Ecoboost mileage
03-23-2017, 12:54 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Ecoboost mileage
I am on my third Ecoboost truck. All were set up exactly the same with 6.5 foot bed.
My first Ecoboost was either the first or second year they had that engine. It was the best one, getting 19.5 mpg lifetime of the truck. Also seemed to have more power. I drove it some 60,000 miles.
The next two, a 2013 and now a 2014 did not get near that mileage. The lifetime of the current 2014 with 46,000 miles is only 17.2. It is especially bad when it is cold. All were driven just about the same destinations.
What did Ford do to cause less mileage with their newer trucks ?
My first Ecoboost was either the first or second year they had that engine. It was the best one, getting 19.5 mpg lifetime of the truck. Also seemed to have more power. I drove it some 60,000 miles.
The next two, a 2013 and now a 2014 did not get near that mileage. The lifetime of the current 2014 with 46,000 miles is only 17.2. It is especially bad when it is cold. All were driven just about the same destinations.
What did Ford do to cause less mileage with their newer trucks ?
03-23-2017, 02:32 PM
#2
Senior Member
Exactly the same....all with the same rear gear ratio?
03-23-2017, 02:42 PM
#3
The EB is a finicky engine, and very sensitive to input and output. Tires can make a huge difference. My 16 with the OEM Goodyear Wrangler LT's will get about 17 MPG, but with older 20" Bridgestone duellers will get close to 19 MPG. Those same Duellers on a 14 RWD got it 20 MPG, but Blizzaks on that truck got it 17.
Weather, fuel, and right foot training account for another large portion of it. By right foot training, I mean in how you trained the engine from the start. If you were less likely to hammer it, you may have trained it for a better fuel use curve than if you were more aggressive. Weight and gearing are the third factor. What worked on one truck, most likely will not work on another.
Weather, fuel, and right foot training account for another large portion of it. By right foot training, I mean in how you trained the engine from the start. If you were less likely to hammer it, you may have trained it for a better fuel use curve than if you were more aggressive. Weight and gearing are the third factor. What worked on one truck, most likely will not work on another.
03-24-2017, 09:58 AM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The first two Ecoboost trucks had 3.5 gear ratio. One got 19.5 lifetime mileage, the other one 17.4.
My current 2014 has the 3.21 or what ever it is, gear ratio but it is no better, then 17.4 also. I drive for mileage. Only way I drive. I have a notebook and keep track of every tank, cost, gallons and mpg. I have all three of my Ecoboost trucks in this notebook. The first truck beats the other two by at least 2 mpg.
All are set up exactly the same (except for the newest gear ratio), and driven the same way I always drive on the same trips I make. I make a lot of 300 mile round trips across Ohio and the first truck always got 20 t0 21 mpg on this trip. The two newer trucks usually get around 17mpg, some times in the 16 mpg.
My current 2014 has the 3.21 or what ever it is, gear ratio but it is no better, then 17.4 also. I drive for mileage. Only way I drive. I have a notebook and keep track of every tank, cost, gallons and mpg. I have all three of my Ecoboost trucks in this notebook. The first truck beats the other two by at least 2 mpg.
All are set up exactly the same (except for the newest gear ratio), and driven the same way I always drive on the same trips I make. I make a lot of 300 mile round trips across Ohio and the first truck always got 20 t0 21 mpg on this trip. The two newer trucks usually get around 17mpg, some times in the 16 mpg.
Last edited by deerhunter42; 03-24-2017 at 10:02 AM.
03-24-2017, 12:29 PM
#5
Tires certainly can make a difference. When I put Pirelli Scorpions on a previous truck, same stock size, the truck lost a full MPG until I replaced them.
But I also think there's just enough variances in the tolerances of the engine and drive-train that accounts for different fuel economy in trucks of the same year, or different years of the same model. I remember owning a 98 bare bones Ranger with the 3.0 that never got above 17 mpg. I sold it and bought a 98 loaded Ranger with the 4.0 that consistently gave me 18-18.5 mpg. Same gear ratio, same extended cab 4x4 5-speed, but heavier due to AC and electric windows and locks and more displacement and I always got better fuel economy.
But I also think there's just enough variances in the tolerances of the engine and drive-train that accounts for different fuel economy in trucks of the same year, or different years of the same model. I remember owning a 98 bare bones Ranger with the 3.0 that never got above 17 mpg. I sold it and bought a 98 loaded Ranger with the 4.0 that consistently gave me 18-18.5 mpg. Same gear ratio, same extended cab 4x4 5-speed, but heavier due to AC and electric windows and locks and more displacement and I always got better fuel economy.
03-24-2017, 12:42 PM
#6
There were changes to both the intercooler and turbos between a 11/12 and 13/14. I believe the 13's got new turbos and went from mechanical to electronic blow off vavles and at some point little plastic caps/restrictors were put inside the intercooler to help with the condensation issues. This is why you see that some companies sell two different intercoolers for the 11/12 and 13/14 trucks. There are probably some other differences but I dont know all of them.
I honestly think that having 3.73 gears actually helps my gas mileage here in the mountains of utah. There are so many variables that its hard to predict what actually causes the changes.
My truck will average 18 in the summer and will get 20-21 on the highway at 65 mph, but in the winter it will only do around 17 mpg average. That is with 275/60R20 Wrangler Duratracs which is far more aggressive and an inch taller than the stock bridgestone duellers were.
I honestly think that having 3.73 gears actually helps my gas mileage here in the mountains of utah. There are so many variables that its hard to predict what actually causes the changes.
My truck will average 18 in the summer and will get 20-21 on the highway at 65 mph, but in the winter it will only do around 17 mpg average. That is with 275/60R20 Wrangler Duratracs which is far more aggressive and an inch taller than the stock bridgestone duellers were.
Last edited by mass-hole; 03-24-2017 at 12:49 PM.
03-24-2017, 08:25 PM
#7
The shorter gears will help on hilly roads. The taller gears would lug and cause downshifting, wasting gas.
Rolling resistance of tires can impact fuel economy just as much as weight and aerodynamics. Two different sets of the same model tire can have different RR. I forget what model Goodyears I had on a 201 Fusion Sport, but the replacements were the same model, but had a different tread design, so even if you got the same model tires, there could be a difference in tread design that can cause the variance.
So many variables, so little time.
Rolling resistance of tires can impact fuel economy just as much as weight and aerodynamics. Two different sets of the same model tire can have different RR. I forget what model Goodyears I had on a 201 Fusion Sport, but the replacements were the same model, but had a different tread design, so even if you got the same model tires, there could be a difference in tread design that can cause the variance.
So many variables, so little time.