2017 Ford F150 3.5L Ecoboost Gas Mileage
02-13-2018, 08:38 AM
#61
Senior Member
Mine is not a 2017 but a 2015 w/6 speed and Max Tow package.
I get 21-22 mpg regularly during non winter climate which is within 1 mpg of the EPA estimate.
That being said, when my wife drives it, same truck same roads she gets 2 mpg less.
I get 21-22 mpg regularly during non winter climate which is within 1 mpg of the EPA estimate.
That being said, when my wife drives it, same truck same roads she gets 2 mpg less.
The following users liked this post:
Ricktwuhk (02-13-2018)
02-13-2018, 08:47 AM
#62
Geography also matters. Last summer, went from the smokies (lots of elevation change) to the texas gulf coast.
Close to 100% highway/cruise control (79/80mph):
Avg mpg Tennessee to NOLA: 18.1
Avg mpg NOLA to Galveston: 21.0
Avg mpg Galveston to Mobile: 21.4
Avg mpg Mobile to Atlanta: 18.6
Also of interest:
All city driving MPG in Galveston, including lots of idling and towing: 14.9
All city driving in Atlanta: 12.1
Mods in sig.
Close to 100% highway/cruise control (79/80mph):
Avg mpg Tennessee to NOLA: 18.1
Avg mpg NOLA to Galveston: 21.0
Avg mpg Galveston to Mobile: 21.4
Avg mpg Mobile to Atlanta: 18.6
Also of interest:
All city driving MPG in Galveston, including lots of idling and towing: 14.9
All city driving in Atlanta: 12.1
Mods in sig.
02-13-2018, 08:58 AM
#63
I think a little perspective could be valuable here. We could be getting 15 or 16 mpg in a Ram or GM (according to fuelly). On average I'm probably 6 mpg better than my old 5.4 F-150 and even beats my old daily driver SUV. So even though the Ford mpg claims, and the display in the truck, are total BS I'm still happy about the fuel economy.
02-13-2018, 09:35 AM
#64
Senior Member
I know they are realistic numbers. My point is, Ford Clearly states it will get 23 mpg hwy. That is an out an out lie. I have kept it at 65 mph for 500 miles, with 93 octane and barley got 20 mpg.
The MPG claim is part of why I went Ford vice GMC Denali. My last two GMC with 6.0 V8 motors, 4x4 crew cabs got what GMC claimed for hwy MPG. So if it held true for 2017, the Denali I was looking at would get 2 mpg better than this truck with a motor almost twice the size and a 6 speed transmission. My old GMC got 1 mpg less then my new F-150, but was rated for 4 less mpg then the new truck.
I too try to conserve fuel. Ford should have to back up their claims or put a more accurate number on the window sticker. Hwy mpg on the window sticker should be 19 mpg.
The MPG claim is part of why I went Ford vice GMC Denali. My last two GMC with 6.0 V8 motors, 4x4 crew cabs got what GMC claimed for hwy MPG. So if it held true for 2017, the Denali I was looking at would get 2 mpg better than this truck with a motor almost twice the size and a 6 speed transmission. My old GMC got 1 mpg less then my new F-150, but was rated for 4 less mpg then the new truck.
I too try to conserve fuel. Ford should have to back up their claims or put a more accurate number on the window sticker. Hwy mpg on the window sticker should be 19 mpg.
Try driving at 55 mph on a flat road, with cruise control on, in the summer, with regular (non-winter) gas.
#FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS #IT'SATRUCK
02-13-2018, 11:25 AM
#66
You guys do realize the EPA test is based on the lightest configuration possible with gearing designed to get the best MPG, right? You don't see a different MPG on an XL compared to a loaded Limited which you know is going to weigh a whole lot more than an XL.
Case in point, my 14 weighed 20 pounds less than my 16, was RWD and had 3.15 gears and could get 20-21 all day long, best being 24 MPG doing 55. My 16 has 3.55 is 4WD and gets 3 MPG less. It's all in the gearing and weight. It is also based on which configuration would be sold the most on average, which one that would be, unknown, but most likely the XL Scab SB.
Case in point, my 14 weighed 20 pounds less than my 16, was RWD and had 3.15 gears and could get 20-21 all day long, best being 24 MPG doing 55. My 16 has 3.55 is 4WD and gets 3 MPG less. It's all in the gearing and weight. It is also based on which configuration would be sold the most on average, which one that would be, unknown, but most likely the XL Scab SB.
02-13-2018, 03:15 PM
#68
Based more on GVWR and drive train than body style. If you look at the ratings,
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymo...0_Pickup.shtml
they list if by drive train, engine, tire type, and GVWR.
What you don't see is trim line, rear gearing, etc. These are what define how well it will do for real world MPG. My 14 was rated 16-22 with an average of 18, mine got 20 in the summer, and when combined with winter and a lot of towing it averaged 17.6. It was within .4 MPG of EPA. It was a 501a RWD with 3.15 gears, pretty much what Ford would have used to test as a base model minus the Lariat trim. http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2014/acdii/363128
My 16 though, is also rated at 16, 22, 18 but is 4WD, up 1 MPG across the board from the 2014 4WD, but what I am getting is not what I got with the 14, even though rated the same. Mine is a 502a with 3.55 gears. It is averaging 17 with no where near as much towing, driven the same as the last truck, same roads, same amount of driving, but not even close to the same MPG. http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2016/acdii/551751
Best tank on the 14 was 24 MPG, best on the 16, 20.4 MPG, what I would normally see on the 14.
You can compare the two trucks and see how they did with real numbers, not dash readouts.
There isn't much variance other than engine, drive, GVWR and tires with the EPA, there is even one for the HDPP. Tire type does play a role as you can see with the LT and non LT ratings, but only on highway.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymo...0_Pickup.shtml
they list if by drive train, engine, tire type, and GVWR.
What you don't see is trim line, rear gearing, etc. These are what define how well it will do for real world MPG. My 14 was rated 16-22 with an average of 18, mine got 20 in the summer, and when combined with winter and a lot of towing it averaged 17.6. It was within .4 MPG of EPA. It was a 501a RWD with 3.15 gears, pretty much what Ford would have used to test as a base model minus the Lariat trim. http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2014/acdii/363128
My 16 though, is also rated at 16, 22, 18 but is 4WD, up 1 MPG across the board from the 2014 4WD, but what I am getting is not what I got with the 14, even though rated the same. Mine is a 502a with 3.55 gears. It is averaging 17 with no where near as much towing, driven the same as the last truck, same roads, same amount of driving, but not even close to the same MPG. http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2016/acdii/551751
Best tank on the 14 was 24 MPG, best on the 16, 20.4 MPG, what I would normally see on the 14.
You can compare the two trucks and see how they did with real numbers, not dash readouts.
There isn't much variance other than engine, drive, GVWR and tires with the EPA, there is even one for the HDPP. Tire type does play a role as you can see with the LT and non LT ratings, but only on highway.
02-13-2018, 04:18 PM
#69
Ok that's some good info. So if I understand correctly gearing and trim and options (weight) are not accounted for in the EPA numbers. I didn't see cab/bed as a variable either.....unless payload or GVRW reflects that. I can see how Ford could work the system with there being a such a huge difference in models available. But it seems like there is something missing here. If I recall correctly manufacturers have been penalized for unreasonable ratings before and I don't think Ford would want to invite that by missing badly.
02-13-2018, 04:23 PM
#70
Senior Member
2018 SCREW 4x4 3.5 TT 5.5 box (same powertrain as 2017)
North Carolina - 200ft elevation
Winter
93 octane
Stop and go traffic commuting to work
600 miles on the truck
19.5 MPG on the dream-o-meter (using start/stop feature)
North Carolina - 200ft elevation
Winter
93 octane
Stop and go traffic commuting to work
600 miles on the truck
19.5 MPG on the dream-o-meter (using start/stop feature)