Consumers rightly assume that Ford’s EcoBoost engines help with saving on fuel consumption, but according to Ward’s they do no such thing. Shrinking the size of an engine and adding a turbocharger has been a common way to boost the fuel economy of a number of vehicles without sacrificing performance.
A number of automotive journalists and Ford vehicle owners have remarked in the past that they do not see fuel savings with the EcoBoost engines. In the Ward’s report, the publication calls out the 2.3-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost engine featured in the 2015 Ford Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion, the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel from the Transit, and the 2.7-liter V-6 used in the 2015 F-150. In one test, the publication achieved 15.6 mpg using the 2.7-liter engine, which was a far cry from the 26 mpg Ford claims the engine achieves.
Ward’s had nothing nice to say about the 1.5-liter EcoBoost engine, considering it is billed as a budget-friendly alternative to hybrids. Despite several editors driving the Fusion, the best fuel economy any of them achieved was 29 mpg, which is hardly on par with modern hybrid powertrains.
When it came to the Mustang’s 2.3-liter engine, Ward’s called the design “a good effort” thanks to features like a twin-scroll low-inertia turbocharger. Certain editors squeezed a decent 25 mpg from the engine, making for a better result. The big complaint Ward’s had about the engine was its lack of a pleasing exhaust note, particularly at low engine revs, considering it is used in an iconic muscle car.
Not only did Ward’s shoot down Ford for supposedly overinflating fuel economy numbers, it also took the chance to explain why only one Ford engine made the publication’s 10 Best Engines list.