Explorer Gas Mileage - including Ecoboost

[principalpony]

We just arrived in FL, leaving MI for a couple of months. My dealer had finally told me to go to Ford Customer Service with my complaint as they (dealer) could not do any more for me on this mpg issue. The Ford rep contacted me a few days before we left. I told her of our trip and she suggested that I have our Ex tested here in FL. I monitored our mpg's the whole way. We got just over 20 mpg avg cruising at 70-75 mph for the first half. I did a reset when we filled up TN and we got just under 24 mpg. I did another reset just before we entered FL and we got just over 24 mpg cruising at 70-72 mph.

Being that our mpg has not improved with mileage (now at 11k), but dropped a lot with cold weather (just over 20 mpg in Dec as compared to 23-24 in warmer weather), I wanted to see what happens traveling South. I assume GA & FL don't use a winter blend gas. As you can see, our mpg is better in warmer weather.

As far as my driving habits are concerned, when I drive our Ex I do everything I can to maximize the fuel economy - driving like a sissy if you will - watching the sliding bar graph a lot. On the hwy I set the cruise and rarely turn it off, when I do I usually accelerate back to cruising speed myself to avoid downshifts - not just hitting the resume. I know a lot about cars and how to drive for maximum economy. I've been a certified ASE Master Auto Tech for 25 years and auto tech teacher for 15 years.

I did call my brother while on our trip. He owns a '13 EX XLT FWD V6 and says he gets 24+ mpg at 70-75 mph in WI. I asked him if he noticed a drop in mpg for colder weather. He said he'd check it on an upcoming trip to IA.

My bottom line is that Ford designed & built the EX w/2.0L engine for one reason - to sell them based on better fuel economy than the V6. I think they even claim "Best in Class" fuel economy for the Ex based on that. In reality, those of us who bought it got screwed out of $1k, lost towing capacity, and didn't get the manual shift mode tranny. All I see here are losses, no gains. That's just plain wrong and very deceptive. In case you don't know this, check out the Feb issue of Consumers Reports for the article on the Ford Fusion & C-max hybrids. CR reports that there is a loop-hole in the EPA regulations that allow a manufacturer use EPA testing results for a vehicle with the same drivetrain for another vehicle w/o actually testing it. Ford's EPA specs for the C-max are actually from testing the Fusion. Makes on wonder what EPA test results Ford used for the Ex 2.0L - perhaps the results for the Escape?

 

[13Sport]

In case you don't know this, check out the Feb issue of Consumers Reports for the article on the Ford Fusion & C-max hybrids. CR reports that there is a loop-hole in the EPA regulations that allow a manufacturer use EPA testing results for a vehicle with the same drivetrain for another vehicle w/o actually testing it. Ford's EPA specs for the C-max are actually from testing the Fusion. Makes on wonder what EPA test results Ford used for the Ex 2.0L - perhaps the results for the Escape?

EPA testing is done with highway being 55mph. I am gonna go out and say i'd bet money that if you drove at 55mph you would get +-1mpg of the EPA estimates. They are after all just that.. Estimates

 

[plumbago]

Mr. Pony: Your observations of the 2.0L EB are absolutely spot on ! And and yes Ford has screwed the buying Public with this vehicle....Your travel to FL results are almost identical to ours last year and I'm sure they will be the same this year. Leaving very soon for 3 mo. Winter stay in Melbourne Beach. And lastly, our 2013 is a disappointment, and I shall not choose Ford again....I hope others look at this mileage and all the other quality issues before they consider Ford.....best regards Plum

 

[peterk9]

...........Being that our mpg has not improved with mileage (now at 11k), but dropped a lot with cold weather (just over 20 mpg in Dec as compared to 23-24 in warmer weather), I wanted to see what happens traveling South. I assume GA & FL don't use a winter blend gas. As you can see, our mpg is better in warmer weather...........
I did call my brother while on our trip. He owns a '13 EX XLT FWD V6 and says he gets 24+ mpg at 70-75 mph in WI. I asked him if he noticed a drop in mpg for colder weather. He said he'd check it on an upcoming trip to IA.........

I have noticed that my fuel mileage has always dropped during the Winter months, even before there was such a thing a 'Winter gas'.
I also read the article in CR and wasn't at all surprised seeing as manufacturers are allowed to report on their own testing results. I've been driving long enough to know that I can't really rely on the MPG figures that are advertised. I consider it a 'bonus' if I actually come close to them.
That being said, I have achieved and slightly surpassed the MPG figures for my AWD V6 Limited on a couple of occasions driving at 50 mph in the Summer but I wouldn't consider that realistic driving.

Peter

 

[13Sport]

To elaborate.. specifically on the ecoboost engines at 55mph the likelihood of the turbos spooling is very low. At 70+mph the rpms are high enough that I can hear regular spool and blow off. Anytime your turbos spool you are going to decrease your gas mileage. If you are looking for 4 cylinder gas mileage, you would need to drive the speeds that were used during the EPA testing, which is 55mph for highway estimates

6 cylinder engines get better gas mileage at 70+mph than a 4cylinder with spinning turbos. Same as 8 cylinders will get better mileage at 80+ than a 6cylinder with spinning turbos. Being a master auto tech you should already know this.

 

[13Sport]

Mr. Pony: Your observations of the 2.0L EB are absolutely spot on ! And and yes Ford has screwed the buying Public with this vehicle....Your travel to FL results are almost identical to ours last year and I'm sure they will be the same this year. Leaving very soon for 3 mo. Winter stay in Melbourne Beach. And lastly, our 2013 is a disappointment, and I shall not choose Ford again....I hope others look at this mileage and all the other quality issues before they consider Ford.....best regards Plum

turbo charged cars will never get better gas mileage than NA if the turbos are spooling, at the speeds Pony is discussing he is forcing induction and burning gas. Ford screwed nobody in this.. drive the car 55mph like the EPA estimates state, and tell me you aren't getting exactly (or better) than the sticker

 

[huie1983]

I have a 2011 V6. I'm mostly on the interstate at 75 mph. I get 20.5 mpg consistently in the summer and 19.5 in the winter. I guess I'm doing pretty well.

I get exactly the same. Just got back from a 900 mile road trip from MN to Nebraska, cruise set to 75 the whole way, 20.4 overall.

Not great but not horrible either, of course I wish it did better. One thing I don't get is why the EPA still tests at 55MPH, no one drives 55 EVER so the EPA MPG ratings don't ever apply. We are just blindly buying now as they will never get EPA, IMO it doesn't apply to real life....

 

[13Sport]

I get exactly the same. Just got back from a 900 mile road trip from MN to Nebraska, cruise set to 75 the whole way, 20.4 overall.

Not great but not horrible either, of course I wish it did better. One thing I don't get is why the EPA still tests at 55MPH, no one drives 55 EVER so the EPA MPG ratings don't ever apply. We are just blindly buying now as they will never get EPA, IMO it doesn't apply to real life....

The EPA test is actually varied speeds up to 80mph, but the average speed for the highway portion of the test is ~48mph according to various publications. Slow acceleration and deceleration. For most naturally aspirated cars the test is pretty accurate for today's speed limits (70mph being the national maximum). Unfortunately most drivers drive between 75-80 on freeways making the tests off by a large percentage.

Forced induction changes the dynamic of any fuel related tests because the percentage loss between 50mph (little to no boost) and 70mph (little to moderate boost) is monumental in comparison to an NA engine.

 

[huie1983]

Good to know, could have been partially from the winter gas too. This is my first winter with the Ex.

 

[peterk9]

.......... One thing I don't get is why the EPA still tests at 55MPH, no one drives 55 EVER so the EPA MPG ratings don't ever apply. ...

Yes they do here. Many of our country roads have an 80 kmph speed limit. That is 50 mph so it is not unsual to see people doing 55 mph.

Peter

 

[huie1983]

peterk9- But you are in Canada, They have a different rating system up there. I guess all I'm saying is in general I don't think that there are many highways where people drive an average of 48MPH. I'd like to see a little more real life average, say 60-65MPH or something.

 

[peterk9]

peterk9- But you are in Canada, They have a different rating system up there. I guess all I'm saying is in general I don't think that there are many highways where people drive an average of 48MPH. I'd like to see a little more real life average, say 60-65MPH or something.

I agree. Most of the 4 lanes here are 100 kmph (60 mph) but most tend to drive at 70 or more. To set a real life average I would think that it would have to be mandated by a governing body since the MPG figures would be lower and I doubt any manufacturer would want to be the first one to post lower figures.

Peter

 

[Mike Saunders]

Just drove from Fort Lauderdale to Boston in a '13 XLT, with two adults and two small children. Cargo included a 100-lb dog, a few hundred pounds of clothes, gifts and gear...and four 18" wheels in a hitch-mounted rack and enclosed in a cargo bag.

Drive was non-stop, with temperatures starting in the low 70s and ending at -4. We averaged 19.5 mpg while cruising at 75-80 mph for much of the trip.

 

[scorpo8972]

I may not have a new Ex but I will say it's the weather. My gas mileage was pretty good for a v8 with the k&n intake all spring and summer but in fall it started to drop now in winter my last two fillups were pretty bad. I usually use ESSO(EXXON in the states) or Petro Canada and I find Esso gas gets me worst mileage like barely 425 a tank compared to 462km at petro.

I usually fillup twice a month. Heres my mileage ive been tracking since april.

Ratings are for 2002 Explorer XLT 4.4 with 4.6L V8(k&n intake)Combined 60/40(hwy/city) Also note: I drive very conservative, never letting it shift higher than 2000rpm or giving to much gas at takeoff and letting off the gas when i know i'm not going to make a green light.

F1: 16.8 MPG
F2: 16.5 MPG
F3: 17.1 MPG
F3: 17.3 MPG
F4: 17.8 MPG
F5: 17.7 MPG
F6: 17.9 MPG
F7: 18.3 MPG
F8: 18.0 MPG
F9: 17.6 MPG
F10: 17.4 MPG
F11: 16.8 MPG
F13: 16.6 MPG
F14: 16.5 MPG
F15: 16.1 MPG
F16: 15.8 MPG
F17: 15.5 MPG
F18: 15.3 MPG
F19: 15.0 MPG
F20: Results end of this week. I'm scared it dropped further.

So on that note it's the weather plus the winter gas, Ive been using winter gas since November 2013 which is around fillup 15.

I suggest people try filling up at different fuel stations to see if it makes a difference.

Highest I seen in MPG was a complete highway drive to Pittsburgh and I got an impressive 22.1 MPG(factor in fully maintained, tires maintained, sunny dry slightly windy conditions)

I just can't wait for the summer my EX sounds sick and drinks like an alcoholic now.

Hope your economies improve fellow explorers.

 

[peterk9]

I may not have a new Ex but I will say it's the weather. My gas mileage was pretty good for a v8 with the k&n intake all spring and summer but in fall it started to drop now in winter my last two fillups were pretty bad. I usually use ESSO(EXXON in the states) or Petro Canada and I find Esso gas gets me worst mileage like barely 425 a tank compared to 462km at petro.

I did use Sunoco exclusively until the station switched to Petro Canada. Now that is the only gas I use. Your driving is a bit like mine only in the Summer it isn't unusual to go 2 months between fills.

Peter

 

[fordtastic]

Poor mileage

We have had our 14 sport for three months now. I know it's still early but I would like some insight from the forum on our fuel consumption. I live in Canada and our average winter temperature so far has been -30C. We have 2200km on the vehicle so far. Driving has been all city driving so far. Speed limits driven with easy take offs from stops. Average fuel consumption has been 21L/100kms or 11miles/gallon. This seems much lower then many of the numbers posted here. Our last tank of gas we got 265km out of it before needing to refill. The previous couple refills we averaged 350km (217miles). Like I said I know it's early and the engine is still breaking in just seems really low for a break in period!

Just wanted to add and ask that we have had a really cold winter and how much of a reduction in fuel economy is seen in extreme cold?
Peter

 

[peterk9]

We have had our 14 sport for three months now. I know it's still early but I would like some insight from the forum on our fuel consumption. I live in Canada and our average winter temperature so far has been -30C. We have 2200km on the vehicle so far. Driving has been all city driving so far. Speed limits driven with easy take offs from stops. Average fuel consumption has been 21L/100kms or 11miles/gallon. This seems much lower then many of the numbers posted here. Our last tank of gas we got 265km out of it before needing to refill. The previous couple refills we averaged 350km (217miles). Like I said I know it's early and the engine is still breaking in just seems really low for a break in period!

Just wanted to add and ask that we have had a really cold winter and how much of a reduction in fuel economy is seen in extreme cold?
Peter

City driving will really pull your average down. I figure my driving is about 50/50 and after my last fill it said I was good for 563km. The average always seems to be in the 12L/100kms range.

Peter

 

[principalpony]

WOW - there are a lot of posts since mine, yesterday. I feel a need to respond to some.

First of all, EPA Highway Testing is a cycle, not cruising at a constant speed. The cycle includes a top speed of 60 mph, but it is brief and the average speed is 48 mph. EPA also does another cycle that is more harsh, which was added in 2008 to try to better represent typical driving and make the results more accurate for most drivers. This test is a cycle, too and includes a top speed of 80mph. Funny thing about this is the service manager at our dealership told me that the EPA highway rating does NOT include this test cycle. Sounds stupid to me to do a test and not use the results.

Second of all, turbos spool up under load, not just rpm's. If you have ever driven a turbo car with a boost gauge, or vacuum/boost gauge you would know this. Highway speeds alone will not cause the turbos to spool and produce boost until you are under a load like climbing a hill, etc. If you have your car with turbos in neutral, you can rev your engine all you want and never spool the turbos to produce any boost pressure. I have owned a 1986 Grand National Regal w/turbo 3.8L, and installed a twin turbo, intercooler kit on a '95 Mustang GT that I had. I know how turbos work. Anytime you are not under a load the turbos are just going along for the ride. That's what makes them a great boost induction system is that, unlike a supercharger, they don't drain engine power when not under a load.

In my past experience, I have not noticed any significant increase in fuel economy on a new car from 0 miles to several thousand miles on cars we have owned for the past 2 decades. Also, going from 1 or 2 passengers to 4 doesn't seem to make any significant difference in highway mileage.

I think that Consumers Reports testing is more accurate than EPA testing especially since the EPA only does spot testing of vehicles and allows manufacturers to do most.

I know that the EPA specs are supposed to be used for comparison more than an expectation of what an owner will get. The comparisons I have used for my expectations of fuel economy are from the CR testing of a 2012 Explorer XLT V6 AWD, and what my brother tells me he is getting from his 2013 Explorer XLT V6, and, no, my brother is not lying to me. BTW - I am only looking at highway ratings, not city or combined as 80+% of our driving is all highway.

 

[mrichards]

Follow up from Ford Customer Service

There is a 50hp difference between the 3.5L base motor and 2.0L EB, but a 15 lb ft torque advantage for the 2.0. I'm not buying your explanation. Torque is what moves the car forward. Power determines how quickly (or not) it gets to the wheels. There are many variables that determine MPG in the real world and many have been discussed in this forum. The article you reference can be found here - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-ford-explorer-ecoboost-review and draws a similar conclusion to what has been stated - underpowered.
We have seen (in our personal experience) that the mileage is not so much a function of how the car is driven, but how it is programmed to operate. The fuel map and shift map for the vehicle is obviously pretty conservative. I think that Ford ought to be able to improve the situation (low MPG, Black tailpipe) by revisiting these settings.
I run sand buggies off road and see a lot of turbo fours and V8's in the So Cal desert with nice clean tailpipes. It is a myth that turbo cars have to have dirty tailpipes.
I think that us 2.0 EB owners are getting screwed more by the EPA and the canned programs that Ford has to run in order to meet CA emissions and keep the powertrains operating in the 'safe zone' to keep them running. This is especially true when you are trying to lug 4550 lbs around. I assume that the extra 50 hp in the 3.5L helps to allow a more optimal fuel and trans program that returns better mileage overall.
I'm going to the dyno shop in the near future to see what's really going on and I'll let you know what I found out.
Without searching this forum, can someone share a thread about anyone who has altered there fuel/powertrain settings with positive results?
Mark

I received a follow up call from the So Cal CS rep from Ford. I was basically told that it is what it is. Lame. I still haven't gone to the Dyno shop but will one of these days.

 

[dtr]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't all test done with 100% gasoline and not the 10% ethanol they sell to us?

shouldn't we use mpg, hp, torque etc simply for comparison purposes between cars and stop stressing?

BTW, don't you think all the car companies noticed most people have been convinced to shave with razor blades that have 4 or 5 blades so do you really think there is going to be an uprising concerning optimistic testing by the auto industry.