Topic Sponsor
2009 - 2014 Ford F150 General discussion on 2009 - 2014 Ford F150 truck.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2013 Ecoboost MPG Questions

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-05-2014, 10:46 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
zx12-iowa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,093
Received 646 Likes on 498 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Badass69
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.
We'll my lifetime average with my Eco is 17 which includes towing. Hwy at 65 I get 20-23... Unless it's below zero or I'm in 4x4. I'd be shocked if your 6.2 can come close.
Old 04-05-2014, 11:06 PM
  #22  
Problem Solver
 
iRub1Out's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,223
Received 358 Likes on 262 Posts

Default

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.
Old 04-06-2014, 02:16 AM
  #23  
F150 Greenhorn
 
jerparker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Southeast, Iowa
Posts: 713
Received 109 Likes on 93 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by iRub1Out
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.
Old 04-06-2014, 05:35 AM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
cthusker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northwest Connecticut
Posts: 1,675
Received 428 Likes on 293 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by SCJScott
My 5.4 gets 15-16 combined hwy/st. Get a V8 dude!
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….
Old 04-06-2014, 07:06 AM
  #25  
Raptor Minion
 
ZBoater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 911
Received 136 Likes on 105 Posts
Default

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)
Old 04-06-2014, 07:23 AM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
dcsteelerfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 157
Received 26 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

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.
Old 04-06-2014, 07:42 AM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
cthusker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northwest Connecticut
Posts: 1,675
Received 428 Likes on 293 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ZBoater
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?
Not entirely…… there are many that claim Eco's get lousy mileage period. No disclaimer…….. period. Posting antidotal mpg at least points out there are plenty of owners that get decent mileage. I'm ok with my 17 mpg over all.. BTW that's hand calculated mpg. I've gotten much better highway cruising and much worse mashing the gas and driving aggressively.

Bottom line is your correct that there are many parameters that will greatly affect MPG numbers………..
Old 04-06-2014, 07:52 AM
  #28  
Raptor Minion
 
ZBoater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 911
Received 136 Likes on 105 Posts
Default

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.
Old 04-06-2014, 07:57 AM
  #29  
F150 Greenhorn
 
jerparker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Southeast, Iowa
Posts: 713
Received 109 Likes on 93 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by dcsteelerfan
And I seem to get better mileage with the tires at 36 psi as opposed to the 42 I was running.
Better MPG's with a lower PSI? I've always heard the other way around.
Old 04-06-2014, 08:04 AM
  #30  
Raptor Minion
 
ZBoater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 911
Received 136 Likes on 105 Posts
Default

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."


Quick Reply: 2013 Ecoboost MPG Questions



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:30 AM.