2015 F-150 3.5L EcoBoost Vs. 2015 Tundra 5.7 – Is The Fuel Economy A Big Deal?
Tim Esterdahl | Dec 17, 2014 | Comments 24
The big hubbub on the 2015 Ford F-150 is the lighter weight driving fuel savings. To Ford’s credit, the new truck does indeed get better fuel economy than the older one, but how does this fuel economy compare to the 2015 Toyota Tundra over the course of a year? Sure the F-150 is rated to get better mileage on the EPA test cycle, but what does that really mean? Here is what you need to know.
If you are buying a Ford F-150 over a Toyota Tundra due to fuel economy, think again. The math doesn’t work out that well.
Read any news article on the new Ford F-150 and you can play buzzword bingo spotting all the references to fuel economy, better fuel economy, less weight equals better fuel economy, greatly improved fuel economy. The superlatives around fuel economy could lead one to assume the truck gets such superior fuel economy that nobody comes close. Yet, what is the real story?
We compared a 2015 Ford F-150 XL Supercab and a 2015 Toyota Tundra base SR Doublecab on both manufacture’s websites (Ford.com and Toyota.com). These configurations were the best way to get as close to apples to apples as we could, with similarly powerful engines, featuers, etc. Here are the results:
| 2015 Toyota Tundra SR | 2015 Ford F-150 XL |
|---|---|
| Doublecab | SuperCab |
| 5.7L V-8 | 3.5L V6 EcoBoost |
| 6-speed transmission | 6-speed transmission |
| 4WD | 4WD |
| 6 1/2' bed | 6 1/2' bed |
| MSRP - $32,960 - does not include destination | MSRP - $34,900 - does not include destination |
| Difference - $1,940 | |
| Fuel Economy | |
| 13/18/15 | 17/23/19 |
| 390 miles per tank based on 15 MPG combined (26 gallon capacity) | 437 miles per tank based on 20 MPG combined (23 gallon capacity) |
| $63.25/fill up based on $2.50 per gallon (AAA) | $57.50/fill up based on $2.50 per gallon (AAA) |
| 31 fill ups per year based on 12,000 miles driven | 27 fill ups per year based on 12,000 mile average |
| Annual Fuel Cost - $1960.75 | Annual Fuel Cost - $1552.50 |
| Fuel Savings - $408.25 |
Looking at the bottom line, the Tundra is $1,940 less expensive than the F-150. However, due to it’s higher fuel economy, the Ford costs about $408 a year less to fuel (assuming gas prices at $2.50 per gallon and EPA combined fuel ratings). Grabbing our calculator, it will take nearly 5 years (4.75 years, or 57,000 miles of driving) for fuel savings to overcome the F-150’s higher cost.
Some other calcs just for fun:
- If gas prices rise to $3, the annual fuel savings with the F150 increases to $555 a year (or so) and break even point drops to about 3.5 years (42k miles)
- If gas prices rise to $3.50, the annual savings is $647.50, and the break even point falls to 3 years (36k miles)
But There’s More To Calculate Than Fuel Savings
In addition the F-150’s higher purchase price, you must also account for:
- The F-150’s higher insurance costs. While it’s not clear how much the premium increase is for the 2015 aluminum F-150 vs the steel-bodied Tundra, the consensus is that it will be slightly more. If that works out to be $10 a month, it reduces the fuel economy savings about 25%. If it’s $20 a month more for the aluminum truck, that’s nearly half the annual fuel savings going to the insurance company.
- The F-150’s higher purchase price leads to increased sales tax and finance charges (assuming you finance). Interest and taxes on an “extra” $2,000 can be enough to knock out a year or two’s worth of fuel savings, depending on your sales tax rate and your finance rate.
- EcoBoost engines don’t always get the EPA rated fuel economy. Looking at data from Fuelly.com, it’s pretty clear that 3.5L EcoBoost Ford owners aren’t all enjoying the EPA rated fuel economy on their F-150s. Tundra owners, on the other hand, seem to be getting exactly what the EPA says they should.
Before we get a flurry of comments, other media outlets have struggled to get the EPA rating. Motor Trend tested a SuperCrew with a 3.5L EcoBoost and got just 16.8 (it is rated at 19 combined). Jalopnik got 18 combined in a 2.7L driving like “normal people” on 70 percent highways and 30 percent dirt roads. For reference, the 2wd is rated at 19/26/22 city/highway/combined. They did get it to hit 23.6 by “hypermiling and infuriating my passengers.”
If the 2015 F-150 saves about $500 a year in fuel (give or take, depending on whether or not you can keep your foot out of it), but it costs $100 more per year due to higher insurance rates and another $100 a year due to higher payments, what’s the point of talking about fuel economy?
Let’s give Ford the benefit of the doubt and say that gas prices jump back up to $3.50 per gallon – even at that much higher price, the fuel savings at 20mpg are $400-500 dollars per year after accounting for insurance and finance costs. Free collection of hot amateur and homemade scat porn clips. Nice girlfriends video tapes, interracial cuckold couples, swingers, webcamand, german, horny housewives with black bulls and many other videos updating every day. All of these home videos you`ll find on ScatNude.com The best of free Amateur Scat Porn watch online daily updates. To put those numbers in perspective, buying a $4 Starbucks latte every day costs $1,500 a year.
Summing Up
The 2015 Tundra’s EPA rated fuel economy is absolutely worse than the 2015 F-150’s rated fuel economy, but:
- Gas is cheap ($2.50 a gallon, currently)
- The new aluminum F-150 is more expensive than a similarly equipped Tundra
- Not every EcoBoost owner gets the mileage on the sticker
- Finance and insurance costs are higher on the F-150
It says here that any fuel economy savings from driving Ford’s new aluminum F-150 are minor. Don’t believe the hype.
Filed Under: TundraHeadquarters.com
If the 2015 Tundra got those mileage numbers I would buy one.
Well I certainly didn’t expect this to be the first comment! Not experiencing good gas mileage?
-Tim
The way one drives makes more difference in fuel mileage than the difference between the trucks. My understanding is the boosters are running pretty steady on the Ford’s because they can make V8 power and drivers use them that way. Go like a V8 and drink gas like one. My 5.7L doesn’t need to work hard or need me to prod the peddle for most use, I do it anyway as I like the get up and go, the sound and feel – I know I will pay at the pump for my enjoyment, and I am ok with it – it’s my choice.
Yes, if you hypermile the ford will win, big time… but how many drive like that day in day out for long enough to get the returns to be significant? why did they buy full size trucks instead of a prius?
I did not buy a 381hp V8 to hold people up behind me… I have power and use it. when I’m not working it, or in a hurry or needing to stretch a tank to make a distant gas station – I can squeeze 22mpg out of it on the highway and that’s enough for me. I wish it had a bigger tank, especially when towing.
Why can’t the insurance cost be determined? An F150 has already been sold, so insurance information must be available.
Also, an item to consider is overall reliability. One out-of-warranty repair can wipe out any savings in improved fuel economy.
Insurance depends on your area and driving history.
-Tim
That’s true, but not for a single driver comparing the cost of insurance for the two. In other words, “give me the rates for insuring vehicle 1 and vehicle 2”.
LJC,
Trust me, I tried to include insurance information. It is just too variable and would cause lots of arguments about insurance costs rather than fuel economy.
-Tim
Another BIG variable is maintenance cost………. Tundra’s are bulletproof……. Ecoboost well I guess you’ll only need to replace the heads every 20-30k since you cant clean the valves out (per ford) since they cant figure out how to not have issues with direct injection but I called this 3 years ago when they launched that POS motor
Give me Toyota’s 4.6 over both. Similar mileage to Fords 3.5 and is proven bullet proof!
4.6 here great engine
The millage numbers for the F150 are a total smoke screen. Who is going to drive without turbo boost which will turn the motor into a V8. Numbers From an F150 with a plain V6 and no turbos would would be more accurate since is simply can’t develop as much power. How many of those are going to be sole? Not enough be significant. If I was buying an aluminum f150 I would still get the V8 then it’s back to being the same as Tundra only a Tundra is a better truck.
At this point if Tundra is 1900 less, Toyota wins in the long term. They just need to update to direct injection.
Until we see real numbers from real drivers with V6 turbos, there is nothing new here.
I have a Fusion with the 1.6L Ecoboost and I am getting the advertised fuel economy with no problem. When I had my Tundra I also got the advertised fuel economy of 14/18. I don’t stomp on the gas, but I also don’t drive 55 everywhere I go. Obviously, if I am going 75 against a 20mph headwind the mileage decreases, but it did the same on my Tundra, too (would decrease to 12mpg in the unloaded Tundra). In short, I call BS on the 22mpg comment on the 5.7, unless you are always driving 55. No way you get 22 if you drive it at normal freeway speeds.
As a side note: It seems like this website is much more interested in smearing the F150 lately. Really? I thought this site was better than that. Is it a feeling of being threatened/little man syndrome kind of thing? Although I no longer own a Tundra I do enjoy this site for intelligent discussion about trucks. I stopped reading for about 6 months a couple years ago for similar trash talk. Might have to stop reading again. Sad day indeed.
BrianJ,
Don’t take this post wrong, we aren’t trying to “smear” Ford. My goal was simply to point out the difference in fuel savings.
-Tim
Two “identical” F150 EcoBoost coming off the assembly line in Detroit will get significantly different MPGs driving in different operating environments. It is all related to dew point and nothing else.
The Tundra 5.7 will always get better MPGs than the EcoBoost 3.5L when driven steady state 60 mph for 4 hours “at” dew point. At least that is true for the 2011-2014 EcoBoost models.
Neither Ford, the EPA, nor NHTSA test the EcoBoost engines for driving “at” dew point conditions; in other words, the “real world”.
Additionally the design of the EcoBoost includes the hydrocarbon build up which further reduces the EcoBoost MPGs over time. Those two conditions does not occur in the Tundra 5.7
Whether or not the condensation and hydrocarbon build up issues have been addressed by Ford with the 2015 model remains to be proven. AFAIK, they have provided no documentation that these fundamental design flaws have been corrected?
Where did you get the MPG ratings for the 2015 F150 4X4 with 3.5L V6 EcoBoost?
It should be 17/23/19 City/Highway/Combined.
You’ll need to redo your numbers!
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2.....mbers.html
Frank,
We got our numbers from Ford. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/11/21/f-150-fuel-economy.html
However, I see our mistake. I had originally started with 2wd as a comparison, but due to trying to get comparable trim levels and setup, I had to switch to 4wd. I’ll correct my mistake.
-Tim
Or a even more reliable source:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg.....rchtyp=ymm
Tim,
I think it’s hard to do real comparisons like this on paper only, there are just too many variables when you want to work in purchase price.
You can get WAY more off a Ford than you can off a toyota most times, so that has to factor in if your only going to look at purchase price.
Why not just get these two trucks and run them for a while on the same circuit with the same drivers and the same fuel. Time for tundraheadquarters to conduct an actual test 🙂
BB,
Your right that incentives play a key role and the math changes quite a bit at the dealership for your purchase. For this post, I thought it was incredibly interesting how little the actual savings is for the Ford over the course of year.
I did some other analysis that got edited out. Did you know the difference between a certain 2014 and 2015 Ford models is just 2 mpg? Over the course of a year, this works out to two extra fill ups at the gas station. Or about $115. This blew me away.
On the true comparison test. We would love to run them here, however, this site is considered “small potatoes” to the manufactures, so press vehicles for tests are few and far inbetween.
-Tim
also,
you have axle choices on the ford which can change things real world also
Definitely axle choices make a difference. I vaguely remember Toyota talking about offering more axle choices as one of the ways they could improve fuel economy. Nothing came out of it, so I haven’t done anything on it.
-Tim
you are also comparing base to base price similar models which may or may not be identical in terms of options apples vs. apples.
NO ONE can argue though the 5.7L V8 tundra is currently the worst 1/2 ton V8 truck on the market right on on MPG and that needs to be fixed soon.
There is NOT one reason as to why the tundra cannot improved to 20 avg mpg hwy. which it should by now easily. In my driving experience, the 2014 tundra identical to all my 2007, 2010, and 2012 identical tundras gets the worst avg mpg by about 1.5 less avg mpg than in all my previous identical tundras. That is MY real word driving experience and am NOT happy about it at all. 15-16 vs. 17-18 prior to me is a lot of gas savings apples to apples real world driving experience.
The dodge diesel (although gas cost of diesel sucks vs. normal gas now) is looking more and more promising since gets 20 city and 28-29 hwy which is awesome mpg.
my 2014 cab plus Tundra averaged 12.7 liters/100km at 100km/hr from Nipigon to Orillia in November of 2014It uses fuel bad if I play with it, beating Fords from the lights. but worth every dollar and what I will save in maintenance and aggravation, made the decision to by Toyota easy
Maintenance and repair are huge issues over fuel in the long run.
My neighbor purchased a used 6.7 F350 diesel for 32K (new would have been about 55K). He has spent 3000 on new injectors and 3000 on a new particulate filter and other smaller items also. Now he has a crack in the exhaust system at the turbo on 1 side. The repair requires removal of the entire cab, talk about stupid design. Estimate was around 7500. Truck now has about 190,000 on it. He is commuting about 120 miles a day and gets 18 highway MPG. After 38,000 for 2 years use plus over 20,000 in fuel 58,000 total, he has it for sale and is asking 16000 and the new owner will need to get the exhaust system fixed. A loss of 22,000 in 2 years. He has already replaced it with an f150 Ecoboot which will be yet another twin turbo maintenance trap. The fuel use of the 6.2 gas F250 would have been cheap compared to the cost of the Ford power stroke diesel. 42000 dollars for 2 years of use and he cashed out his 401k when he left his old job to get this truck to start a new business. He would have been better off with a 1950 6 cylinder flat bed which could only go 50 MPH.
By the time 10 years goes buy a Tundra would have saved him at least 15,000 even with the higher fuel consumption. Talk about pouring money down a hole. My old Toyota Truck went 19 years, cost 15,000 and at most I put 3000 into it in repairs and maintenance.
For those who are unhappy that Toyota is still running their old V8s, you are likely better off with a motor that works then a motor which is on the cover of a magazine.