The thing I hate about my 5.0
06-16-2011, 04:45 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Camp Pendleton, California
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by spdmpo
The thing with these dumb mpg gallon threads is people keep taking pictures of the instrument cluster readout. I can hit the reset button going 70 down a grade and make the mpg show anything I want for the short term. It's a useful tool to see how you're doing once you get a base, nothing more. Until people start quoting the mpg long term from tank to tank measured by miles / gallons none of it means jack squat.
There's 2 trip meters on my '11 that measure gallons used and miles driven, that is more useful information because i can reset at fillup. The gallons used is surprisingly pretty accurate compared to what I just pumped in.
There's 2 trip meters on my '11 that measure gallons used and miles driven, that is more useful information because i can reset at fillup. The gallons used is surprisingly pretty accurate compared to what I just pumped in.
06-16-2011, 05:57 PM
#23
Ford Master Certified
Thread Starter
Fx2 will have 3.31 or 3.55 gears....so obviously the 3.31's will show better mpgs.
so when ur at 2000 rpms going 70 mph. hes probably at 1700 or 1600 rpms going same speed. if he has the 3.31s
Also you need to take into fact that you have some around town driving on that tank. you can see ur green graph is up above the avg line in both pictures. probably around the 16-17-18 mpg range. So just cuz ur avg is 14.2 as the computer says, that doesn't mean that's what you are getting at that instant.
air up your tires some. and try slowing down to around 68 or so. seems to be a sweet spot on some 5.0s.
*edit* just saw thta you have an FX2 as well, what gears do you have? looks like ur having about the same rpms at 70mph as my Fx4 with 3.73s.
so when ur at 2000 rpms going 70 mph. hes probably at 1700 or 1600 rpms going same speed. if he has the 3.31s
Also you need to take into fact that you have some around town driving on that tank. you can see ur green graph is up above the avg line in both pictures. probably around the 16-17-18 mpg range. So just cuz ur avg is 14.2 as the computer says, that doesn't mean that's what you are getting at that instant.
air up your tires some. and try slowing down to around 68 or so. seems to be a sweet spot on some 5.0s.
*edit* just saw thta you have an FX2 as well, what gears do you have? looks like ur having about the same rpms at 70mph as my Fx4 with 3.73s.
Theres got to be some wind, or you were going uphill the first run and it was starting to make its way back up going the other way. I dont usually drive 70, but 18-20 isnt that hard for me without wind. At 60-65 I can easily pull over 20 and I have 3.73 but 18's instead of 20's. Hell, I was at 12.5 doing 65 pulling almost 11,000 pounds (yeah I got pictures to prove it) so there is deffenitely something wrong with 14.2.
The thing with these dumb mpg gallon threads is people keep taking pictures of the instrument cluster readout. I can hit the reset button going 70 down a grade and make the mpg show anything I want for the short term. It's a useful tool to see how you're doing once you get a base, nothing more. Until people start quoting the mpg long term from tank to tank measured by miles / gallons none of it means jack squat.
There's 2 trip meters on my '11 that measure gallons used and miles driven, that is more useful information because i can reset at fillup. The gallons used is surprisingly pretty accurate compared to what I just pumped in.
There's 2 trip meters on my '11 that measure gallons used and miles driven, that is more useful information because i can reset at fillup. The gallons used is surprisingly pretty accurate compared to what I just pumped in.
06-16-2011, 06:33 PM
#25
Senior Member
For reference:
22 hours of drive time, 875 miles, 50 gallons used. This is in all types of conditions. Empty on the highway, towing 7000# for 350 of those miles, and mixed driving empty. This is real world over the long haul. Obviously some tanks were better than others.
22 hours of drive time, 875 miles, 50 gallons used. This is in all types of conditions. Empty on the highway, towing 7000# for 350 of those miles, and mixed driving empty. This is real world over the long haul. Obviously some tanks were better than others.
06-16-2011, 06:53 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that bad
I get about 16mpg on the average with mixed driving, i am not a lead foot but do hit the gas here or there to get around people, i drive a lot a traffic here in Los Angeles. It is a 2011 5.0 with 3.73 gears and running stock 265/70r17 tires. On a long distance drive 600 miles pulling a small trailer with about 1000lbs and 500lbs in bed I got about 17mpg. All this with only doing 65mph. I went out to vagas to visit family towing nothing doing around 80mph and got only 15mpg. When you are going over 70mph on this 5.0 they suck the gas up. Slow down to about 65 or so and you will see alot better mpg.
06-16-2011, 07:02 PM
#27
I`m impressed by the way the 5.0s run..we had one as a rental and until I lifted the hood and actually saw the surpentine moving, the truck could have been shut off for all the engine noise it made..
I was also impressed with the power it had..a friend of mine just bought the EB F150 and for me it is too complicated looking under the hood..I have always been kind of leary about turbo`d gas engines for some reason...
I was also impressed with the power it had..a friend of mine just bought the EB F150 and for me it is too complicated looking under the hood..I have always been kind of leary about turbo`d gas engines for some reason...
06-16-2011, 07:29 PM
#29
Well, I'm almost 50 now and Daddy is dead so I guess it is speculation...I just remember the problems with turbos in the old days I guess...they are probably much better...
The old man drove a '66 F100 with a 302 Boss engine in it we put in together..we had a beef ranch at the time and he always turned heads going to the cattlemens' meetings in that thing....
I dunno, I guess the EB engine could be good, I saw it featured on the "Top Gear" show and they really liked it...why they wouldn't have twin turbo'd the 5.0 I could only guess-now that would rip....
The old man drove a '66 F100 with a 302 Boss engine in it we put in together..we had a beef ranch at the time and he always turned heads going to the cattlemens' meetings in that thing....
I dunno, I guess the EB engine could be good, I saw it featured on the "Top Gear" show and they really liked it...why they wouldn't have twin turbo'd the 5.0 I could only guess-now that would rip....
