3.5L Ecoboost Owners - What MPG are you getting?

[Odrapnew]

That seems low, but there are many factors that impact mileage.

Everything it still pretty “tight” @ 1600 miles so I would expect your mileage to increase as you get more miles on it.
How do you drive? All city will yield poor results. Aggressive driving will impact it, especially with the Ecoboost.
Your highway drive, how fast were you going? What type of highway(hilly, flat, wind?)
What type of fuel?

My 14 Sport lifetime average is 20.2mpg, with a high of 23 and low of 17(towing a small trailer). I’d say I’m about 50/50 City/Highway. Winter months kill the average.

 

[peterk9]

I new to the forum and did a search but nothing in the results I could find to answer my question.

I have a new 2018 Explorer Sport with the 3.5 Ecoboost. The thing is absolutely horrible on fuel economy. Can anyone compare what they are getting with theirs? I have about 1600 plus miles on it now and it is averaging only mid 13s MPG with mixed driving. I did straight runs on the highway for most of a tank full and was only getting about 16.5, and that was truly all highway.

Welcome to the Forum Billy.
As mentioned above, gas mileage is very subjective and depends upon several factors. I have moved your thread here and you may want to check out the threads I linked in post #2 as well.

Peter

 

[Kpwweb]

2013 Sport. 32k miles, mostly city. 91 octane, no ethanol!

About 14.9-16.2mpg in the city. I have seen up to 23mpg on the highway, but ended up averaging about 20mpg on that trip.

Just as a for instance, my 2016 tahoe, which I use the same gas, gets about 20mpg combined. Up to 24mpg on the highway and about 16-17mpg around town.

So yeah, Ford's are kinda low (with a small tank to boot!). But the wife drives mainly around town so we fill up about once a week.

 

[BillyD1002]

Thank you, guys. I am very conscious about MPG when I get something new, so not really driving hard. My wife uses the car too but with our kids in it, so I am pretty sure she is not speeding around when I am not with her, but we drive to work together most of the week. I am using 87 octane right now, will try something better, but when math kicks in the added cost may and will probably negate the MPG gain if any. The highway run I did was very flat, no real wind, and about 60-70 MPH on average. The "city" driving we do is not real city stop and go, we are moving usually about 30-50 MPH with some stops for lights, and some back street stuff with stops signs. Nothing like gridlock.

I will keep an eye on the post and hopefully my MPG increases.

 

[peterk9]

......I am using 87 octane right now, will try something better, but when math kicks in the added cost may and will probably negate the MPG gain if any.......

I can vouch for that and I'm using 91. It won't pay for itself or even allow you to break even in regards to mileage.

Peter

 

[shucker1]

The mileage display in the car is always off to the high side, as much as 10%. The only accurate measure of fuel mileage, is to right down the gas and mileage every time you fill up. I've done that for over 30 years, with a little note pad/book in each car I've owned. Doing that makes it very easy, and accurate to judge fuel mileage.

I do the same thing Don does on all of my vehicles.

Kinda hard to convince the girls to do it....

I'll usually get upset and get them back on track for a few months.

I also keep notes of oil changes and other maintenance in that book. Since I work all over the U.S., locations and current job descriptions are included as well.

I can always reference the log book and see any down fall in mileage and catch a problem before it gets too bad.

I do notice that at lower altitude (Lower Southern States) I lose about 1 or 2 MPG.

Higher altitude (Central U.S., Midwest, Mideast) mileage goes up.

90% of the time with cruise set.

It must be the way the ECU is set up from factory.

 

[chartquist]

I track via fuelly.com, which is quite handy.

33K miles now, and I use Costco 87 octane

20.1 mpg overall average
114 fill-ups over vehicle lifetime
1649.03 gallons burned over vehicle lifetime
288.2 average miles/fill-up (usually fill up with around 30 miles to empty on the display)

When searching across all 2016 Explorer Sports (40 units), here is the aggregate data: "Based on data from 40 vehicles, 2,207 fuel-ups and 514,071 miles of driving, the 2016 Ford Explorer gets a combined Avg MPG of 17.03 with a 0.16 MPG margin of error."

 

[Soup804]

I feel ripped off!! I am at 2000' above sea level and have a '17 sport with only 5000km ( 3100 miles). I get 12-14 L/100km (19-16 MPG) and that's driving approx. 40 km hwy and 3 km city per day. towing about 2500lbs I get 18 km/100L (13 MPG). My SCT X4 is being delivered today and now just gotta decide on the tune I want to purchase, hopefully that helps. I am not going to do a CAI or Cat-Back Exhaust as that just adds noise; but if downpipes drop in price I may full exhaust.

 

[peterk9]

I feel ripped off!! I am at 2000' above sea level and have a '17 sport with only 5000km ( 3100 miles). I get 12-14 L/100km (19-16 MPG) and that's driving approx. 40 km hwy and 3 km city per day. towing about 2500lbs I get 18 km/100L (13 MPG). My SCT X4 is being delivered today and now just gotta decide on the tune I want to purchase, hopefully that helps. I am not going to do a CAI or Cat-Back Exhaust as that just adds noise; but if downpipes drop in price I may full exhaust.

That's about what I'm averaging as well. I use Fuelly.com to track my mileage and costs etc. My 2017 Platinum has averaged 17.7 mpg (US) over 5775 kms. My 2014 MKT with the same engine average 17.3 mpg (US) over 10,703 kms. My 2011 non Ecoboost was the best at 19.4 mpg (US) over 8,052 kms.

Peter

 

[golf4283]

20,000+ miles logged on Fuelly with my 2017 sport and I'm averaging 17.1mpg overall. I'm a good 60/40 mix city versus highway as well. I'm pretty good at maxing my MPG as well.

2017 Explorer Sport (Ford Explorer) | Fuelly

Edit: I have only ever used 93 octane fuel in the car.

 

[Andy.J]

13 Sport... 14.7 - 15.8 MPG. Higher octane gives a very slight increase, tried non-ethanol (87) and it made no difference. I'm mostly commuting an Atlanta traffic so it's going to be lower. I mostly use 93 now for the performance increase (Increase seems quite minor TBH)

I don't pay attention to the MPG now, I would sooner drive it how I want to and pay a bit more in fuel running costs. As someone said before, for the Ecoboost you pick either eco OR boost, not both.

 

[CDW6212R]

The MPG display is the best tool to improve fuel mileage. That instantaneous readout helps a bunch to see when you are using too much fuel, which is when the boost is kicking in during normal driving that you aren't paying attention to it.

Watch that MPG figure drop while going uphill, and try to let it go a little faster down hill, so you let off more going uphill.

We have constant hills here away from the interstate. I used to gain close to 2mpg going to work by being more gentle going up hills etc, and it didn't change my commute time(25 minutes for a 21 mile drive). I can drive crazy and save maybe a minute, or go very slow and take 4-5 minutes longer.

 

[ThunderFan]

2013 Sport here. I purchased it used, but since I've owned it I have driven 35,833.7 miles and have averaged 17.17 mpg. I keep track of my fuel mileage and expenses manually using an app called Fuel Buddy.

 

[peterk9]

I feel ripped off!! I am at 2000' above sea level and have a '17 sport with only 5000km ( 3100 miles). I get 12-14 L/100km (19-16 MPG) and that's driving approx. 40 km hwy and 3 km city per day. towing about 2500lbs I get 18 km/100L (13 MPG). My SCT X4 is being delivered today and now just gotta decide on the tune I want to purchase, hopefully that helps. I am not going to do a CAI or Cat-Back Exhaust as that just adds noise; but if downpipes drop in price I may full exhaust.

After reading the posts after yours, it seems everyone is in about the same 'ballpark'.

Peter

 

[CDW6212R]

The Computer tune with the SCT flasher may improve fuel mileage. But it has to be a proper tune designed for your vehicle, not a random canned tune which was created with different conditions as where you live etc. A perfect tune will be notable, everything not quite ideal for the vehicle, will be less helpful.

It's not cheap to get a tune made for your vehicle. You might do better to first install new exhaust parts, before paying for a PCM tune.

FYI, OEM mufflers have built in special chambers inside, which reduce sound more than the rest of the muffler passages and packing material. No aftermarket muffler has such a chamber inside, called a Helmholtz chamber. That's the reason aftermarket mufflers are all louder than OEM.

I'm going to take a shot at making one of those chambers with my exhaust, just a simple small box with two openings, and a chamber inside that has no airflow. Think of a maze on paper with dead end passages. The Helmholtz chamber is a volume with just one opening to it, along the path of normal airflow. Cut open any OEM muffler, and find an intersection of three apparent directions, where the air must go through two of them, but the third goes nowhere, to a dead passage. That opening is typically inline with the outlet direction, and intended to allow sound waves to pass back and forth across there, and cancel out waves as they meet. The volume of the dead space is important, but it's not easy to find out how large it needs to be. I can handle a small maybe 6x6x4" box that doesn't take up much space, and is simple to make. I wish the aftermarket companies would recognize that consumers do want such a thing, and develop them.

 

[Centaurus5.0]

This thread is a bit eye opening for me.

It sounds like the 5th gens, with it's redesigned aero dynamic body, intricate ecoboost engines, and more efficient transmission (more gears), it gets the same mpg a 2nd gen does with an engine that was designed 55-60 years ago and a transmission with 3 gears and an overdrive while also sitting up much higher from the ground with a far-from-aero underbelly.

Auto manufactures designed Direct Fuel Injection engine because they say they are more efficient and get better gas mileage, BUT all GDI engines suffer from deposit build up in the intake track and on top of the valves because fuel (with it's detergents) are not constantly being spraying on them like in port injection engine. We can reason deposits would not effect the gas mileage but it would definitely effect max HP due to the loss in air flow which is most critical around the valves. Injectors are cheap and relatively easy to replace on port injection but tearing a motor down to clean valves and intake tracs can get expensive. On the older model cars which run 39-65psi fuel pressure, a fuel leak in the line or a fitting is not as critical as one in a system with 2,000psi! Would be the difference between dripping out of a hole in a bucket vs a fire hose. It will be interesting to see what age/environment stress issues pop up on these rigs in the years to come.

Just a little correction Don. 3 chamber Flowmasters have helmholtz chambers built in and "Turbo" style mufflers like Dynomax, Trush and Warlock use the same principle as oem with the perforated-tubes-in-a-chamber design.

My understanding is a tune is set for the specific combination of parts and their attributes (fuel injector flow, mam reading, throttle body position relative to it's size, etc) and not necessarily environmental/altitude differences. That is what sensors like map(speed density) and Mass Air Meters are for to read the changes and make appropriate corrections to keep the engine at the optimal A/F ratio. You wouldn't need to re-tune your car if you move from Death Valley to Leadville, CO as long as the initial tune for the combo was right.

 

[CDW6212R]

All true my friend. I generalized about the rareness of finding any non-OEM mufflers that try to incorporate technology like the Helmholtz principles, to reduce sound. I didn't know about any Flowmasters with it though, that sounds(pun) illogical. They make loud mufflers, which I'm okay with, but they are among the most restrictive too.

I'd love to have one of the newer Ford SUV's some day, they seem to be great overall compared to the past two generations.

 

[gmcv893]

I'd love to have one of the newer Ford SUV's some day, they seem to be great overall compared to the past two generations.

I've been driving explorers since the 90's, and the 5th Generation is by far the closest thing to a car (feel, acceleration, comfort) as you can get with a SUV cab bolted to it. I hope one day you can as well!

 

[CDW6212R]

I expect they are great. The old frame with a body bolted to it are inherently less rigid, roll more etc. The only good is how much better it is to repair serious body/suspension issues with them, half of the major parts can be unbolted from the other half.

 

[Odrapnew]

This thread is a bit eye opening for me.

It sounds like the 5th gens, with it's redesigned aero dynamic body, intricate ecoboost engines, and more efficient transmission (more gears), it gets the same mpg a 2nd gen does with an engine that was designed 55-60 years ago and a transmission with 3 gears and an overdrive while also sitting up much higher from the ground with a far-from-aero underbelly.

Same could be said for many vehicles.

My mom had a 1991 Toyota Camry that got 45-50mpg on the highway. A new Camry gets 35ish. Even the newer hybrid "only" gets 40mpg.

What I've found on Fuelly is that the 5th gen has generally higher MPG vs. 2nd gen, especially if you are comparing similar engines(N/A V6 vs. N/A V6).
You also have to remember, the 5th gen explorer weighs more than the 2nd gen, so getting this beast moving takes more energy. Getting even similar city MPG in a vehicle that weights ~800lbs more is a definite improvement.