Wards Auto Questions Eco Credentials of Ford’s EcoBoost Engines

While Ford’s line of new turbocharged EcoBoost engines has won a lot of praise, some (yours truly included) have struggled to get near what the manufacturer claimed they could do in terms of economy.

If you’ve watched reviews of EcoBoost-equipped models, you’ll undoubtedly have noticed these are hardly ever praised for being especially frugal.

Now, Wards Auto has come out and overtly stated that it thinks the Eco in the name does not deserve its place there. The publication argues that it’s impossible to achieve the manufacturer claimed numbers, even if all you do is tickle the throttle.

Its main example is the new 2.7-liter V6. While this engine features all manner of mechanical and electronic innovations, efficiency is not great – remember the Cadillac Escalade versus Lincoln Navigator EcoBoost comparative review? The Navigator fared worse for economy than its V8-powered rival which featured cylinder deactivation.

Wards says several of its editors drove an all-wheel drive F-150 equipped with the 2.7-liter, and none were able to get anywhere near what Ford claimed it could do – they posted a low of 17.6 mpg US (13.3 l/100km) and a high of 19 mpg US (12.2 l/100km).

A two-wheel drive F-150 with the smallest turbo V6 is quoted as being able to get 26 mpg US (9 l/100km). Now even with the lower efficiency of the all-wheel drive, the discrepancy is still noticeable.

The source has a bone to pick with most EcoBoost engines, but it’s the 2.7 (pictured) that really seems to tick them off…