12 day old 2018 XLT FX4 SCAB 6.5-ft. 2.7L Eco 3.55 w/Tonneau. Dealer fill up, drove away at 7.7 miles on odo and put into my Fuelly profile. 400.1 miles at fill-up, Fuelly said 19.5 mpg. Computer reported 20.6 mpg at fill-up.

Replaced a 16 XLT 2WD 2.7 w/3.11 gear, SCREW w/6.5 bed, which over ~34k miles averaged 20.1 mpg (Fuelly).

Seems like a small enough price to pay for the 4WD. If they had a 4x4 with 3.11s (maybe possible to order?) I think it would match... I credit the 10 speed for better relative economy in the new truck, but that's just speculation.

 

Took a road trip to Texas and back. Seemed like at 70mph (GPS), once the temp got above 90°F I got above 19mpg. I'm not going to complain about that.


Random luck-of-the-draw on ethanol-free gas might have played a part.

 

2015 F150 Plat. 3.5 Eco 3.55 gears
first long trip since purchased. 1200 miles
Round trip. Heavy foot on highway and climbed some hills on back roads. When the trip was done....19.1 MPG!!!!
I'll take that all day.

 

2018 f150 5.0 CCLB fx4 with 373 gears with 4" BDS coilover lift an 35x12.5x18 with roush intake an borla s type catback . 3k miles avarage is 12.5 mpg

 

 

 

You actually get better fuel economy without a cover. I believe there is an episode of mythbusters about it.

 

After 11K miles, I'm getting 22.2 MPG overall.

Just did a 3100 mile road trip and averaged 21.7 (highway, town, forest service roads). On the last tank of the trip, my wife was driving and averaged 24.4 MPG.

As far as MGP goes, this truck is CRAZY good IMO.

ETA: truck has ARE topper and stock tires, wheels, and much of the trip was done in "eco" setting.

 

If your numbers are accurate, the 2.7 is indeed a thrifty engine, to a point. Keep in mind that displacement is still a factor. Without a load, the 2.7 will produce better mileage than the 3.5, there's no disputing that. However, under a load, displacement counts. The 2.7, by virtue of being a smaller engine, will kick into turbo mode before the 3.5. Then utilizing the turbo, fuel consumption will jump. As such, if you put a load of say, 500 pounds on two trucks, configured the same way, with the only difference being the engines, the 3.5 will get better mileage under load.

 

So I've scanned a fair amount on this thread, and I may be jumping the gun, but I still want to ask....Does 14 MPG sound appropriate for my truck?

Just bought a 2014 SCREW, 42K miles on it, 4x4, 3.5 TT, 6.5 box, Max tow, 3.73 rear, Front height +2.5", Rear height +1" , Tonneau cover on the bed. Has 18" MB Chaos wheels with 33" Duratracs (LT 275/70 R18) set to 40 PSI, which apparently are only an inch taller than the stock tire size. New air filter, fresh synthetic oil and MC filter, new plugs gapped at .028. Did the "pedal" reset. Drilled the IC.

Took a round trip of 150 miles this past weekend (98% Highway), and my on board showed 14.2 at the end of it. I haven't had the truck long enough to run a full tank, or even filled it yet to manually calculate it. Running down a flat concrete highway at 70MPH for the most part, the "instant" MPG was showing right at 14. NO WIND. Just the fam and a couple suitcases in the back end, figured about 625# total cargo. I used to have an '04 2.5" leveled Lariat, max tow, 3.73s, Tonneau cover, stock 18's and Hankook ATM's on it, and highway with the same conditions would get about 18mpg on the readout.

Is my issue pretty much the tires? They seem like they would be really heavy... Thinking of selling them off and going back to a stock P rated tire. Any ideas how much that would help? Has anyone done the same? I really do like the Duratracs, they look Sexy AF, and I hear they are great in the snow, so I might just work on my "who cares" attitude instead, but curiosity gets the best of me sometimes.... Thanks for any replies.