Yep, another 3.7 v6 MPG thread.
09-29-2013, 02:56 PM
#21
Member
Isn't this a relatively simple concept?
You have two fat people (each person is representing an F150.)
One person has a smaller, less powerful heart than the other. They both weigh the same and are the same size.
They both start out for a jog.... the guy with the smaller less powerful heart is working harder to pull around the same weight than the guy with the bigger more powerful heart.
It's simple... why do people think getting a large truck with a smaller, less powerful engine will net them higher MPG?
You have two fat people (each person is representing an F150.)
One person has a smaller, less powerful heart than the other. They both weigh the same and are the same size.
They both start out for a jog.... the guy with the smaller less powerful heart is working harder to pull around the same weight than the guy with the bigger more powerful heart.
It's simple... why do people think getting a large truck with a smaller, less powerful engine will net them higher MPG?
09-29-2013, 02:58 PM
#22
Member
Deep breath buddy, what did you really expect? You've got a very capable full size PU that gets 16-17.5 mpg, not bad IMO.
Mine is a 2012 SCAB XL 4x4, 16.5mpg over the past 8k miles. I tow a 17' boat a lot. Could not be happier. Beats my old ranger w/ the 4.0 by about an MPG and is WAY more powerful, comfy and roomy.
Mine is a 2012 SCAB XL 4x4, 16.5mpg over the past 8k miles. I tow a 17' boat a lot. Could not be happier. Beats my old ranger w/ the 4.0 by about an MPG and is WAY more powerful, comfy and roomy.
EDIT: My bad. I quoted the wrong person. LOL I meant to quote who wildscottish was replying to.
Last edited by rdkev; 09-29-2013 at 03:02 PM.
09-29-2013, 05:25 PM
#23
Isn't this a relatively simple concept? You have two fat people (each person is representing an F150.) One person has a smaller, less powerful heart than the other. They both weigh the same and are the same size. They both start out for a jog.... the guy with the smaller less powerful heart is working harder to pull around the same weight than the guy with the bigger more powerful heart. It's simple... why do people think getting a large truck with a smaller, less powerful engine will net them higher MPG?
09-29-2013, 06:06 PM
#24
Inebriated 4 ur safety
Also, EPA's tests don't go over 60 mph on their highway testing.
Last edited by Al Kohalic; 09-29-2013 at 06:37 PM.
10-01-2013, 02:56 PM
#25
I just made a 94 mile round trip on the freeway yesterday in my 3.7 screw and went 65 the whole time. I reset the average mpg on the dash at the beginning of the trip and it ended up being 23.4 when I got home. My ultragauge said 23.8. However I just recently got back from a trip to northern cali that lasted 2 weeks. My tanks averaged between 19-21 mpg going 70-75 mph. It was hard to get a full tank of highway driving because we would drive 300-400 miles on the freeway and then poke around in town which lowered my average for the tank. This thing could easily break the 500 mile barrier on a tank of highway driving. My city driving average is creeping up to 18 mpg now that I'm starting to break in 5000 miles.
10-02-2013, 12:45 AM
#26
Stevo the fish killer
Last summer we drove from Portland OR to Flathead Lake MT, drove around a bit for two days before I had to gas up, little over 760 miles. My rig has the 36 gallon tank, love that feature.
10-02-2013, 08:02 PM
#27
Hi All,
Let me just preempt any trolls here. I've read as many threads as possible on 3.7 MPG and haven't got all the info I wanted so if you're just going to post miserable responses, don't bother.
A secondary preempt - I bought the a truck because i wanted the flexibility a truck offers. With that said, i chose the 3.7 v6 because i was hoping to get a somewhat reasonable MPG. At least bottom end of the sticker. I don't feel i'm getting this and feel that i may as well have bought something with a bit more beef if i'm not going to reap the benefits of a less powerful engine. Now, I like the truck, i've had it a year and its generally been a pleasure to drive in. But, I'm disappointed with the MPG I'm getting.
Ok - So I have a 2013 XLT SCREW with the 3.7 v6 (rwd) engine, short bed. It has 10,000 miles on it.
I drive a mixture of highway and city in the DFW area (approx 50/50). I drove for the first 5000 miles or so with a pathetically light foot, to the point my wife complained. Average was around 16.8. The second 5k i drove normally. Lifetime MPG is 16.4 and i've never seen an increase in MPG after any period (break in). Infact the best MPG i ever got was on the way home from the dealership which was around 21 over a 50 mile highway drive. Since then i've never even got close.
I regularly drive between DFW and Eastland which has plenty of flat road but also some hills. Its 240 miles round trip and i've never got more than 17.5. I've tried anything from 60mph to 80mph and see minimal difference in MPG.
I watch my realtime MPG bar continuously and have to say aside from the day i drove it home, the only time i could even get it over 20MPG in realtime is if was driving down hill and not touching the gas pedal.
Now, If i had read all these threads and found that people with the same engine were getting similar numbers i would probably have just accepted it as is. But, i'm seeing people quoting city numbers better than my highway. I'm seeing 4x4 owners with similar or better numbers and its a little hard to digest. 20mpg is something i can only dream of.
I've had 2 oil changes/ light services during that 10k and all is apparently well.
So - Firstly, anyone with a similar config, please post some numbers for me. I'd like to see whats the norm. It appears i'm on the low side.
Secondly - Any thoughts on what it could be ? Anything i can do to try and improve it. If I drive any slower i'll get pulled over.
Thanks for reading such a long post.
Let me just preempt any trolls here. I've read as many threads as possible on 3.7 MPG and haven't got all the info I wanted so if you're just going to post miserable responses, don't bother.
A secondary preempt - I bought the a truck because i wanted the flexibility a truck offers. With that said, i chose the 3.7 v6 because i was hoping to get a somewhat reasonable MPG. At least bottom end of the sticker. I don't feel i'm getting this and feel that i may as well have bought something with a bit more beef if i'm not going to reap the benefits of a less powerful engine. Now, I like the truck, i've had it a year and its generally been a pleasure to drive in. But, I'm disappointed with the MPG I'm getting.
Ok - So I have a 2013 XLT SCREW with the 3.7 v6 (rwd) engine, short bed. It has 10,000 miles on it.
I drive a mixture of highway and city in the DFW area (approx 50/50). I drove for the first 5000 miles or so with a pathetically light foot, to the point my wife complained. Average was around 16.8. The second 5k i drove normally. Lifetime MPG is 16.4 and i've never seen an increase in MPG after any period (break in). Infact the best MPG i ever got was on the way home from the dealership which was around 21 over a 50 mile highway drive. Since then i've never even got close.
I regularly drive between DFW and Eastland which has plenty of flat road but also some hills. Its 240 miles round trip and i've never got more than 17.5. I've tried anything from 60mph to 80mph and see minimal difference in MPG.
I watch my realtime MPG bar continuously and have to say aside from the day i drove it home, the only time i could even get it over 20MPG in realtime is if was driving down hill and not touching the gas pedal.
Now, If i had read all these threads and found that people with the same engine were getting similar numbers i would probably have just accepted it as is. But, i'm seeing people quoting city numbers better than my highway. I'm seeing 4x4 owners with similar or better numbers and its a little hard to digest. 20mpg is something i can only dream of.
I've had 2 oil changes/ light services during that 10k and all is apparently well.
So - Firstly, anyone with a similar config, please post some numbers for me. I'd like to see whats the norm. It appears i'm on the low side.
Secondly - Any thoughts on what it could be ? Anything i can do to try and improve it. If I drive any slower i'll get pulled over.
Thanks for reading such a long post.
Your mileage sucks, frankly.
10-02-2013, 08:07 PM
#28
Isn't this a relatively simple concept?
You have two fat people (each person is representing an F150.)
One person has a smaller, less powerful heart than the other. They both weigh the same and are the same size.
They both start out for a jog.... the guy with the smaller less powerful heart is working harder to pull around the same weight than the guy with the bigger more powerful heart.
It's simple... why do people think getting a large truck with a smaller, less powerful engine will net them higher MPG?
You have two fat people (each person is representing an F150.)
One person has a smaller, less powerful heart than the other. They both weigh the same and are the same size.
They both start out for a jog.... the guy with the smaller less powerful heart is working harder to pull around the same weight than the guy with the bigger more powerful heart.
It's simple... why do people think getting a large truck with a smaller, less powerful engine will net them higher MPG?
What a dumb post. Smaller engines are lighter and have less pumping losses and internal friction, and comparing apples to apples do get better mileage. Which, quite simply is why they test out better by all independant tests.
As for the fat guy / heart example; Comparing physiology to mechanics is just, well, dumb.
Furthermore, and goof that thinks 300hp and a FLAT torque output from 2100 rpm to 6000 rpm, and a 6 speed trans is somehow inadequate needs to give there head a shake.
Inevitabye this is going to turn into the small ***** / bigger engine crowd beating their chests and justifying the "other" reasons the bigger engine options are better.
Last edited by isthatahemi; 10-02-2013 at 08:12 PM.
10-08-2013, 02:08 PM
#29
Senior Member
I've got a'12 RCSB 3.7L, which had been getting 17.5 running around home in PA, so a lot of small hills. It has dropped to 17.2, probably because of winter additives. ??
One thing, which I don't believe, has been mentioned, is the emission configuration of your trucks. While my truck originated in PA, it has Emission: With California/Green State Req. I don't know why, but I'd bet that makes the MPG suffer a bit.
One thing I noticed, when I kicked it down, a short while back, is that it has more get up and go, than my 2007 screw with a 5.4L! ... or, at least, it surprised me.
One thing, which I don't believe, has been mentioned, is the emission configuration of your trucks. While my truck originated in PA, it has Emission: With California/Green State Req. I don't know why, but I'd bet that makes the MPG suffer a bit.
One thing I noticed, when I kicked it down, a short while back, is that it has more get up and go, than my 2007 screw with a 5.4L! ... or, at least, it surprised me.