Hypermiling an EcoBoost (might have been posted before)
02-12-2012, 06:52 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Central PA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been major improvments in truck MPG but you get what you get. If you wanted crazy amounts of MPG then buy the right tool for the job.
That is all that I am saying. Seems too many people bought into Dennis Leary and the MPG hype of the EB. All the motors are getting great milage for what they are.
That is all that I am saying. Seems too many people bought into Dennis Leary and the MPG hype of the EB. All the motors are getting great milage for what they are.
If we are all going to be really honest, we would admit the eco does not really get great gas mileage. It's no better than any of my previous 5.4s. It pulls my 9k+ cargo trailer much better than the 5.4, but returns near the same mpg.
The only way I get unloaded fuel economy that is any better than my 5.4s had been in the past, is to drive with my eye on the instant fuel economy meter. Driving in this style is painful for me. I may be able to get 21 on the hgwy if I keep it at 70mph. I actually think my 5.4s did better around town and short trips than my eco does.
02-12-2012, 07:25 PM
#23
Senior Member
If I had the 36 gallon tank I would have done that earlier today. With the 26 gallon tank I filled up and it said 431 miles to empty. With another 10 gallons at an average of almost 18 mpg it would have been approximately 610 miles to empty. Oh how I would have loved to see that. But 400+ miles per tank is still a nice thing to see.
02-13-2012, 08:34 AM
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I've reached as high as 27.X mpg on my 25 mile commute to work by incorporating some techniques into normal driving. If you rode with me, you wouldn't even have noticed. This was running 65-70 on the Interstate, so I can see where 30+ is easily doable.
One of my pet peeves is when people say that they keep the rpm's down, drive like there's an egg on the throttle, drive like a grandma, etc. . . when they're all concentrating on the wrong pedal. Acceleration isn't where you stand to gain or lose a whole lot of mpg's. It's the braking that makes the big difference. Maximizing coasting nets the biggest gains for me, followed by drafting, followed by not unnecessarily accelerating (accelerating up to a red light, for instance), followed by driving slower (I don't drive under the speed limit).
Also, as a side note, we rented a Mercedes B Class in Belgium a couple years ago. It had a standard transmission and it actually killed the engine any time you had it in neutral with the clutch engaged and throttle at idle. The instant you touch the clutch pedal, it started the engine. I tried my hardest to exploit the obvious potential flaw (not starting fast enough) and couldn't manage to push in the clutch, put it in 1st, and let go of the clutch before it got the engine started.
One of my pet peeves is when people say that they keep the rpm's down, drive like there's an egg on the throttle, drive like a grandma, etc. . . when they're all concentrating on the wrong pedal. Acceleration isn't where you stand to gain or lose a whole lot of mpg's. It's the braking that makes the big difference. Maximizing coasting nets the biggest gains for me, followed by drafting, followed by not unnecessarily accelerating (accelerating up to a red light, for instance), followed by driving slower (I don't drive under the speed limit).
Also, as a side note, we rented a Mercedes B Class in Belgium a couple years ago. It had a standard transmission and it actually killed the engine any time you had it in neutral with the clutch engaged and throttle at idle. The instant you touch the clutch pedal, it started the engine. I tried my hardest to exploit the obvious potential flaw (not starting fast enough) and couldn't manage to push in the clutch, put it in 1st, and let go of the clutch before it got the engine started.
As for trying to get the best MPG you can within reason...I can't see any negatives
02-13-2012, 10:11 AM
#26
Senior Member
Thread Starter
OK...this morning I made the return trip back to my office. Cold Engine, Rain, Morning Traffic...results 17.4MPG. Different conditions and it is definitely uphill from my house to my office. SO...the combined round trip from my ending 31.2 yesterday and my ending 17.4 this morning yields a respectable 24.3MPG which I can definitely live with. In all reality I can usually get 18-19 city without all the "effort" but an `27% increase from employing some easy techniques ain't bad
NOW I want to take it to the drag strip
NOW I want to take it to the drag strip
02-13-2012, 06:17 PM
#27
Official Member: Vast RWC
Unloaded?? Absolutely 100% untrue.
I had a 2000 Expedition that absolutely would not do better than 14-15 mpg.
My eco blows that away with ease.
02-13-2012, 08:17 PM
#28
Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Central PA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I'm lying.
Anyway, it is true for the 5 or so 5.4 L F-150's I have owned. All have been the same build, Max Tow, 3.73 SCREW. A couple have had the 6.5' bed a majority the 5.5' bed. All the 5.4s have returned around 18 mpg hgwy unloaded, around 8mpg towing around 7k. My ECO gives me 17.4 @75mph unloaded.
I always find it interesting that people find the need to say others experience is not true/impossible. Also FWIW my buddy has a SCAB 6.5' bed ECO with 3.73s that was built a couple weeks before mine. He gets almost identical mileage as i do with my ECO.
The Expedition is a notorious gas hog, I mean look at that lead sled.
05-05-2013, 02:22 AM
#29
Ford first timer.
I don't think there is anything wrong with buying a truck for its use-ability, but at the same time trying to be smart enough to save money by driving smart - not extreme hypermiling - just smart.
I am a new 2013 Ecoboost owner and on my first tank I have made 908km despite being a little heavy footed (hey come on... its new ! lol). My total liters/100 km has worked out to 14.8/100 km.
Engine break in driving (varying speeds, no cruise control - NO TOWING...yet) and I am pretty happy so far.
My best run has been a slight tail wind, 25 minutes, just under 90 km/h and the computer was reading 7.2-8.6 L/100 km - consistently. RPMs were sitting at about 1100.
This trucks low torque lets me run really well in 6th gear without getting the revs up & still having a nice push on the highway.
**oh, I forgot to mention, thats with the 5'7" box and the 3.73:1 rear end & heavy tow package. I'm smiling still.
I can't wait till after 1st oil change.
For the record, my 1999 Pathfinder that I drove amazingly smooth as well bested 475 km on 75 liters, all highway. Horrible.
Here's a few things that have worked for some guys who work the mathematics out:
I am a new 2013 Ecoboost owner and on my first tank I have made 908km despite being a little heavy footed (hey come on... its new ! lol). My total liters/100 km has worked out to 14.8/100 km.
Engine break in driving (varying speeds, no cruise control - NO TOWING...yet) and I am pretty happy so far.
My best run has been a slight tail wind, 25 minutes, just under 90 km/h and the computer was reading 7.2-8.6 L/100 km - consistently. RPMs were sitting at about 1100.
This trucks low torque lets me run really well in 6th gear without getting the revs up & still having a nice push on the highway.
**oh, I forgot to mention, thats with the 5'7" box and the 3.73:1 rear end & heavy tow package. I'm smiling still.
I can't wait till after 1st oil change.
For the record, my 1999 Pathfinder that I drove amazingly smooth as well bested 475 km on 75 liters, all highway. Horrible.
Here's a few things that have worked for some guys who work the mathematics out:
The hypermiling mavens from CleanMPG.com have completed a 2,500-mile cross-country trip in a 2011 Ford F-150 SuperCrew using just three tanks of gas. They squeezed an astonishing 32.281 miles per gallon from the EcoBoost-powered half-ton.
During our recent twin F-150 EcoBoost road test, we averaged 21 mpg with an empty truck. So how'd CleanMPG wring another 11 mpg from the 365 horsepower, 420 pounds-feet of torque gasoline twin-turbo direct-injection V-6? By driving the most efficient configuration slowly.
CleanMPG drove a two-wheel drive model from California to Georgia with a conservative 3.15 rear axle for maximum fuel economy. That doesn't mean they didn't use the truck like it was meant to be used. There were five adults in the pickup for most of the journey plus a cargo box full of camping gear and supplies that pushed the F-150's gross vehicle weight to 7,120 pounds -- 20 pounds over its 7,100-pound GVWR.
Here's a look at CleanMPG's observed Interstate highway steady state fuel economy at different speeds:
70-mph - 22.3 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
60-mph - 25.5 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
50-mph - 31.6 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
45-mph - 33.9 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
40-mph - 32.6 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
Another interesting fact -- CleanMPG squeezed 36 gallons of gasoline into the F-150's 26 gallon factory fuel system by following a slow fill approach that utilized all of the gas vapor space in the tank and fuel lines. This required up to an hour to trickle fuel into the truck.
For more details and a full recap of the trip, head over to CleanMPG.
During our recent twin F-150 EcoBoost road test, we averaged 21 mpg with an empty truck. So how'd CleanMPG wring another 11 mpg from the 365 horsepower, 420 pounds-feet of torque gasoline twin-turbo direct-injection V-6? By driving the most efficient configuration slowly.
CleanMPG drove a two-wheel drive model from California to Georgia with a conservative 3.15 rear axle for maximum fuel economy. That doesn't mean they didn't use the truck like it was meant to be used. There were five adults in the pickup for most of the journey plus a cargo box full of camping gear and supplies that pushed the F-150's gross vehicle weight to 7,120 pounds -- 20 pounds over its 7,100-pound GVWR.
Here's a look at CleanMPG's observed Interstate highway steady state fuel economy at different speeds:
70-mph - 22.3 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
60-mph - 25.5 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
50-mph - 31.6 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
45-mph - 33.9 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
40-mph - 32.6 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
Another interesting fact -- CleanMPG squeezed 36 gallons of gasoline into the F-150's 26 gallon factory fuel system by following a slow fill approach that utilized all of the gas vapor space in the tank and fuel lines. This required up to an hour to trickle fuel into the truck.
For more details and a full recap of the trip, head over to CleanMPG.
Last edited by Coho; 05-05-2013 at 02:36 AM.
05-05-2013, 03:49 AM
#30
"Gerdes was surprised when he did his standard hypermiler fill-up and pumped in around 36 gallons. See, Gerdes knows that there's only one way to be sure how much fuel you've burned: accurate numbers."
Whether you fill up 26, 36, 105, 2, whatever; accurate numbers are on your receipt, not on your E->F fuel gauge. Am I to understand that there experiment was done based on the truck computers reported MPGs? Does the computer always assume F means only 26 gallons? I feel like I'm missing something here.
I use an app to track mileage, and of course part of that is reading the odometer and recording what it says. But the amount of fuel I've burned is determined by the amount I put in the tank, as seen on the pump/receipt compared to the amount on previous fills referenced against the odometer. This can be done no matter what size tank you have or how much you fill that tank.
I understand that part of this experiment was to do the entire country in less than 3 tanks, but that could have easily been accomplished by putting a XXX gallon fuel tank in. Again, I feel like I am missing something here. Far too many midnight shifts in a row now and maybe the obvious is right in front of me. I won't even begin to get into the liability of this style of driving......
Whether you fill up 26, 36, 105, 2, whatever; accurate numbers are on your receipt, not on your E->F fuel gauge. Am I to understand that there experiment was done based on the truck computers reported MPGs? Does the computer always assume F means only 26 gallons? I feel like I'm missing something here.
I use an app to track mileage, and of course part of that is reading the odometer and recording what it says. But the amount of fuel I've burned is determined by the amount I put in the tank, as seen on the pump/receipt compared to the amount on previous fills referenced against the odometer. This can be done no matter what size tank you have or how much you fill that tank.
I understand that part of this experiment was to do the entire country in less than 3 tanks, but that could have easily been accomplished by putting a XXX gallon fuel tank in. Again, I feel like I am missing something here. Far too many midnight shifts in a row now and maybe the obvious is right in front of me. I won't even begin to get into the liability of this style of driving......