Any thoughts on why the 2017 2.3L 4x4 lost a MPG on HWY rating?

[Tuscany]

Tuning adds power at LOW RPM! You can't get much more at high rpm because the turbos can't keep up and neither can the fuel system. Tuning adds very useable power.

Diesel yes. Lots of compression, and a diesel will burn what you feed it. Add in a widened fuel timing pulse into a 1,700 degree combustion chamber, and you get fast expanding mass which makes low end power. Gasoline engines simply can not process air and fuel like a diesel.

Turbo/gasoline engines run a lower compression ratio over the same NA engine to begin with. Low end power disadvantage there.. Add in turbo lag, and...
So while it may make a smidge more upper end power with tuning, it is also defeating the purpose of small engine/better fuel mileage "advantage", along with creating heat the engine can't deal with.
It's a joke to push such a small engine further to begin with. What is the reason, to race a Chevy Spark?
If you want real power, buy a Cherokee with the new 700hp hell cat engine.

 

[613GT500]

There's no replacement for displacement and Ford needs to drop a v8 back in. You're kidding yourself, if you're buying a 5000lbs vehicle with expectations of good fuel economy.

 

[blwnsmoke]

IMO, since Ford has heavily invested in the EB, this platform will go on for a few more years, and Ford will finally return to a better, lighter, fuel efficient NA engine across the board.

I get what you are saying with the small engines and it obviously sounds like you are one of the few that just want that V8 motor that is being phased out of most vehicles.

However to say that Ford is going to return to the N/A engine is beyond a far stretch. Let's see, they have the 1.0, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0, 3.5 and a 5.0 which are all ecoboost. Going to back to a N/A?? I think not.

Ford isn't going away from the ecoboost in any way, in fact they are going forward with it and have 2nd gens already.

 

[blwnsmoke]

There's no replacement for displacement and Ford needs to drop a v8 back in. You're kidding yourself, if you're buying a 5000lbs vehicle with expectations of good fuel economy.

Considering we are getting 20/21mpg in the N/A 3.5 and the 2.3 is getting mid 20s reported by members, I'd say that fuel economy is there with the 2.3 over the N/A.

 

[613GT500]

Considering we are getting 20/21mpg in the N/A 3.5 and the 2.3 is getting mid 20s reported by members, I'd say that fuel economy is there with the 2.3 over the N/A.

You misunderstood me.
I don't want a v8 back in there to get better mileage.
I want a v8 back for the power, torque and greater towing.

I don't drive with a lead foot, but I definitely don't drive to conserve fuel and I'm averaging 18mpg with the 3.5EB.

 

[Tuscany]

I get what you are saying with the small engines and it obviously sounds like you are one of the few that just want that V8 motor that is being phased out of most vehicles.

However to say that Ford is going to return to the N/A engine is beyond a far stretch. Let's see, they have the 1.0, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0, 3.5 and a 5.0 which are all ecoboost. Going to back to a N/A?? I think not.

Ford isn't going away from the ecoboost in any way, in fact they are going forward with it and have 2nd gens already.

Actually, Ford won't be the judge of what they offer in the future. It will be the public at large who decides, and I guarantee Ford is also spending plenty in R&D on alternatives. Ford is a stock held company who must answer to their shareholders, period. If the EB program sells well, it will stay. If not, then it will go.
I'm leaning the odds towards your thinking right now, but it is a matter of time before the public catches on about the posted fuel mileage, and how driver input and boosted driving (which is almost all of the time) adversely affects these small turbo engines MPG.

I carry no brand loyalty. I own two Fords, two GMCs, and a Jeep. I can tell you that in no way would I want a 3.5l EB in a truck when the GM 6.2l 420/460 and comparable MPG is on the market. Drive one of those some day and you tell me...

 

[blwnsmoke]

Actually, Ford won't be the judge of what they offer in the future. It will be the public at large who decides, and I guarantee Ford is also spending plenty in R&D on alternatives. Ford is a stock held company who must answer to their shareholders, period. If the EB program sells well, it will stay. If not, then it will go.
I'm leaning the odds towards your thinking right now, but it is a matter of time before the public catches on about the posted fuel mileage, and how driver input and boosted driving (which is almost all of the time) adversely affects these small turbo engines MPG.

I carry no brand loyalty. I own two Fords, two GMCs, and a Jeep. I can tell you that in no way would I want a 3.5l EB in a truck when the GM 6.2l 420/460 and comparable MPG is on the market. Drive one of those some day and you tell me...

Agree to disagree. There is a reason Ford went with the Ecoboost motors.. smaller displacement and more hp all due thanks to CAFE. CAFE gets more strict in 2017 and then I believe the next round is 2025 if my memory services me correctly. It isn't the share holders.. Ford has to do what they have to do to achieve the numbers... this goes for every manufacturer (unless you are the germans)

Another reason Ford went to aluminum. Combo the 10 speed tranny going in the Fseries, mustang, expedition and lincoln variants (just to name a few), aluminum bodies and smaller displacement motors, all this equates to exactly what needs to be done to achieve CAFE numbers.

Hell, even the competition is doing it now.. GM with the 2.0T in the Camaro... small diesels being put into the Jeeps, F150, smaller cars etc.. they are doing everything they can to increase MPG.

Just because an Ecoboost can get the same mpg as a V8 when pushing it hard, the CAFE/EPA testing for MPG is not "floor the pedal all the time". Because of the mixed driving, it results in better mpg then a V8.

I've driven the older version V8 in the Sierra Denali trucks. Not knocking a V8 motor but one needs to be realistic and smaller motors with turbos is what is going to get every manufacturer where they need to be. I just had a 2016 Expedition with the 3.5TT in it for the weekend (3rd time in the past 2 months with it) and it is a fantastic motor and a ton of power for how heavy this vehicle is.

And just to put it out there.. I want to get a Mustang Convertible within the next 2 years and it WILL have the 5.0 V8 in it.

 

[Tuscany]

I can't disagree with that post..
It is about the numbers.,

But at this point in time, the CAFE standards are met with a multitude of larger engines which makes the EB a poorer choice IMO.

 

[Flatplane]

Moving forward the numbers that will need to be met grow exponentially to the point that smaller more powerful engines are going to be the norm. OEM's will hafta expand their available fare to include other things like alternate fuel and Hybrid technology. Oh Joy Oh Joy

 

[Tuscany]

I personally think we will see more diesel in our future.
The only thing holding back diesel MPG is emission equipment technology.
As EGR reduces, and SCR equipment refinement goes, so goes diesel MPG.

Diesel engines usually run 16-18/1 compression. Bigger power from smaller, light weight engines will probably be the most attractive option as we look at it today.

 

[Flatplane]

Agree with the diesel direction route. I have a real problem though when it comes to the newer diesel technology that you have spoken of briefly.
The new technology using ultra-low sulfur drip fuel causes "some" lubricity concerns. Lack of lubrication can cause catastrophic fuel component failures. Add to that technology dictates the use of a catalyst to complete the emission clean-up.
Urea in the form of DEF fluid in itself is not a concern other than an additional cost of use. The problem I see is when John Q-Public adds DEF fluid to the diesel fuel and effectively destroys the fuel system as well.
It has been said many times "I can't fix stupid" but educating the driving public is a daunting task.

 

[peterk9]

I think this thread has drifted quite a bit off course in regards to the OP's question.

Peter

 

[Tuscany]

Peter,
Respectfully, I think we addressed the OPs question with several differing opinions which all make sense. This continued exchange of opinions of how MPG and CAFE laws will be addressed are very interesting.

Should we start a new topic?

 

[Tuscany]

Agree with the diesel direction route. I have a real problem though when it comes to the newer diesel technology that you have spoken of briefly.
The new technology using ultra-low sulfur drip fuel causes "some" lubricity concerns. Lack of lubrication can cause catastrophic fuel component failures. Add to that technology dictates the use of a catalyst to complete the emission clean-up.
Urea in the form of DEF fluid in itself is not a concern other than an additional cost of use. The problem I see is when John Q-Public adds DEF fluid to the diesel fuel and effectively destroys the fuel system as well.
It has been said many times "I can't fix stupid" but educating the driving public is a daunting task.

SCR after treatment technology is progressing.
Also, modern diesel injectors are built to take ULSD. It's the old stuff that's having the lubricity issues,
Diesel engine manufacturers are now turning up urea after treatment injection amounts even higher, while turning down engine killing EGR while making legal emission. That approach is bringing back the power while reducing the excessive heat and choking internal soot that 100% EGR emission "technology" of a few years ago were producing. Diesel is becoming very solid and long lasting again. On the down side, it's complicated and expensive.
I won't be shocked to see small diesel make a big showing in the heavier SUV vehicles lwithin the next 5 years.

I fully agree that you can't fix stupid. First we must work on people not filling up a diesel tank with gasoline before we attempt to show them what goes in, and doesn't go in the blue cap tank.

 

[peterk9]

Should we start a new topic?

That is what I was thinking several posts ago but since it has gone on for many posts we might as well leave it go now.
May have to modify the topic title a little.

Peter

 

[peterk9]

Any theories on why the 2017 2.3L 4x4 went to 25MPG from 26MPG on the 2016?

Just got my 2016 Limited 4x4 2.3L (Guard with Tan)...love it so far.

Just stumbled across this but I don't know if it applies to the American testing method.
http://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/fuel-consumption-ratings

Peter

 

[Flatplane]

Excellent research and dissemination of information Peter. It's always nice to have leaders in place to maintain the created intentions of the mechanisms