and much better payload. Get the 3.5 w 6.5’ bed.

 

[Bama67]

I got 23mpg highway on my 2.7 eco with 3.73 gears and 33" all terrains pretty regularly.
I averaged around 20.
Pretty incredible with the amount of power that little mill makes.

Then again you could buy a used F250 6.2 that gets 16mpg for probably $10-15,000 less than a new F150 and buy A LOT of gas for that 15k and have a far more capable rig.
But then again depends on your needs.

 

[phsycle]

Then again you could buy a used F250 6.2 that gets 16mpg for probably $10-15,000 less than a new F150 and buy A LOT of gas for that 5k and have a far more capable rig.
But then again depends on your needs.

Man, not around here. Clapped out HD’s are going for max $.

 

[Bama67]

I couldn't get hardly any interest in my 2018 F250 Supercrew Longbed. Everyone was talking how they are getting mid 40s
It was in excellent condition and I sold it for $36k with 99k miles last weekend.
But then again I paid 39k for it 4 years and 99k miles earlier so, not bad, I don't think.

 

[Buddha.]

When OP says better MPG is he trying to have a lower cost of ownership, or a longer range?

 

[BrianPatrick]

When OP says better MPG is he trying to have a lower cost of ownership, or a longer range?

Lower cost of ownership on fuel, but I am looking at all options.

 

[calicamper]

Definitely the 2.7L is a great option several friends have them they only rarely occasionally tow their boats to the lake for the summer and home for the winter. Most of the time its road trips dogs in crates under the topper. 70mph and under most see 24-26mpg in mild temps.

My 3.73 heavy tow pack 3.5L Expedition does 22-23mpg 70mph and under on 3peak all season light A/T tires. 70-75mph 19-20mpg. Thats nakid no rack gear, stock everything except tires which are stock size. Tire upgrade to the BFG Trail Terrain was a 1mpg hit above 70mph over the stock passenger tires it had which were terrible even on wet pavement.

My 4x6 trailer has two modes low side it sits lower than the bottom of the rear window sill has no impact on mileage 900-1300lbs all up.
In tall side mode it knocks about 3mpg off the typical no trailer average.

 

[calicamper]

Lower cost of ownership on fuel, but I am looking at all options.

The 2.7 can be had in the heavy package now with a 35gallon tank. One friend just sold his first yr 2.7 and got the Heavy payload 2.7. His range now is crazy. He still does his big hunting trips getting 24mpg only with 35gallons its a loooong way between pit stops

 

[phsycle]

The 2.7 can be had in the heavy package now with a 35gallon tank. One friend just sold his first yr 2.7 and got the Heavy payload 2.7. His range now is crazy. He still does his big hunting trips getting 24mpg only with 35gallons its a loooong way between pit stops

The only issue is, this guy wants a 6.5’ bed, which doesn’t work with a 2.7 and Super crew.