Ridiculous fuel mileage - no codes found - nothing Ford will do.
12-06-2011, 11:23 PM
#91
Senior Member
I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE. But because all of this fancy fuel management in the new trucks still has not thrown a code, I am forced by Ford to put up with 14.6mpg average until it does?
No I'm not.
I sold the piece of Sh*t, and went back to a truck that exceeds EPA sticker fuel economy by 20%. 2006 Chev Silverado 2500HD Duramax diesel. First road trip to go get it, the ford follwing the chevy home. The chevy got 4.26 mpg better. Once I throw EFILive tuning into it, airbox, and exhaust - I can expect that margin to more than double.
No I'm not.
I sold the piece of Sh*t, and went back to a truck that exceeds EPA sticker fuel economy by 20%. 2006 Chev Silverado 2500HD Duramax diesel. First road trip to go get it, the ford follwing the chevy home. The chevy got 4.26 mpg better. Once I throw EFILive tuning into it, airbox, and exhaust - I can expect that margin to more than double.
Now, just to throw something else in the mix up? My 2009 Pontiac G8 GT with a 6.0L V8 had a sticker rating of 15/24 if I remember correctly? Now, I know, i know, "it's a car" and that has all kinds of aerodynamic and weight advantages, etc.... Also had a 2.92 rear end and 6 speed auto. and it weighed around 4100lbs.
However, no matter how much I would get on that thing, it still saw 18.3 at its worst, and 21 at its best. So all the other things aside, that 6.0L V8 still fell smack dab between the sticker numbers no matter how much I gramdma'd it, or got on it? Even moving up here to Central PA saw a 1 mpg difference in overall MPG? That motor made 361 hp/ 385 lb. ft torque stock.
Last edited by medicff0879; 12-06-2011 at 11:35 PM.
12-06-2011, 11:28 PM
#92
Senior Member
I had a 2010 Dodge 1500 with the hemi and got over 19mpg driving 80/20 hwy/city. I've got 3,000 miles on the ecoboost and am averaging 16.8 mpg driving the same route, same driving style. I would have saved the money and bought a year old 5.4 had I known it would be this bad. I thought the 25 mpg claims in a bunch of my reading was def. the exception, but I really expected to get near 20 mpg driving the amount of hwy I do. Hopefully when it hits 5k I get that bump that some of the other members are claiming.
12-06-2011, 11:46 PM
#93
Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Denver
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also waiting for that special moment where computer technology meets expectations and realizations to hopefully come out with a fairly respectable avg.?? I think one member stated that his ecoboost "crapped out a baby panda" when he reached that mystical milestone? LOL!! Be careful for being new and expressing your disdain, remember to always follow the logical words and remember "its a truck!!"
12-07-2011, 09:36 AM
#94
Senior Member
Ooooo, im sure I will be crucified for NOT BEING happy with the MPG on the ECOnothing since afterall "it's a truck!!" God forbid anyone express their opinion if it is negative in any form or fashion.
Now, just to throw something else in the mix up? My 2009 Pontiac G8 GT with a 6.0L V8 had a sticker rating of 15/24 if I remember correctly? Now, I know, i know, "it's a car" and that has all kinds of aerodynamic and weight advantages, etc.... Also had a 2.92 rear end and 6 speed auto. and it weighed around 4100lbs.
However, no matter how much I would get on that thing, it still saw 18.3 at its worst, and 21 at its best. So all the other things aside, that 6.0L V8 still fell smack dab between the sticker numbers no matter how much I gramdma'd it, or got on it? Even moving up here to Central PA saw a 1 mpg difference in overall MPG? That motor made 361 hp/ 385 lb. ft torque stock.
Now, just to throw something else in the mix up? My 2009 Pontiac G8 GT with a 6.0L V8 had a sticker rating of 15/24 if I remember correctly? Now, I know, i know, "it's a car" and that has all kinds of aerodynamic and weight advantages, etc.... Also had a 2.92 rear end and 6 speed auto. and it weighed around 4100lbs.
However, no matter how much I would get on that thing, it still saw 18.3 at its worst, and 21 at its best. So all the other things aside, that 6.0L V8 still fell smack dab between the sticker numbers no matter how much I gramdma'd it, or got on it? Even moving up here to Central PA saw a 1 mpg difference in overall MPG? That motor made 361 hp/ 385 lb. ft torque stock.
As for my ecoboost, I average 13-14mpg city/hwy mix. I havent had it on a long hwy trip yet but with a lot of freeway driving the best I have seen is 14.5 mpg..... This is with 305/55/20 tires and a 2" level.. Best mpg with stock pizza cutter tires and height was 16.5 mpg on the same driving route.
Im not happy about the mpg at all but, I know the dealer/ford will blame it on my wheels/tires so.... I'm gonna have to live with it. I do love the power and responsiveness of it...especially for a 4x4 with 33"s..
12-07-2011, 02:13 PM
#95
I'm going to go back to a pre-2008 5.9 Cummins or Duramax. Had several of them. Never once was concerned with bigger tires or lift kits affecting fuel economy. They got great fuel mileage, had great pulling power, and could easily and economically be performance enhanced by a programmer, intake and exhaust without fear of voiding warranty.
That's it, I won't complain once more about fuel economy. As soon as I can sell this LEMON it is gone. Thanks FORD for the good times. NOT!!!
That's it, I won't complain once more about fuel economy. As soon as I can sell this LEMON it is gone. Thanks FORD for the good times. NOT!!!
Today, 02:06 AM #5
nolagtime
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Spruce Grove, AB
Posts: 230
These fit fine. 34"
Sold my truck. Kept the wheels/tires as they are a multi-lug pattern wheel and you never know what I might want to put them on.
http://edmonton.kijiji.ca/c-cars-veh...AdIdZ327669456
__________________
Four new Ford's in Four years.
In old faithful for now.
12-07-2011, 02:33 PM
#96
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Dumb ***?!! Love how some of you can sit behind a keyboard and call names! Big person you are!
If you read the history, the wheels/tires were not the problem. They did not help, but pulling them off and putting the majority of the miles on with the STOCK 18's made no measurable difference. 15000 miles and poor results.
I welcome constructive criticism. Name calling is downright childish!
If you read the history, the wheels/tires were not the problem. They did not help, but pulling them off and putting the majority of the miles on with the STOCK 18's made no measurable difference. 15000 miles and poor results.
I welcome constructive criticism. Name calling is downright childish!
12-07-2011, 02:39 PM
#97
Senior Member
My Fiancee has a G8 GT as well.... Most of the time in the city it is getting around 15 mpg, lowest ever has been 14 mpg...... But out on a hwy trip, running 70 mph from one side of Texas to the other, that car repeatedly got 24-25 mpg....... I thought that was phenominal for a a 4100lb car with about 400lbs worth of people/luggage..... That car does have a "canned" tune but it got the same mileage before the tune.....Best of all the car runs 13.00s....
As for my ecoboost, I average 13-14mpg city/hwy mix. I havent had it on a long hwy trip yet but with a lot of freeway driving the best I have seen is 14.5 mpg..... This is with 305/55/20 tires and a 2" level.. Best mpg with stock pizza cutter tires and height was 16.5 mpg on the same driving route.
Im not happy about the mpg at all but, I know the dealer/ford will blame it on my wheels/tires so.... I'm gonna have to live with it. I do love the power and responsiveness of it...especially for a 4x4 with 33"s..
As for my ecoboost, I average 13-14mpg city/hwy mix. I havent had it on a long hwy trip yet but with a lot of freeway driving the best I have seen is 14.5 mpg..... This is with 305/55/20 tires and a 2" level.. Best mpg with stock pizza cutter tires and height was 16.5 mpg on the same driving route.
Im not happy about the mpg at all but, I know the dealer/ford will blame it on my wheels/tires so.... I'm gonna have to live with it. I do love the power and responsiveness of it...especially for a 4x4 with 33"s..
With that said, I am officially out of the MPG debate. No reason to continue to argue over it, I drive the truck and it is just something that I will live with
12-07-2011, 02:53 PM
#99
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Correct... as much as it should have, the calculation for the larger tire (6%) probably skewed the numbers in favor of the bigger tires. The lie-o-meter numbers never changed, the hand held numbers maybe improved by 2%... but take that from the 6% larger tire with the 34's, and really the mileage with the 34's was better. Am I explaining this correctly?
Was getting cooler here when I went back to stock, and who knows what the gasoline mfr's add once it starts freezing, so that will be a factor too.
But after running both the stock 18's with 32" tires, and the 20's with 34" tires... the effect on fuel economy was negligible.
Was getting cooler here when I went back to stock, and who knows what the gasoline mfr's add once it starts freezing, so that will be a factor too.
But after running both the stock 18's with 32" tires, and the 20's with 34" tires... the effect on fuel economy was negligible.