Ford has released the fuel economy numbers for its new 2015 F-150. They are impressive for a full-size truck, good enough to where they match the same fuel economy estimates for the 2015 Chevy Colorado and 2015 GMC Canyon — trucks much smaller.
Officially, Ford is touting the fuel economy of the 2.7L EcoBoost in a two-wheel drive setup with its estimated figures of 19 MPG city, 26 MPG highway and 22 MPG combined. That combined number exact same as GM’s mid-size trucks configured with 2.5L gasser engines and two-wheel-drive. The best fuel economy transmission configuration for GM’s mid-size trucks is with the automatic, achieving 20 MPG city and 27 MPG highway. Yes, that’s higher than the 2015 F-150, but according to the EPA, the 2015 Colorado and 2015 Canyon sucked down gasoline at an equal combined rate to the new Ford. For good measure, a 4.3L V6 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 nabs 20 combined MPG.
Why compare a full-size truck’s fuel economy with a mid-size truck? Simply put, the 2015 F-150 delivers less of a compromise for those needing full-size capability while needing sufficient fuel economy numbers. But at a price, as a 2015 Ford F-150 configured with the 2.7L EcoBoost and 2WD comes in at $26,215 with absolutely no other options. The starting MSRP for a 2015 Chevrolet Colorado with no options is currently just under $21,000 including destination. Of course, optioning out both trucks moves the pricing meter rather quickly.
The GM Authority Take
Depending on what’s more important: more size and capability to a more frugal and compact option, should sway buyers one way or another. Ultimately, with such solid choices, the consumer wins either way.
Comments
That 2.7 Ecoboost runs circles around the 2.5 ecotec. Hell it trumps the 3.6L, that’s a better comparison engine which still falls short of the Ferd twin turbo.
True that. An insult to even compare 2.7T to 2.5 lame duck as far as performance. That the 2.7T get the same MPG is only icing on the cake.
Too be honest here the 1-3 MPG one way or the other matters little in this class as it will still be $80 to fill a full size truck up.
Also I still expect the repair cost to hit the Ford insurance. Aluminum is not cheap, it has no memory and rips, tears or cracks are difficult to repair. Panels that can be replaced are easy to fix but expensive to buy. Also once aluminum bends it becomes harder and fragile. I can see truck that have been wreck taking a hit in resale.
In time the whole market will be aluminum in trucks and it will become just the way things are done but it will still add cost to all trucks.
I think GM is banking on the fact many people are down sizing in the SUV market slowly to the CUV models. They are banking this migration will also happen in the trucks. While not for everyone many will move to the smaller trucks as they will meet their needs and cost less to buy and run.
GM will do the aluminum dance too in the larger truck and will see the same issues as Ford will now but by then many of them will start to work out better with time. We may have more then 10% of repair shops able to deal with aluminum by then and make it more competitive.
This change over to Aluminum may not have bee a race where you were first as the second one in will have more advantages of the changes already put in place vs. having to prop up the infrastructure.
Some times you have to drive slower to go faster in racing and the same at times can apply to business. Some times getting Into a market first is just way more expensive and difficult vs. letting the market settle and then sliding in.
I was in a Colorado tonight. Nice truck and the right size for me.
Regardless, you have to hand this one to Ford. That ecoboost 2.7 seems mighty impressive, and with its capabilities, it not only make the Colorado and Canyon irrelevant, but GM’s full size 4.3 and 5.3 EcoTec3 might be in trouble.
Not at this point as with gas cheap I would rather have the V8.
Also I have found with most GM vehicles they hit the EPA numbers or better them. Of the three new GM models I have now one matches its numbers and two beat them. And I do not hypermile.
On the other hand Ford has had a history of not making the EPA numbers real world and they also have been caught several times for not even meeting the HP numbers in the past.
Note GM almost always is under the true HP ratings in their claims.
The 2.7 is a good engine and I do not disagree. Now is it really that much better than the other options Eh. I think it is over the 4.3 but the rest are all pretty well engineered engines doing about the same things.
Hell my 2.0 Turbo Ecotec can do right at 300 HP and 340 FT LBS limited by the transmission ability to handle the torque as a daily driver. Power density is not a uncommon thing and we will see more of it as the MFG have to move to smaller engines.
We will see more of this kind of engine soon from everyone. DI and Turbo charging work well together in small engines with VVT.
The trick is adding all this crap and keeping the prices down to buy, maintain, repair and insure.
To be honest, while I’m proud of the fuel economy rating of the newest F-150, I was kinda hoping for more. Nevertheless it’s mighty impressive for Ford’s engineers to muster these numbers and still manage to match the smaller midsize GM twins. The early results of the investment in aluminum seem to point to a brighter future for the truck market!!!
We will see when the 8spd is in the mid size twins and real world figures are reported for both.
Can any one remember the C-max or Fusion hybrid shortfalls
The F-150 exactly matches my ’94 GMC Sonoma rating (2.2L, manual 4 speed), but in real world driving I get better economy than rated. The better real world fuel economy may be because I have the best case body configuration (Regular Cab, short bed) and a less powerful engine to suck fuel down when I floor it (118 HP). That will give the Colorado and Canyon a real world advantage too, but it will be tough to explain to someone doing the comparison by the numbers.
A major disadvantage is in marketing of the Canyon and Colorado. More than a few times I see write-ups with comparisons to cross-overs and CUV’s as the true market for the buyers. I use my Sonoma as a truck for hauling, where my friends shiny full size trucks can’t get its paint scratched or has its tailgate too high to load heavy things. The next thing marketing can do to destroy the models is to call it a mini-truck for future minivan and station wagon drivers.
After 20 years I need a replacement, and the Colorado/Canyon is the best match in a while. But it is still bigger than I like for a work truck that I need. I need a truck that is easy to load and is inexpensive to operate, like a real work truck should do. I am not trying to impress my friends with the truck like most of the full size truck buyers do, I want an economic advantage to get the job done (“Professional Grade”). Think about it in the real world, how often do you see a S-10 or Sonoma with a load compared to a full size truck. The marketing guys have the wrong target for the potential buyers, and risk chasing them away with lame assumptions instilling weak reputations of cute ute owners.
I don’t how much you fellas know about the Ecoboost engines, and I don’t study much about Ford but from what I’ve heard from guys who own them tell me these trucks can’t get out of their own way, most notably when merging onto a highway from an on ramp.
My wife’s grandfather has a 2013 F-150 with the ecoboost and he has had these issues. Ford released several service bulletins related to these acceleration problems. If I understand correctly, it is not necessarily the engine that is the problem, but the outlying components not working well together (mainly intercooler problems). I’m not sure about this latest engine, but Ford couldn’t totally get it right with a few years of tweaking.
You are correct Jon.
Ford had less than 100 documented problems with the early 3.5 liter Ecoboost installed in the 2011 and some 2012’s. It was a problem with the CAC as it was actually cooling to efficiently causing ice to collect and then being drawn into the air intake causing major problems with acceleration or loss of power. This was a hush hush problem for Ford which they quickly fixed by redesigning the CAC and adding a shield partially over it, and replacing them in the vehicles with the older design. It was investigated but no recall was ever issued. If you know someone with this problem on 2011-2012 model F150 it should have the CAC replaced at Ford’s expense. The Ecoboost is an Awsome engine, the CAC problem is often used to discredit it in the anti Ford circle. Although GM was first to use this technology Ford has ran away with their own version and are available throughout their whole line of cars and trucks and will eventually discontinue naturally aspirated engines completly to meet strict fuel economy standards by 2025. What’s GM’s plan? More cylinder deactivation? Build smaller trucks? No doubt they will build an aluminum bodied turbocharged V6 in the near furture, they really have no choice. Now that’s something to be excited about.
A lot of people just wanted a smaller truck that would be easier to get in and out of without a running board and easier to access the bed. This isn’t happening with the Twins… Very disappointed. But I will wait until I find a fully equipped Colorado Extended cab. If it handles easier maybe that will be enough. The Silverado’s 5.3 V 8 mileage figures are super. As someone said.. A few MPG either way isn’t going to make a huge difference in buying it. I think it is the looks and feel of the vehicle.. both performance wise and comfort wise. The Dash on the twins is a bit stark.
After 25 years of having an S10 and Sonoma I am thinking about getting back into the truck segment again after refusing the last Colorado and Canyon.
I wanted a good quality smaller truck as I do not need the $80 fill ups and a large truck that takes up a lot of space. My hauling is light and a smaller truck fits my needs.
In the end the major three all will have aluminum full size trucks and all will have a larger mid size they will try to use to cut back on the half ton sales with.
The future way they sell trucks will have to fundamentally change as they can take the weight loss only so far in the half ton class. Mass has to be reduced and going smaller is how they will do it. The larger truck focus will be placed on the 3/4 ton were regulations are more lax.
Look for a version of the Ranger to arrive once the new F150 excitement dies down.
There will be a lot of changes coming and it has all the makers worried as to how it will affect sales and profits.
While the new Ford is exciting it is far from what all we will see in this segment.
GM’s major focus has been on the next gen to carry them into the next level of regulation. I am starting to wonder if that is why so little changed on the present trucks. More is going on than is being said.
I have had 2 S10’s and 1 2007 Colorado. I like small trucks and can park them in our garage. Why did GM make the new Colorado’s so big? The sides of the bed box are 7″ higher, it is too long to fit in the garage and is wider. I own 4 GM vehicles and guess i will have to buy one of those D—- Jap pickips.
The new Colorado is the same size as the Tacoma. The Tacoma has been that size for 10 years and was always bigger than the .
Two different schools of thought are put into play here, all based on lowering corporate fuel standards. Simply put, GM offers a smaller truck with better mpg while still producing the lackluster Silverado which is almost on par with the outgoing 2014 F150. The combination does raise the mpg average plus offering buyers a small truck for carrying their golf clubs and 50lb bags of bird seed.
Ford again has shown what true innovation is and raised it’s fuel economy by the use of smaller lighter turbocharged engines producing horsepower and torque out performing large V8’s. The introduction of the all aluminum body that all auto makers will follow and continue to play catch up. Rumors are that ford will bring the Ranger back,and when and if they do you can bet it will be a turbocharged aluminum bodied gem that will obsolete the current Canyon and Colorado.
Chet by the time a Aluminum Ranger arrives GM may already be into an Aluminum Ecotec Turbo Colorado of their own. Ford will bring a Ranger but not very soon.
As for being at the table second here Ford is going to have to deal with many things like repair cost and insurance issues that buy the time the 2017 Chevy is here will be worked out and not be as much of an issue. Some times second to the market is not all bad.
Also you need to remember Ford got their loans to get them out of trouble about 5 years before GM back when banks were still loaning money. This gave them a 5 year lead on reinvestment. This advantage will decline with time but as of now that is where Ford has the real advantage. GM is still addressing things needing fix from prior bailout models.
Ford is doing ok but they are not at such an advantage that is can not be over come with a little more time and investment. In other words don’t get to cocky here you are not in the end zone yet.
Ford has invested heavily in twin turbo engines and the ecoboost sounds great on paper. They have done their own tests with Dodge and GM and it blew Dodge out of the water and barely beat GM (2 out of 3 times I think I read). Here’s the problem, there’s been no real world testing of this engine. Everyone is just taking Ford’s word right now. If you want to stay light, forced induction is the way to go. For instance, Porsche has done this for decades with a flat 6 in the 911. Look at the power they are able to push out of that engine. It is impressive. My wife’s grandfather has a 2013 F-150 with the 3.5 ecoboost. He has dealt with reduced power under acceleration the whole time he’s owned it. Ford has released several service bulletins attempting to address the issue, but never completely got it corrected (for him at least). This is why I bring up real world usage and testing.
I’m interested to see how this would stack up after the new 8 speed transmission get into the GM trucks. Heck, even the little duramax diesels.
When a new Ranger hits the market it will be a smaller version of the F150 with several years of aluminum manufacturering experience. GM may be ready to introduce it’s version of an aluminum bodied Silverado but will be behind the 8 ball due to it’s lack of experience in manufacturing processes and re inventing the assembly and tooling to get the job done. Don’t forget Ford gained it’s knowlage through the ownership of other auto companes that produced alumimun vehicles. Yes GM may be into an aluminun body ecotech Canyon/Colorado when a new Ranger arrives but it( Ranger) will already have years manufacturing process, a variety of Ecoboost engines already in use in many of it’s vehicles that can be used in a new Ranger. Good luck to GM but I see them constantly playing catch up not only to Ford,Ram is creeping in on their sales too.
Chet
Here is the problem you have to deal with here.
#1 Ford did not gain much if anything from Rover or Jaguar other then debts. Their aluminum processes are well out dated and were not really relevant for the order of 2,000,000 vehicles a year.
#2 you need to give Ford more credit for developing their own processes and procedures on how to put these trucks together cheaper to build and easier to repair than a high end low volume product.
#3 GM is well on their way on making their own processes and already have many of their own they have pioneered with the Corvette and other models they already use much aluminum in.
As for the Ecoboost engines they are just the Johnny come lately. GM offered Direct injection and Turbo Charging back in 2008 in several production cars and has increased it much since then,. How do I know I own one that produces 300 HP at 23 pounds of boost and gives me 25 city and 32 Highway MPG and will run 13’s in the quarter mile if I can get the tires to hook up with the torque curve that runs flat from 1800-5300 RPM.
While Ford has marketed the Ecoboost engines very well and have convinced many that they invented DI Turbo engines they really did not and many others offer as good or even better engines.
Chet the TT 3600 Cadlillac engine in the coming 450 HP ATSV an already in use in the CTS is an engine GM has had since 2004. It is an old engine to be honest and long predates the Ecotec yet it still can out perform it. The engine was first shown in a Holden Torano and several other cars at a time GM did not have the money to put it into production. Well They now have the money and are already working on a second gen of these engines.
GM is not all that behind as going into Chapter 11 they dumps what money they had left into development. This money was put to good use and has already brought us things like the Alpha and the New Chevy DI V8. GM has used some carry over models to buy time till they can complete the newly funded vehicles that are on the way.
I agree Ford has a time lead but of only about 4-5 years as I point out they got their bank loans about that much sooner as Banks were giving loans at that time. Ford was on the verge of collapse and leveraged their plants for loans from banks to invest in new product. GM did not have the bank option as the banks collapsed before they went for the loans. GM also lost the time between the Ford loans and their own bail out as little was done in this time span.
So I agree Ford is doing ok but GM is far from being all that behind and anyone who thinks so will sorely be found a fool for thinking so. I suspect most at Ford would agree with me or they would not be working so hard.
As for Ram they are far from out of the woods. They really are behind as they can only enhance the preset models as they have so little work ahead done. They had no money left to work ahead as GM did and as of now Fiat comes cross as being a little confused on what to do. Even the new models cars they are coming out with are better than what they have but are far from class leading. At the rate things are going Fiat could end up part of VW and all they will want is the jeep line and trucks.
As of now the Rams are only selling well as they are offering the largest discounts. Their repeat buyer status is only 24% and that does not bode well. Only Mitsubishi is worse.
The new Ranger is coming but it will be a little longer. May even take the next gen till they are ready.
In the mean time Ford will have to solve issues with insurance companies on claims for damage and to find ways to increase the body repair shops able to deal with aluminum bodies from 10%. There is going to be some issues to deal with and in time it will work out but it is up to ford to fight these battles and by the time the GM truck arrives these issues should be resolves.
Trust me in the first and second year you will hear some horror stories on totals trucks and high insurance and repair cost.
Ford on this aluminum and Ecoboost is a great masterful job of marketing. Also they will be very good trucks when the issues are worked out. But in the mean time there are people like you Chet that are blinded by the marketing and either don’t know enough of the truth or do enough research to understand the truth. Ford is taking a big risk here and the marketing is very important so they are winning on this point. Now they need to resolve all the other issues that are beyond their control. GM also is taking a risk going in this direction by 2017 as they hope the issue of Aluminum are resolved by then too.
GM anymore is working on totally new product and no more left overs like the Malibu. These complete packages are going to be more like the C7 where everything is right. The next Malibu is not far off as they knew what they had and could not wait till this one was ready so they tried to buy time with the older project. I believe the same was done on the present trucks and the next model will be much more revolutionary.
I also think with the growth of the CUV market to where it is exploding that is why they are trying to make a tie to these vehicles. The new GMC Canyon feels like my wife’s Terrain and that is a good thing bases on sales. Also the MPG is very similar. The small trucks are going to play a pivotal roll as they continue to increase the prices of trucks. Just look where a 1/2 ton crew is now and it is not going to get cheaper. Sure Ford has keep the price some what down if you order right but most option prices will go up and the loaded trucks will cost more in the end. They are not getting that good of a deal on aluminum.
Many people are down sizing today as the economy is stagnate and income is not growing at a very good rate. These trucks even $10K cheaper will play a big roll for those who do not need a big truck. Lets face it half of the trucks out there could easily be replaced with a smaller truck and if they can save money they will.
Right now a loaded Colorado LTZ crew is $38K approx. and a loaded Silverado LTZ crew is about $56K sticker. Sure the LT2 is cheaper on the Silverado but it is also cheaper on the Colorado too. I also expect Rebates to be similar.
Also much of Fords lead in trucks has been cheap fleet sales. They sell a lot of trucks with low ball prices for fleets. Will they be able to continue this?
There is so much to consider here and they all are going to face the same challenges. In the end they all will do about the same things and in the end the market shares will be similar. So far GM is making more money on their trucks per unit sold but will that continue if they go to more expensive material?
Hey Chet while Ford is working to pay of the billion in the investment they have made. GM is already well on the way to reduce the cost of the change over.
Better to work smarter than just harder.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/11/general-motors-novel-aluminum-welding-method/
Thanks for your input. You make my point as to how GM lacks implementing of new welding technology or turbocharged engines only now because they are backed against a wall and must cut weight to compete. They just don’t lead in this segment. Ford has invested large on the new F150 because it is their largest money maker and it makes sense. If GM did the same they could pull ahead of the pack. Silverado is considered to be old school, in other words rock solid but same old truck, nothing new, lacking any earth shattering improvements and not attracting buyers from other brands. Obviously I’m a hard core Ford guy but would really love GM to step up and catch Ford on all levels and convince me that they can compete and possibly convert me. But for now the GM trucks are just plain boring.
GM and Ford are supposedly jointly developing a 10 speed Trans that is going in the 2016 F150 and later the Silverado, interesting. That should help boost fuel economy for both automakers.
Thanks
Might not that Ford had to go to GM to get a decent tranny to be built. This is why I sell tons of Parts to put GM trannys in Fords and none for Fords in anything else.
The GM welding is just showing how they are doing it much smarter and wasting so much money with more advanced methods and machinery.
You are obviously a Ford guy as it distorts your perception of reality.
This game ebbs and flows so and most of us understand this and it discredits much of what you post because the majority here know better. Ford is doing fine but GM is not out of this game by any means and not as far behind as you like to pretend.
Being a fan boy cost you much in credibility. It is always best to call it as it is not as you want to see it.
Great talking points Scott3, well rehearsed. You seem angry when someone disagrees with your fabricated facts. Perhaps it’s my mistake to post on a GM blog. Enjoy your “Old School Trucks”
Moving Forward, Bye now.
No I post the truth and others like you post fabrications and I let those out there decide.
FYI you do not have to rehearse the truth.
You are correct on one point I do get annoyed with fan boy zealot’s like yourself that like to just troll on only the points they want to accept and not all the points need to understand the big picture.
It amazes me how so many Ford fan boys love to gush over a truck that lost weight because it was a pick to gain a small advantage vs. really pay attention to the Mustang which is one of the most complete Mustang packages of all time. They finally did the whole package with refinement yet you want to piss all over yourself over a truck that still has to prove itself in the long run.
Though they may have wanted to save some aluminum for the Mustang next time around. That was the only real negative here.
I am glad to hear of the ecoboost f150 22mpg gas mileage in a full size truck. However, I like the old Ford Ranger pickup, which is no longer in the United states. Ford is actually considering the return of their mid size Ranger to the states, based on the success of GMs mid size trucks, the Colorado and Canyon. But, if the F150s impressive statistics cause Canyon and Colorado buyers to go with the F150 instead, then the sales of GMs mid sized trucks will look unappealing to Ford and they will not return their mid size truck, the glorious Ford Ranger. Imagine how good the fuel economy could be with technology like the 22 mpg full size F150 in a mid size Ranger!
We really can’t admit that our Ferd brothers did well to achieve such versatility and efficiency?
Next gen Colorado/Canyon powertrains just need to be better. The General will always comes out on top in the long-run.
Several friends have a Ford Ranger, 4 cylinder, manual transmission, they are great small trucks, the perfect size, and great fun to drive.