Lets hear about those 3.7L's
02-05-2018, 09:09 AM
#651
Crotchety Old Man
20mpg out of my 2014 Scab 3.7 2WD would've been good enough for me to keep it, but it got that twice... in three years of highway commuting. Three years of 15-17mpg highway when I settled for a V6 in the name of fuel economy was enough. Throw in all of the other things that annoyed me about my F150 (Sync, Scab doors, unpredictable throttle response, craptacular headlights, etc.) and I ditched it as soon as I was paid down enough to afford it.
I traded it in on a V8 4WD Toyota 4Runner that averages better fuel economy. It's a 4WD 4Runner that's full-time 4WD, so it's always sending power to all four wheels (which burns fuel), and is still geting 16-19mpg every tank. Let that sink in for a second. My insurance and payments are also a lot cheaper... and the 4Runner's nicer (leather, sunroof, JBL sound, projector headlights, custom wheels)...
I don't miss my 3.7... yet. That could definitely change the next time I tow my trailer (the one thing that F150 did so damned well), we'll see how the 4Runner does at that job.
I traded it in on a V8 4WD Toyota 4Runner that averages better fuel economy. It's a 4WD 4Runner that's full-time 4WD, so it's always sending power to all four wheels (which burns fuel), and is still geting 16-19mpg every tank. Let that sink in for a second. My insurance and payments are also a lot cheaper... and the 4Runner's nicer (leather, sunroof, JBL sound, projector headlights, custom wheels)...
I don't miss my 3.7... yet. That could definitely change the next time I tow my trailer (the one thing that F150 did so damned well), we'll see how the 4Runner does at that job.
I think the headlights are great for a non projector halogen. I came from an 08 Ranger and 02 grand Cherokee mind you, and the grand had pretty poor headlights.
The 3.7 out performs the old 4.7 power tech and gets better fuel economy. Also beats the 4.0 in those respects.
I get nowhere near the amazing fuel economy many people claim here.
Dealt with the very annoying throttle and anemic shift points with a tuner. Changed the driving experience entirely.
The 4runners are nice, but I'm surprised a V8 and only 5 gears are netting better fuel economy, and cheaper insurance. Any SUV here usually has higher insurance than a truck. My 02 grand Cherokee was maybe $400 less per year on pleasure insurance than my 14 f150 on all purpose with a low deductible.
03-04-2018, 02:07 AM
#652
4Runner Driver
The 3.7 has been used in everything from Mazda SUVs (first application it was used in, actually), to the F150, to several Lincolns.
In pretty much everything but the F150, it's a refined, efficient, and powerful engine. I've worked on and/or driven every US-market application of the 3.7 except for the MV-1. In the F150, it's just powerful. The only thing I miss about my 3.7L F150 is how well it towed an 18foot farm trailer loaded with whatever the hell I wanted, up to and including midsize cars. However, it was never efficient (the 4wd V8 Toyota I replaced it with matches it's fuel economy) and it damned sure was never refined (unpredictable throttle lag is SO much fun!) in my truck.
What did you own before the f150?
I think the headlights are great for a non projector halogen. I came from an 08 Ranger and 02 grand Cherokee mind you, and the grand had pretty poor headlights.
The 3.7 out performs the old 4.7 power tech and gets better fuel economy. Also beats the 4.0 in those respects.
I get nowhere near the amazing fuel economy many people claim here.
Dealt with the very annoying throttle and anemic shift points with a tuner. Changed the driving experience entirely.
The 4runners are nice, but I'm surprised a V8 and only 5 gears are netting better fuel economy, and cheaper insurance. Any SUV here usually has higher insurance than a truck. My 02 grand Cherokee was maybe $400 less per year on pleasure insurance than my 14 f150 on all purpose with a low deductible.
I think the headlights are great for a non projector halogen. I came from an 08 Ranger and 02 grand Cherokee mind you, and the grand had pretty poor headlights.
The 3.7 out performs the old 4.7 power tech and gets better fuel economy. Also beats the 4.0 in those respects.
I get nowhere near the amazing fuel economy many people claim here.
Dealt with the very annoying throttle and anemic shift points with a tuner. Changed the driving experience entirely.
The 4runners are nice, but I'm surprised a V8 and only 5 gears are netting better fuel economy, and cheaper insurance. Any SUV here usually has higher insurance than a truck. My 02 grand Cherokee was maybe $400 less per year on pleasure insurance than my 14 f150 on all purpose with a low deductible.
I work on and drive all makes and models for a big car dealership, the F150's non-HID headlights are pathetic compared to pretty much everything out there but the Cadillac SRX with non-HID (I'm not even sure how GM can legally sell those, the daytime running lights are actually brighter than the headlights).
That 2014 F150 got the worst gas mileage of any fuel-injected truck I've owned. The 2003 Ram with the 4.7 Powertech got 20mpg highway on a regular basis, with an all-time best of 24. My 1999 GMC Sierra with the 4.8L got 19mpg highway un-tuned, and still got 18 with full bolt-ons and an aggressive 93-octane tune. I honestly figured the Toyota would be worse in fuel economy, but I liked the thing so much (and got a killer deal on it) I bought it anyway, then was pleasantly surprised (and even more pissed about the F150) when it didn't. When State Farm told me my insurance would be $30 a month lower, I was shocked again, but hell, I'll take $360 a year in insurance savings with a smile.
I never tuned the F150 because I honestly didn't feel like spending $500 to fix something Ford should've gotten right in the first place. When I tuned the GMC it was to compensate for the mods I'd done to the truck, same as when I tuned my Mustang. If Ford can't get the calibration right from the factory on something I spent $30,000 on, they don't need my money, and I'm not spending more of mine to do it for them. The transmission difference between the two trucks is even more night-and-day than you'd realize. The Toyota may only have five gears to the Ford's six, but it uses all five of them. My F150 would always rush straight to 6th gear as quickly as possible, then lug the engine when trying accelerate smoothly and moderately, or just shift 1-2-6 when at W.O.T. Downshifts were similar, especially when passing on the highway, 4th and 5th might as well have not been there, for all intents and purposes the 6R80 did a bad impression of a worn-out 4L60E, with four gears with crappy spacing and sloppy and unpredictable shifts. The Toyota uses all five gears, up and down, and when passing, it just calmly drops from 5th to 4th instead of skipping straight down to 2nd and revving to the moon. It's very nice.
I've put 5000 miles on the Toyota already, and my worst fuel economy so far was 15.1mpg highway, and on that tank I was warming up the truck and de-icing windows every morning for a week, so I wasn't expecting anything great, the F150 did similar numbers in similar conditions. It's best so far is 19mpg even, and the overall average has been 17.3. The F150 did have about four tanks in 3 years and 61,000 miles of ownership where it managed 20mpg, but it's average was right there with the Toyota at 17.5.
I obsess over fuel economy a bit too much, but when Toyota rated the 4Runner at 19mpg highway in ideal conditions in 2008 before E10/E15 fuel was the norm, and I'm getting right on the money when you take the fact that I'm running said fuel and adjusting expectations for it, you can see why I'd be pissed that my "23mpg" F150 got 17.
The only way I'd own another F150 is if I ever made a career change that had me using the truck exclusively as a work truck pulling a trailer. That 3.7 may have been a thirsty beast with ADHD coupled to a bipolar transmission, but hooking a trailer up to that truck and pushing the tow-haul button on the shifter was like giving the engine something else to focus on besides it's thirst and giving the transmission lithium. That's the one place it kicks my V8 4Runner's *** (and the 4Runner isn't bad at all when towing, but it does pale in comparison).
Last edited by Mattwrotethis; 03-04-2018 at 02:35 AM.
03-04-2018, 09:52 AM
#653
Crotchety Old Man
Yes and no.
The 3.7 has been used in everything from Mazda SUVs (first application it was used in, actually), to the F150, to several Lincolns.
In pretty much everything but the F150, it's a refined, efficient, and powerful engine. I've worked on and/or driven every US-market application of the 3.7 except for the MV-1. In the F150, it's just powerful. The only thing I miss about my 3.7L F150 is how well it towed an 18foot farm trailer loaded with whatever the hell I wanted, up to and including midsize cars. However, it was never efficient (the 4wd V8 Toyota I replaced it with matches it's fuel economy) and it damned sure was never refined (unpredictable throttle lag is SO much fun!) in my truck.
Before the F150 I had a 1975 Chevy C10, a 1984 F150, a 1995 Chevy S10, a 1999 GMC Sierra, and a 2003 Ram 1500 (not in that order, and that's just trucks, none of my cars).
I work on and drive all makes and models for a big car dealership, the F150's non-HID headlights are pathetic compared to pretty much everything out there but the Cadillac SRX with non-HID (I'm not even sure how GM can legally sell those, the daytime running lights are actually brighter than the headlights).
That 2014 F150 got the worst gas mileage of any fuel-injected truck I've owned. The 2003 Ram with the 4.7 Powertech got 20mpg highway on a regular basis, with an all-time best of 24. My 1999 GMC Sierra with the 4.8L got 19mpg highway un-tuned, and still got 18 with full bolt-ons and an aggressive 93-octane tune. I honestly figured the Toyota would be worse in fuel economy, but I liked the thing so much (and got a killer deal on it) I bought it anyway, then was pleasantly surprised (and even more pissed about the F150) when it didn't. When State Farm told me my insurance would be $30 a month lower, I was shocked again, but hell, I'll take $360 a year in insurance savings with a smile.
I never tuned the F150 because I honestly didn't feel like spending $500 to fix something Ford should've gotten right in the first place. When I tuned the GMC it was to compensate for the mods I'd done to the truck, same as when I tuned my Mustang. If Ford can't get the calibration right from the factory on something I spent $30,000 on, they don't need my money, and I'm not spending more of mine to do it for them. The transmission difference between the two trucks is even more night-and-day than you'd realize. The Toyota may only have five gears to the Ford's six, but it uses all five of them. My F150 would always rush straight to 6th gear as quickly as possible, then lug the engine when trying accelerate smoothly and moderately, or just shift 1-2-6 when at W.O.T. Downshifts were similar, especially when passing on the highway, 4th and 5th might as well have not been there, for all intents and purposes the 6R80 did a bad impression of a worn-out 4L60E, with four gears with crappy spacing and sloppy and unpredictable shifts. The Toyota uses all five gears, up and down, and when passing, it just calmly drops from 5th to 4th instead of skipping straight down to 2nd and revving to the moon. It's very nice.
I've put 5000 miles on the Toyota already, and my worst fuel economy so far was 15.1mpg highway, and on that tank I was warming up the truck and de-icing windows every morning for a week, so I wasn't expecting anything great, the F150 did similar numbers in similar conditions. It's best so far is 19mpg even, and the overall average has been 17.3. The F150 did have about four tanks in 3 years and 61,000 miles of ownership where it managed 20mpg, but it's average was right there with the Toyota at 17.5.
I obsess over fuel economy a bit too much, but when Toyota rated the 4Runner at 19mpg highway in ideal conditions in 2008 before E10/E15 fuel was the norm, and I'm getting right on the money when you take the fact that I'm running said fuel and adjusting expectations for it, you can see why I'd be pissed that my "23mpg" F150 got 17.
The only way I'd own another F150 is if I ever made a career change that had me using the truck exclusively as a work truck pulling a trailer. That 3.7 may have been a thirsty beast with ADHD coupled to a bipolar transmission, but hooking a trailer up to that truck and pushing the tow-haul button on the shifter was like giving the engine something else to focus on besides it's thirst and giving the transmission lithium. That's the one place it kicks my V8 4Runner's *** (and the 4Runner isn't bad at all when towing, but it does pale in comparison).
The 3.7 has been used in everything from Mazda SUVs (first application it was used in, actually), to the F150, to several Lincolns.
In pretty much everything but the F150, it's a refined, efficient, and powerful engine. I've worked on and/or driven every US-market application of the 3.7 except for the MV-1. In the F150, it's just powerful. The only thing I miss about my 3.7L F150 is how well it towed an 18foot farm trailer loaded with whatever the hell I wanted, up to and including midsize cars. However, it was never efficient (the 4wd V8 Toyota I replaced it with matches it's fuel economy) and it damned sure was never refined (unpredictable throttle lag is SO much fun!) in my truck.
Before the F150 I had a 1975 Chevy C10, a 1984 F150, a 1995 Chevy S10, a 1999 GMC Sierra, and a 2003 Ram 1500 (not in that order, and that's just trucks, none of my cars).
I work on and drive all makes and models for a big car dealership, the F150's non-HID headlights are pathetic compared to pretty much everything out there but the Cadillac SRX with non-HID (I'm not even sure how GM can legally sell those, the daytime running lights are actually brighter than the headlights).
That 2014 F150 got the worst gas mileage of any fuel-injected truck I've owned. The 2003 Ram with the 4.7 Powertech got 20mpg highway on a regular basis, with an all-time best of 24. My 1999 GMC Sierra with the 4.8L got 19mpg highway un-tuned, and still got 18 with full bolt-ons and an aggressive 93-octane tune. I honestly figured the Toyota would be worse in fuel economy, but I liked the thing so much (and got a killer deal on it) I bought it anyway, then was pleasantly surprised (and even more pissed about the F150) when it didn't. When State Farm told me my insurance would be $30 a month lower, I was shocked again, but hell, I'll take $360 a year in insurance savings with a smile.
I never tuned the F150 because I honestly didn't feel like spending $500 to fix something Ford should've gotten right in the first place. When I tuned the GMC it was to compensate for the mods I'd done to the truck, same as when I tuned my Mustang. If Ford can't get the calibration right from the factory on something I spent $30,000 on, they don't need my money, and I'm not spending more of mine to do it for them. The transmission difference between the two trucks is even more night-and-day than you'd realize. The Toyota may only have five gears to the Ford's six, but it uses all five of them. My F150 would always rush straight to 6th gear as quickly as possible, then lug the engine when trying accelerate smoothly and moderately, or just shift 1-2-6 when at W.O.T. Downshifts were similar, especially when passing on the highway, 4th and 5th might as well have not been there, for all intents and purposes the 6R80 did a bad impression of a worn-out 4L60E, with four gears with crappy spacing and sloppy and unpredictable shifts. The Toyota uses all five gears, up and down, and when passing, it just calmly drops from 5th to 4th instead of skipping straight down to 2nd and revving to the moon. It's very nice.
I've put 5000 miles on the Toyota already, and my worst fuel economy so far was 15.1mpg highway, and on that tank I was warming up the truck and de-icing windows every morning for a week, so I wasn't expecting anything great, the F150 did similar numbers in similar conditions. It's best so far is 19mpg even, and the overall average has been 17.3. The F150 did have about four tanks in 3 years and 61,000 miles of ownership where it managed 20mpg, but it's average was right there with the Toyota at 17.5.
I obsess over fuel economy a bit too much, but when Toyota rated the 4Runner at 19mpg highway in ideal conditions in 2008 before E10/E15 fuel was the norm, and I'm getting right on the money when you take the fact that I'm running said fuel and adjusting expectations for it, you can see why I'd be pissed that my "23mpg" F150 got 17.
The only way I'd own another F150 is if I ever made a career change that had me using the truck exclusively as a work truck pulling a trailer. That 3.7 may have been a thirsty beast with ADHD coupled to a bipolar transmission, but hooking a trailer up to that truck and pushing the tow-haul button on the shifter was like giving the engine something else to focus on besides it's thirst and giving the transmission lithium. That's the one place it kicks my V8 4Runner's *** (and the 4Runner isn't bad at all when towing, but it does pale in comparison).
The 4.8 GM is a good motor, a little anemic stock, but it's the only good thing about Chevy Express vans, so of course GM dropped it for the 4.3 vvt. You want a dog, drive a GM half ton with the 4.3. I was hoping the extra torque down low would be noticable. It wasn't.
and speaking of things manufacturers should have done from the factory, why does everyone I know with a new 5.3 have to put a catch can in?
At least my 3.7 isn't using oil either.
I hear you on Ford's factory shifting and digital throttle, I almost wonder if they did that to push more people to EcoBoost and 5.0. I haven't driven a 15-17 with the 3.5 but heard Ford added a sport mode that somewhat fixes those issues.
In my case, having tuned the truck was enough to make me not trade it in when the lease was up. I hated the triple down shifts and throttle lag, combined with soft springs and ****ty p rated tires. Some load E KO2 and an add a leaf stiffened it up, and the tune took care of the rest. Combined with the already low price, I bought it out almost two years ago.
If I was looking for a personal truck I'd be out test driving the new 3.3 right now, or trying to find a 3.5 NA 2017 sitting on a lot somewhere waiting to be sold cheap.
03-11-2018, 07:15 AM
#654
4Runner Driver
I forgot you had the miracle 4.7
The 4.8 GM is a good motor, a little anemic stock, but it's the only good thing about Chevy Express vans, so of course GM dropped it for the 4.3 vvt. You want a dog, drive a GM half ton with the 4.3. I was hoping the extra torque down low would be noticable. It wasn't.
and speaking of things manufacturers should have done from the factory, why does everyone I know with a new 5.3 have to put a catch can in?
At least my 3.7 isn't using oil either.
I hear you on Ford's factory shifting and digital throttle, I almost wonder if they did that to push more people to EcoBoost and 5.0. I haven't driven a 15-17 with the 3.5 but heard Ford added a sport mode that somewhat fixes those issues.
In my case, having tuned the truck was enough to make me not trade it in when the lease was up. I hated the triple down shifts and throttle lag, combined with soft springs and ****ty p rated tires. Some load E KO2 and an add a leaf stiffened it up, and the tune took care of the rest. Combined with the already low price, I bought it out almost two years ago.
If I was looking for a personal truck I'd be out test driving the new 3.3 right now, or trying to find a 3.5 NA 2017 sitting on a lot somewhere waiting to be sold cheap.
The 4.8 GM is a good motor, a little anemic stock, but it's the only good thing about Chevy Express vans, so of course GM dropped it for the 4.3 vvt. You want a dog, drive a GM half ton with the 4.3. I was hoping the extra torque down low would be noticable. It wasn't.
and speaking of things manufacturers should have done from the factory, why does everyone I know with a new 5.3 have to put a catch can in?
At least my 3.7 isn't using oil either.
I hear you on Ford's factory shifting and digital throttle, I almost wonder if they did that to push more people to EcoBoost and 5.0. I haven't driven a 15-17 with the 3.5 but heard Ford added a sport mode that somewhat fixes those issues.
In my case, having tuned the truck was enough to make me not trade it in when the lease was up. I hated the triple down shifts and throttle lag, combined with soft springs and ****ty p rated tires. Some load E KO2 and an add a leaf stiffened it up, and the tune took care of the rest. Combined with the already low price, I bought it out almost two years ago.
If I was looking for a personal truck I'd be out test driving the new 3.3 right now, or trying to find a 3.5 NA 2017 sitting on a lot somewhere waiting to be sold cheap.
The reason so many people with the new 5.3s are running catch-cans is to prevent carbon on the intake valves (a common problem on many direct-injected engines, including Ford).
The new 3.3 may be amazing, I'll probably find out at some point this year, but my 14 was the last Ford I'll ever own that is new enough to be making payments on.
03-14-2018, 10:49 AM
#655
Senior Member
So this week end I made a long road trip, Dallas to New Orleans to Nashville, back to Dallas. 1850 miles. 2012, Reg cab, 6.5' bed, STX, 3.7V6, Tow/Haul tranny, 255/70/17 ATM tires.
First 2 legs of the trip was pulling an enclosed 5x8 U-Haul trailer. Had about 1300 or so pounds in trailer, bedroom furniture and lawn equipment. Also had about 300 pounds in bed of the truck.
Running tow/haul mode with cruise control set to 72-73mph. Tranny would run in 6th gear about 1900rpm. At a slight/moderate grade, tranny would drop to 5th gear for 2400rpm. At a moderate/steep grade tranny would drop to 4th gear for 3200 rpm. Never "lost ground" or felt under powered. Truck/engine/tranny did what was expected. MPG 15+.
Return trip home, no trailer, approx. 200 pounds in bed. Running same speed, no tow/haul mode. MPG 21+
Last edited by jhanna; 03-14-2018 at 10:54 AM.
03-14-2018, 05:03 PM
#656
Crotchety Old Man
Well, about halfway between half and 3/4 tank of fuel was in the truck today and I stopped in at a scale. 3100 kg, or 6830 lb. This is with my usual load of tools and parts etc.
i know my tires add a good 100#s vs the stock garbage that it came with, but it's clear I have grossly underestimated the load I carry daily.
I weigh 175 lbs, so I am essentially rolling around with over a thousand pounds in/on the truck every day, more when I have the trailer, or lengths of PVC venting, extension ladders etc on the roof rack.
The 3.7 (since the tune) certainly isn't the weak link in these trucks.
i know my tires add a good 100#s vs the stock garbage that it came with, but it's clear I have grossly underestimated the load I carry daily.
I weigh 175 lbs, so I am essentially rolling around with over a thousand pounds in/on the truck every day, more when I have the trailer, or lengths of PVC venting, extension ladders etc on the roof rack.
The 3.7 (since the tune) certainly isn't the weak link in these trucks.
04-11-2018, 11:32 AM
#657
Does anyone have a 4 inch suspension lift on their 3.7? I've got a 2013 3.7; I'm the only owner. I want to slap some 35's on her too once I lift it. Right now I only have a 2.5" leveling kit. Instead of going out and dropping 20k on a new truck I just want to lift this one and then sell it in a few years. Once it's lifted I'm also going to add a tuner. I've also got a K&N CAI on her
07-17-2018, 05:08 PM
#658
Junior Member
Anyone with the 3.7 notice their MPGs drop at around 70k miles on the clock?
I've been running the same Michelin tires at the same PSI and was getting the advertised 17 around town, 21-22ish on the highway if going the right speed. Then about a month ago as I approached 70k miles I started getting more like 15 town, 20 highway. I have changed the air filter twice, the second time recently, with no notice in MPGs. I am running the same Costco 87 octane that I always have, and I live in Texas so I don't know if the winter/summer blends make a difference. But for the life of the 2012 truck I've got better fuel economy up until a month ago. My driving style or commute hasn't changed either.
I'm not throwing any CELs, I do have an OBD-II scanner and Torque but I'm not really sure what to look for. The manual says the plugs are good for 100k, so I haven't replaced those, or the fuel filter -- but that should be a higher interval as well. Thoughts?
I've been running the same Michelin tires at the same PSI and was getting the advertised 17 around town, 21-22ish on the highway if going the right speed. Then about a month ago as I approached 70k miles I started getting more like 15 town, 20 highway. I have changed the air filter twice, the second time recently, with no notice in MPGs. I am running the same Costco 87 octane that I always have, and I live in Texas so I don't know if the winter/summer blends make a difference. But for the life of the 2012 truck I've got better fuel economy up until a month ago. My driving style or commute hasn't changed either.
I'm not throwing any CELs, I do have an OBD-II scanner and Torque but I'm not really sure what to look for. The manual says the plugs are good for 100k, so I haven't replaced those, or the fuel filter -- but that should be a higher interval as well. Thoughts?
07-17-2018, 06:15 PM
#659
Senior Member
Anyone with the 3.7 notice their MPGs drop at around 70k miles on the clock?
I've been running the same Michelin tires at the same PSI and was getting the advertised 17 around town, 21-22ish on the highway if going the right speed. Then about a month ago as I approached 70k miles I started getting more like 15 town, 20 highway. I have changed the air filter twice, the second time recently, with no notice in MPGs. I am running the same Costco 87 octane that I always have, and I live in Texas so I don't know if the winter/summer blends make a difference. But for the life of the 2012 truck I've got better fuel economy up until a month ago. My driving style or commute hasn't changed either.
I'm not throwing any CELs, I do have an OBD-II scanner and Torque but I'm not really sure what to look for. The manual says the plugs are good for 100k, so I haven't replaced those, or the fuel filter -- but that should be a higher interval as well. Thoughts?
I've been running the same Michelin tires at the same PSI and was getting the advertised 17 around town, 21-22ish on the highway if going the right speed. Then about a month ago as I approached 70k miles I started getting more like 15 town, 20 highway. I have changed the air filter twice, the second time recently, with no notice in MPGs. I am running the same Costco 87 octane that I always have, and I live in Texas so I don't know if the winter/summer blends make a difference. But for the life of the 2012 truck I've got better fuel economy up until a month ago. My driving style or commute hasn't changed either.
I'm not throwing any CELs, I do have an OBD-II scanner and Torque but I'm not really sure what to look for. The manual says the plugs are good for 100k, so I haven't replaced those, or the fuel filter -- but that should be a higher interval as well. Thoughts?
in the 10k I've put on it , my mpg seem to be holding about the same numbers. I buy cheapest gas possible, generally 87 octane from a nearby Kroger. I run 255/70/17 hankook at tires. Same height as the stock hankook 235/75/17 ht tires, but 3/4" wider, and I'm sure heavier. All else stock. I use synthetic blend 5/20. Changed air filter when I got the truck. Nothing else changed.
on one road trip I pulled a mid-sized u-haul loaded with bedroom furniture and lawn equipment. I used tow/haul mode and mpg dropped to 15-16, but jumped back to normal after trailer emptied and dropped off, for the trip back home to Texas.
post 655 above is mine referring to my trip earlier this year.
Last edited by jhanna; 07-17-2018 at 06:18 PM.
07-18-2018, 10:47 AM
#660
Junior Member
im in denton county, just north of Dallas. I bought my 2012 reg cab, 3.7, used with 62k miles a little over a year ago, now have 72k miles. I've always got about 18-19 around town, 21-22 on the hiway. I've been on 3 hiway trips to New Orleans and Nashville.
in the 10k I've put on it , my mpg seem to be holding about the same numbers. I buy cheapest gas possible, generally 87 octane from a nearby Kroger. I run 255/70/17 hankook at tires. Same height as the stock hankook 235/75/17 ht tires, but 3/4" wider, and I'm sure heavier. All else stock. I use synthetic blend 5/20. Changed air filter when I got the truck. Nothing else changed.
on one road trip I pulled a mid-sized u-haul loaded with bedroom furniture and lawn equipment. I used tow/haul mode and mpg dropped to 15-16, but jumped back to normal after trailer emptied and dropped off, for the trip back home to Texas.
post 655 above is mine referring to my trip earlier this year.