2013 Ecoboost MPG Questions
#21
Senior Member
Sorta..... but I find the "6.2 is horrible on fuel" from this sites 5 liter and ecoboost owners laughable. If you can keep a 213 cid v6 out of building boost it will in fact use less fuel compared to a 379 cid V8. If they are both crusing maintaining stoich of 14.whatever ( ethanol changes that number from 14.7 to even 14.4 or so for E10) the 6 is going to use less fuel load dependent of course. But that's tough to do in a 6000 lb brick. As soon as that map sensor starts reading close atmospheric or above it on the Eco that's out the window. Couple that with the fact some are a lot worse than others for whatever reason being either driver, drag or tuning/ engine issues.... such as the OP's truck. I find the mileage given is all over the map regardless of the engine choice and is usually presented in the poor range as people like to come here to bitch.... so it's with a grain of salt.
#22
My god.
Go to the OTHER 10,000 threads like this instead of continuing to make new ones.
Jesus, these thread OPs have a seriously hard time seeing the big *** search box (and/or page 2 button) - because there's no excuse for starting more threads for that same thing.
Go to the OTHER 10,000 threads like this instead of continuing to make new ones.
Jesus, these thread OPs have a seriously hard time seeing the big *** search box (and/or page 2 button) - because there's no excuse for starting more threads for that same thing.
#23
F150 Greenhorn
#24
Senior Member
Perhaps that's true unless you want to actually tow something! My Eco buries my old 5.4 for towing ability and I'm averaging 17 mpg over all. I'm pretty satisfied with mpg and the ability to tow my 8000 lb load dump trailer with ease!
BTW my Eco destroys my former 5.4 for pure power and acceleration….
BTW my Eco destroys my former 5.4 for pure power and acceleration….
#25
Raptor Minion
Despite the many threads on the subject, do we still think comparing mpgs from different people actually means anything? I mean, the variables alone make this a futile exercise. Driving styles, altitude, gasoline quality, tire pressure, payload, etc. etc. all impact mpgs, so unless someone is doing a comparison in a controlled environment, saying I get xx mpgs and I get yy mpgs is rather pointless. No?
The following users liked this post:
MadocHandyman (04-06-2014)
#26
Senior Member
I used to be in the Eco gets crap mileage group. But have been doing a lot better lately. 80 mph on Highway kills mileage though.
But I just did a 250 mile trip through the mountains in PA back to my home in va and got 20.3 for the trip and when driving back and forth to work I get about 21. My mileage has improved now that I have some miles on it I just rolled over 17k. And I seem to get better mileage with the tires at 36 psi as opposed to the 42 I was running.
But I just did a 250 mile trip through the mountains in PA back to my home in va and got 20.3 for the trip and when driving back and forth to work I get about 21. My mileage has improved now that I have some miles on it I just rolled over 17k. And I seem to get better mileage with the tires at 36 psi as opposed to the 42 I was running.
#27
Senior Member
Despite the many threads on the subject, do we still think comparing mpgs from different people actually means anything? I mean, the variables alone make this a futile exercise. Driving styles, altitude, gasoline quality, tire pressure, payload, etc. etc. all impact mpgs, so unless someone is doing a comparison in a controlled environment, saying I get xx mpgs and I get yy mpgs is rather pointless. No?
Bottom line is your correct that there are many parameters that will greatly affect MPG numbers………..
#28
Raptor Minion
Anecdotal mpgs are just that. I'm not a fan of manufacturers claims but at least they are consistent testing procedures within the same model. So if a vehicle is not living up to it's claimed mpg, it is more likely an external factor. I'm not saying there could not be issues with the engine. I'm just saying not to hang your hat on a claim by an anonymous poster that they get 18-19mpg on a car rated for 14mpg, etc. It probably doesn't mean they have a "good" engine. It means they way they calculated their mpg differs significantly from how the manufacturer tested.
#29
F150 Greenhorn
#30
Raptor Minion
FWIW, from a Car and Driver review...
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...is-more-page-2
"The downside to this mountain of twist is the remarkably off-the-mark 12-mpg overall fuel economy we recorded. That is not a misprint, and it’s lower than not only the EPA combined rating of 17 mpg but also the 14 mpg we saw from the near-mechanically identical F-150 FX4 SuperCrew EcoBoost we tested in 2011. After checking around the office to see if the Limited had performed any extracurricular towing activities, we chalked up the less-than-stellar number to turbo boost; specifically, the delightful acceleration it delivers. If you want to achieve fuel economy near the advertised numbers, you’ll need to drive with a light foot, saving the heavy breathing for situations when you actually need it, like towing and climbing steep hills."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...is-more-page-2
"The downside to this mountain of twist is the remarkably off-the-mark 12-mpg overall fuel economy we recorded. That is not a misprint, and it’s lower than not only the EPA combined rating of 17 mpg but also the 14 mpg we saw from the near-mechanically identical F-150 FX4 SuperCrew EcoBoost we tested in 2011. After checking around the office to see if the Limited had performed any extracurricular towing activities, we chalked up the less-than-stellar number to turbo boost; specifically, the delightful acceleration it delivers. If you want to achieve fuel economy near the advertised numbers, you’ll need to drive with a light foot, saving the heavy breathing for situations when you actually need it, like towing and climbing steep hills."