Explorer Gas Mileage - including Ecoboost

[Fish4five]

Also with EPA ratings they don't have the extra 400 to 600 lbs of passengers or cargo that can negatively impact mpg especially a smaller displacement engine in a big SUV.

 

[principalpony]

So I just picked up our Ex from the dealer. Had it's first oil change at 23% oil life and had them check for poor fuel economy, a harsh downshift when accelerating at hwy speeds, occasional rough idle when cold, and surging under brisk acceleration. They did the oil change and told me they tested the fuel economy on the hwy @ 60 mph for a few miles and got 28.3 mpg. I disputed their 3 minute test compare to our several hundred mile tests over 8k miles. Didn't get anywhere. They said Ford instructs them to do fuel economy tests at 60 mph. They ended up giving me the oil change at no charge (many dealers do that as SOP for the first oil change) and we never did get to discuss the other issues. I told them that even though their equipment says everything is operating the way it should and their test shows my Ex delivers the correct/rated mpg. I said there is definitely a problem here.

I wonder if Ford really does tell their dealers to run fuel economy tests at 60 mph because I don't think anyone in their right mind would consistently drive at 10 mph UNDER the speed limit. How is that a representation of hwy driving?

 

[peterk9]

So I just picked up our Ex from the dealer. Had it's first oil change at 23% oil life and had them check for poor fuel economy, a harsh downshift when accelerating at hwy speeds, occasional rough idle when cold, and surging under brisk acceleration. They did the oil change and told me they tested the fuel economy on the hwy @ 60 mph for a few miles and got 28.3 mpg. I disputed their 3 minute test compare to our several hundred mile tests over 8k miles. Didn't get anywhere. They said Ford instructs them to do fuel economy tests at 60 mph. They ended up giving me the oil change at no charge (many dealers do that as SOP for the first oil change) and we never did get to discuss the other issues. I told them that even though their equipment says everything is operating the way it should and their test shows my Ex delivers the correct/rated mpg. I said there is definitely a problem here.

I wonder if Ford really does tell their dealers to run fuel economy tests at 60 mph because I don't think anyone in their right mind would consistently drive at 10 mph UNDER the speed limit. How is that a representation of hwy driving?

Almost all of Ontario's 400 series highways have posted limits of 100 km/hr or roughly 62 mph.

Peter

 

[plumbago]

Peter, you are hedging on the 62 mph...That's where you live, not where principalpony lives.........Stop making excuses for the poor MPH of the 2L EB. It is terrible plan and simple !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[peterk9]

Peter, you are hedging on the 62 mph...That's where you live, not where principalpony lives.........Stop making excuses for the poor MPH of the 2L EB. It is terrible plan and simple !!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, no more hedging, 100 kmph = 62.138818 mph. I'm not trying to make an excuse for the poor mileage of the 2.0L Ecoboost. Many members on this forum have advised to stay away from it figuring it is under powered for the size of vehicle it has to move along. In any case, no matter which engine you have, the faster you drive the more fuel you use. Plain and simple.

Peter

 

[deerfarm]

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.

 

[mrichards]

The difference in the estimated base curb weight is only 249 pounds. It would take more energy for the 2.0L engine to get the vehicle moving than it would for the V6. Also, the smaller engine would likely be more apt to be working at or near full capability than the V6 especially at highway speeds. The smaller 2.0L ecoboost engine will have to work harder than the V6 to basically move a vehicle of almost the same weight.
I read somewhere that a year ago or so Car and Driver pointed out several vehicles that went for the "smaller but turbo engine" motif but the MPG either did not improve, or actually got worse.

Peter

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

 

[plumbago]

mrichards: Please let us know what you find out....I have long time complained about the black sooty tail pipes....Ford has ignored me, and just keeps saying it's normal, there are no adjustments....I'm not very smart, but I sure can tell an over rich condition when I see it, and it never changes. It doesn't matter if it's in town or a longer run on the interstates. It's always very black and sooty, period...
As far as any dyno tuning for the EXP I've not really seen any...however Livernois Motorsports, have advertised tuning the 2.0L EB for the Edge, Focus and maybe the Escape. It would seem the EXP would be a likely candidate, but hav'nt seen it yet....and this tuning is more performance related as apposed to MPG related.....however the two may go hand in hand. There is some reference to this in the 2011+ Modified section....... best regards Plum

 

[peterk9]

mrichards: Please let us know what you find out....I have long time complained about the black sooty tail pipes....Ford has ignored me, and just keeps saying it's normal, there are no adjustments....I'm not very smart, but I sure can tell an over rich condition when I see it, and it never changes. It doesn't matter if it's in town or a longer run on the interstates. It's always very black and sooty, period...best regards Plum

You are not the only one with that issue Plum. I referred another member (mrichards) to your original posts a few days ago. He was noticing the same thing.

Peter

 

[principalpony]

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

Another point about the torque of the 2.0 v V6 is that full torque is available at 3,000 rpms on the 2.0 and at 4,000 rpms on the V6, therefore the 2.0 has more torque available earlier or at lower speeds. All this talk about the 2.0 being underpowered by comparison is not really valid. Compared to the 2.5L in the '09 Malibu our Ex replaced, it's WAY better. Compared to our '12 Mustang GT 5.0, it's slow. In our 8k miles of driving I have not felt the 2.0 to be too weak for the vehicle.

I've given more thought to my experience with the dealer's service dept on Friday. Here's what I came up with:
1- They claimed their short 60mph test showed the same as the EPA rating, however, to claim their test to be accurate by comparison is totally in error. A valid test comparison would involve duplicating the EPA test, not just the 60 mph portion of the test.
2- EPA figures should be used for comparison purposes. I will use Consumers Reports on the 2011 Explorer XLT V6 AWD - EPA rated at 17/23 same as 2014 Explorer as my comparison. Consumers Reports hwy testing is done at 65 mph for 5 miles, first in one direction, then the other to compensate for road grade, wind direction, etc. Their test showed 26 mpg hwy (3mpg over the EPA rating). Being that our 2.0L Ex is EPA rated at 28 mpg hwy, it should achieve 5 mpg more than the CR tested Ex, or 31 mpg at 65 mph. Being that fuel economy decreases with speed indicates that the dealer's test of our Ex at 60 mph should have resulted in OVER 31 mpg, not the 28mpg they did get.

I agree that the issue is probably due to fuel mapping and shift mapping in the computer programming, therefore the dealer's testing for codes, etc would indicate that nothing is wrong. Unless some malfunction is found on our Ex, the only fix for this problem is for Ford to tweak the programming.

Any suggestions on this?

 

[Gatortailale]

I'm up to 26,000 miles on my 2.0; I'm 6'4" /310 lbs so I haul around extra weight. I have tracked every mile on fuelly.com. Most (96%) tanks run with premium fuel. I commute into DC so get stuck in traffic a lot. In city commute I get 21 on a good run with lots of time in traffic, some tanks worse when conditions real bad. When I hit the highway I tend to run 74-78 and can get 25+ depending on conditions of terrain. When in outer banks this summer running around at 50 mph computer showed mpg at 31 over a 95 mile period. I do think I notice a 2-3 mpg difference b/w 87 & 93 fuels.

My view it has the torque to get you around and the boost to zoom when needed. But if you are mashing pedal to floor every time you go your mpg going to suck, period. Take it a little easier like Peter suggests & mpg may go up.

Just my .02

 

[1995E]

I actually have gotten constant 18 rarely, mostly 19 city and 20 (if I mash the pedal a lot to pass people) and 23 when I drive slow. I am surprised, especially since I used to complain about my fuel mileage. I really didn't see this improvement until I improved my driving style. You'd be surprised how this Explorer really goes when you don't go past 2 - 2.5 thousand RPMs for accelerating from a stop and that you just stayed under 1.8 - 2 RPMs the whole time while cruising at the speed limit. I really love the little fuel monitor. Really helped me improve my driving incredibly. Based on what I've seen from Toyota and Chevy's instant MPG gauge, the Ford's is the best and has only a .5 second delay. It also doesn't like to you about your MPG. Somehow I got a 40 MPG overall fuel economy when in fact, I actually got 14 when I kept flooring a Chevy Cobalt rental. So, it's all about driving habits.

 

[peterk9]

I actually have gotten constant 18 rarely, mostly 19 city and 20 (if I mash the pedal a lot to pass people) and 23 when I drive slow. I am surprised, especially since I used to complain about my fuel mileage. I really didn't see this improvement until I improved my driving style. You'd be surprised how this Explorer really goes when you don't go past 2 - 2.5 thousand RPMs for accelerating from a stop and that you just stayed under 1.8 - 2 RPMs the whole time while cruising at the speed limit. I really love the little fuel monitor. Really helped me improve my driving incredibly. Based on what I've seen from Toyota and Chevy's instant MPG gauge, the Ford's is the best and has only a .5 second delay. It also doesn't like to you about your MPG. Somehow I got a 40 MPG overall fuel economy when in fact, I actually got 14 when I kept flooring a Chevy Cobalt rental. So, it's all about driving habits.

That's what I've been trying to get across to people all along.
It's always nice to see that fewer $$ are going out the exhaust pipes. But everyone has their own driving style and I'm okay with that since it's their money. I keep my RPMs in the same ball park as you.
Happy motoring.

Peter

 

[BarbMon]

Mileage in 2014 Explorer base model

I have a 2014 base model Expl, my 3rd Explorer. It has about 1100 miles onit. Took a rd trip, all interstate, over 2 not very high passes, expecting to get better mileage than my 2002 with almost 180k. I averaged 19.5. I drove 75-85. Now I know an Expl is not known for great mileage but I was appalled. Called svc dept of dealer and was told mileage would improve the more miles I drove. Is this true or this what they tell women to keep us quiet? Thanks
PS Why did Ford make 2014 narrower.

 

[blichy]

I have a 2014 base model Expl, my 3rd Explorer. It has about 1100 miles onit. Took a rd trip, all interstate, over 2 not very high passes, expecting to get better mileage than my 2002 with almost 180k. I averaged 19.5. I drove 75-85. Now I know an Expl is not known for great mileage but I was appalled. Called svc dept of dealer and was told mileage would improve the more miles I drove. Is this true or this what they tell women to keep us quiet? Thanks
PS Why did Ford make 2014 narrower.

Mileage should improve as the engine breaks in. That said, I have noticed a very large difference between mileage at 60 to that at 75/80 with our Sport.

Curious as to your comment about the 2014 being narrower--it is a fair bit wider than the 2002 models (about 6" in fact).

 

[182RG]

I drove 75-85.

2011 - 70-75 MPH on flat interstate yields approx 22-23 MPG in summer months (no winter formulated fuel).

24.5 MPG is the best I've managed at 65-70 MPH.

85 MPH you'll be lucky to break 20 MPG.

I'd be appalled at 13, not 19.5. That's not too bad.

 

[blwnsmoke]

I've got 56,000 miles on my 2011 and average 19.5 - 20.5. If you are doing 75-85, I'd be very pleased with 19.5!! You are talking 15% less then the sticker says doing that kind of speeds on winter blend, lol, I can't understand the "appauled" comment.

 

[13Sport]

I have a 2014 base model Expl, my 3rd Explorer. It has about 1100 miles onit. Took a rd trip, all interstate, over 2 not very high passes, expecting to get better mileage than my 2002 with almost 180k. I averaged 19.5. I drove 75-85. Now I know an Expl is not known for great mileage but I was appalled. Called svc dept of dealer and was told mileage would improve the more miles I drove. Is this true or this what they tell women to keep us quiet? Thanks
PS Why did Ford make 2014 narrower.

You probably need to understand the affect that speed and wind have on mileage. In my sport I can average 23.5 - 24.5 if I keep the speedo at 72 or below with little or no oncoming wind. Anything over 75 and mileage drops to 20... add any wind resistance and you lose more.

If you are driving for mileage, keep it at 72 and below, you should also check to see if your area deploys winter blend gasolines.

 

[peterk9]

I have a 2014 base model Expl, my 3rd Explorer. It has about 1100 miles onit. Took a rd trip, all interstate, over 2 not very high passes, expecting to get better mileage than my 2002 with almost 180k. I averaged 19.5. I drove 75-85. Now I know an Expl is not known for great mileage but I was appalled. Called svc dept of dealer and was told mileage would improve the more miles I drove. Is this true or this what they tell women to keep us quiet? Thanks
PS Why did Ford make 2014 narrower.

Welcome to the Forum BarbMon.:wavey:
As indicated in my PM, I have merged your thread with this one on gas mileage.
Speed in what is killing your mileage. That plus the colder weather.
See the link in my post 68 in this thread. At 80 mph the chart shows that your fuel efficiency is 28% less than the 55 mph reference. You may notice a bit of a difference once you get a few miles on the engine but most modern engines do not require a lot of 'break in'. Mileage also differs slightly in a FWD vs AWD.

Peter

 

[BarbMon]

As to comment on Expl being narrower. I mean in cargo area. I carry dog crates and I have to use narrower crates to fit side by side than I do in my 2002.