Explorer Gas Mileage - including Ecoboost

[Truckguy7]

I'm at nearly 80000km, have not reset the trip gauge in the last 40000km
20% hwy 80% city 14 ltr per 100 km, not to bad as I do not baby it.

Brian

I am lazy, what is the conversion to MPG.

Thanks.

 

[peterk9]

About 16.8 mpg.

Peter

 

[principalpony]

I have the 2014 Limited w/Ecoboost and have the same thoughts/results as indicated here - 24mpg hwy at 70-75 mph on a good day. When i tried to duplicate the Consumers Reports tests of an Ex w/V6 & AWD done a 65 mph, I got 26 mpg which was the same as their tests. The problem with that is the Ex they tested is EPA rated for 23 hwy and the Ecoboost is rated at 28 mpg, which means the Ecoboost should have done BETTER than the V6 AWD (like ~5 mpg better).

I have been to 2 dealers for testing and involving Ford Customer Service. FCS was friendly, helpful and understanding, but couldn't do anything about it. Going up the ladder to Ford Consumer Affairs and then to Ford Executive Liaison Dept proved to be a total waste of time & effort. You can only communicate with them through snail-mail and all you'll get back are form letters - total screw up on Ford's part if they want to retain customers and solve problems.

There is a problem here is just like Ford screwing up the mpg testing on all of their hybrids, but Ford has addressed their lies on this one, yet.

All I can advise is to definitely take it to the dealer and involve Ford Customer Service. If enough of us do that, maybe Ford will decide to finally do something about it.

 

[JerryC]

Are you using Ethanol blended gas? In my other vehicle I get 1 mpg better using non-ethanol gas.

I haven't tried it in the Ex yet, getting 93 non-ethanol is expensive and limited here.

 

[amd2800barton]

Jerry, principalpony posted the same thing, whining about poor mileage with the 2.0 Ecoboost several months ago. His logic is because the V6 did better on an arbitrary and unofficial test by 5mpg, then the Ecoboost should also do better by 5mpg. He's upset because not only is he not getting his lofty EPA Rating +5 fuel economy, but he's getting just barely under the EPA rated economy... which is what everybody gets in real world driving, at best.

The logic is completely flawed, and everybody told him this way back when.

 

[ieee_raider]

I have the 2014 Limited w/Ecoboost and have the same thoughts/results as indicated here - 24mpg hwy at 70-75 mph on a good day. When i tried to duplicate the Consumers Reports tests of an Ex w/V6 & AWD done a 65 mph, I got 26 mpg which was the same as their tests. The problem with that is the Ex they tested is EPA rated for 23 hwy and the Ecoboost is rated at 28 mpg, which means the Ecoboost should have done BETTER than the V6 AWD (like ~5 mpg better).

I have been to 2 dealers for testing and involving Ford Customer Service. FCS was friendly, helpful and understanding, but couldn't do anything about it. Going up the ladder to Ford Consumer Affairs and then to Ford Executive Liaison Dept proved to be a total waste of time & effort. You can only communicate with them through snail-mail and all you'll get back are form letters - total screw up on Ford's part if they want to retain customers and solve problems.

There is a problem here is just like Ford screwing up the mpg testing on all of their hybrids, but Ford has addressed their lies on this one, yet.

All I can advise is to definitely take it to the dealer and involve Ford Customer Service. If enough of us do that, maybe Ford will decide to finally do something about it.

The ecoboost fuel use ramps up greatly with speed and drag. Moreso than the non ecoboost. I believe the fuel economy numbers are done at 55 MPH, and at that speed, the ecoboost gets awesome mileage... once you get over 65, it starts dipping... get to 75 and 80 and it drops like a rock. This is on both the 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder Explorer ecoboosts.

 

[principalpony]

Jerry, principalpony posted the same thing, whining about poor mileage with the 2.0 Ecoboost several months ago. His logic is because the V6 did better on an arbitrary and unofficial test by 5mpg, then the Ecoboost should also do better by 5mpg. He's upset because not only is he not getting his lofty EPA Rating +5 fuel economy, but he's getting just barely under the EPA rated economy... which is what everybody gets in real world driving, at best.

The logic is completely flawed, and everybody told him this way back when.

Nothing is flawed in my logic as it is a real world comparison and I am NOT whining.

 

[77rednecktruck]

I have the 2014 Limited w/Ecoboost and have the same thoughts/results as indicated here - 24mpg hwy at 70-75 mph on a good day. When i tried to duplicate the Consumers Reports tests of an Ex w/V6 & AWD done a 65 mph, I got 26 mpg which was the same as their tests. The problem with that is the Ex they tested is EPA rated for 23 hwy and the Ecoboost is rated at 28 mpg, which means the Ecoboost should have done BETTER than the V6 AWD (like ~5 mpg better).

I have been to 2 dealers for testing and involving Ford Customer Service. FCS was friendly, helpful and understanding, but couldn't do anything about it. Going up the ladder to Ford Consumer Affairs and then to Ford Executive Liaison Dept proved to be a total waste of time & effort. You can only communicate with them through snail-mail and all you'll get back are form letters - total screw up on Ford's part if they want to retain customers and solve problems.

There is a problem here is just like Ford screwing up the mpg testing on all of their hybrids, but Ford has addressed their lies on this one, yet.

All I can advise is to definitely take it to the dealer and involve Ford Customer Service. If enough of us do that, maybe Ford will decide to finally do something about it.

Nothing is flawed in my logic as it is a real world comparison and I am NOT whining.

It kinda sounds like you are whining...

compare real world numbers to others in your area who drive like you do, not to consumer reports.

 

[BMan5150]

I think putting a 2 liter turbo motor in a near 5000 lb suv was a mistake to begin with. Just not enough juice to move this heavy beast. As a result, I think the real world fuel mileage vs rated fuel mileage variance is much worse than normal with the little ecoboost motor. But if you have the little Eco, I'm assuming those that made this decision rank fuel mileage higher than other ex owners so might as well take full advantage of the motor's sweet spot. Stick to highway speeds under 70 and have a very light throttle when accelerating. It won't be fun but my guess is those folks would be much happier with their gas mileage, which was a priority to begin with in selecting the little turbo motor to power a large suv.

Btw, this is likely exactly why they are going to the 2.3l turbo motor now for the ex. More power and torque = easier to stay out of the boost.

 

[mzodarg]

FWIW-Wife and I both work on the Army base 14 miles one way (mixed). So far she is averaging 15.8 mpg in the 15 Sport. I drive a 14 Silverado LTZ Z71 4x4 Crewcab and I average 17.5 MPG. My 5.3 engine is tuned, has custom Corsa exhaust with 22K on the ODO and I drive it hard.

I'm hoping that with more miles on the Ex that the mileage improves.

 

[BrianT]

I'm at nearly 80000km, have not reset the trip gauge in the last 40000km
20% hwy 80% city 14 ltr per 100 km, not to bad as I do not baby it.

Brian

I am lazy, what is the conversion to MPG.

Thanks.

I changed the units of measurement to miles, it showed 16.7 MPG

Brian

 

[Largefarva]

In my vast experience with my 2015 Sport I picked up yesterday....all 40 miles driven so far....the computer is telling me just under 17mpg so far. (Yes I'm using sarcasm because this isn't nearly enough info to base any sort of opinion)

As long as I can behave and keep my foot from being firmly planted in the fun-pedal I'm expecting my gas mileage to be a good bit better than the average of around 15mpg that I was getting in my 2011 F-150 w/ 3.5L ecoboost. The problem I believe will be trying to convince myself that I don't need to set a land speed record at every application of said fun-pedal.

 

[peterk9]

I changed the units of measurement to miles, it showed 16.7 MPG

Brian

That would work out to about 13.9 mpg in U.S. figures.

Peter

 

[CajunFordEx]

That would work out to about 13.9 mpg in U.S. figures.

Peter

Let me try my hand at it!

100km = 62.26 miles

14 liters = 3.6984 US gallons

62.26 divided by 3.6984 = 16.83 mpg.

P.S. - We are not using US govt figures here.....lol

 

[peterk9]

I used 2 different sites that covert Imperial mpg to U.S. mpg and both came back with 13.9 mpg U.S. Here is one of them that I used to convert 16.7 Imperial mpg;
http://www.calculateme.com/cGasMileage/milespergallon-imperial-to-us.htm
result = 13.905653127999999 Miles Per Gallon (US)

Peter

 

[CajunFordEx]

I used 2 different sites that covert Imperial mpg to U.S. mpg and both came back with 13.9 mpg U.S. Here is one of them that I used to convert 16.7 Imperial mpg;
http://www.calculateme.com/cGasMileage/milespergallon-imperial-to-us.htm
result = 13.905653127999999 Miles Per Gallon (US)

Peter

I have no idea why you are using "imperial"gallons. We use US gallons in the states.

I used the data from my Intertek well control handbook's conversion chart to convert liters to US gallons and kilometers to miles.

Any way you look at it, we are all right in one way or another.

 

[peterk9]

I have no idea why you are using "imperial"gallons. We use US gallons in the states.

I used the data from my Intertek well control handbook's conversion chart to convert liters to US gallons and kilometers to miles.

Any way you look at it, we are all right in one way or another.

We use Imperial gallons here and the mpg's Brian reported were in Imperial. When he changes the set up from L/100km to MPG, the MPG is in Imperial gallons. Therefore the conversion is required to get the figure into U.S. numbers.

Peter

 

[Halwg]

Not sure how this will stand against others but here is what I'm getting:

- 2011 XLT (stock)
- Highway
- 65mph average speed
- 1 passanger
- no extra weight
- regular gas
= 18.5 mpg

good / bad / average ?

Sounds low. My 2014 XLT with the 3.5L doing what you list, because I make trips like this every week, will get 24.5 with my Michelin Latitude summer tires. Putting on my Cooper, very aggressive winter tires, it dropped me to 22.5 mpg.

Still significantly better than your 18.5.

 

[77rednecktruck]

Sounds low. My 2014 XLT with the 3.5L doing what you list, because I make trips like this every week, will get 24.5 with my Michelin Latitude summer tires. Putting on my Cooper, very aggressive winter tires, it dropped me to 22.5 mpg.

Still significantly better than your 18.5.

Not if he is going through the mountains... This MPG talk is meaningless, there are about 11ty billion factors that can affect fuel mileage.

No, you probably don't get as many MPG as the next guy on the internet...

No, you don't have anything wrong with your vehicle...

 

[amd2800barton]

We use Imperial gallons here and the mpg's Brian reported were in Imperial. When he changes the set up from L/100km to MPG, the MPG is in Imperial gallons. Therefore the conversion is required to get the figure into U.S. numbers.

Peter

Nope. Cajun is correct.

Link