What to Expect from Ford | Page 4 | Ford Explorer - Ford Ranger Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free! This box and some ads will disappear once registered!

What to Expect from Ford

ember1205

Member
Joined
October 5, 2014
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
City, State
Northern Central CT
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Ford Explorer
I guess the manufacturers feel they are covered when they state, "Actual mileage may vary."
Their mileage figures for the Ecoboost were also reached using 93 octane gasoline.

Peter

Octane is a measure of how resistant gasoline is to detonation, and higher numbers are used in higher compression motors to prevent pre-detonation ("spark knock") due to the higher heat created from the high compression. It has nothing to do with MPG.
 
<

Join the Elite Explorers $20 Gets rid of the ads!

Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments in all forums, and Media Gallery, create and save more private conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.




peterk9

Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
December 28, 2010
Messages
32,422
Reaction score
2,637
City, State
Russell, Ontario (Ottawa area)
Year, Model & Trim Level
2020 Aviator Reserve
Callsign
VE3
Higher octane will improve performance in the Ecoboost engine. While it may not improve mileage I know that my mileage has been slightly better with each fill lately. I'm on my 3rd tank of 91 octane gas but it could also be that I getting a few more miles on the engine (1250 mi.).

Peter
 
<



ember1205

Member
Joined
October 5, 2014
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
City, State
Northern Central CT
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Ford Explorer
The motor won't benefit from it. Of course, it won't hurt it either. Your MPG improvements are the result of your motor breaking in.
 
<



dco43054

Explorer Addict
Joined
April 24, 2003
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
10
City, State
cmh
Year, Model & Trim Level
20 XLT
While the OP did state he was disappointed with the mileage, his main concern and reason for posting was the lack of or a failure to specifically address his concern other than to say "it is normal" which seems to be a catch-all phrase used by dealers as well.

Peter
No, he wants everyone to validate his fallacious assertion that he should achieve the EPA fuel estimates. And he's very disappointed that most of the respondents to his thread feel that an answer like "it's normal" is a truthful response.
 
<



peterk9

Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
December 28, 2010
Messages
32,422
Reaction score
2,637
City, State
Russell, Ontario (Ottawa area)
Year, Model & Trim Level
2020 Aviator Reserve
Callsign
VE3
The motor won't benefit from it. Of course, it won't hurt it either. Your MPG improvements are the result of your motor breaking in.
From the Owner's Guide;
Premium fuel will provide improved performance and is recommended for severe duty usage such
as trailer tow
.

Peter
 
<



principalpony

Member
Joined
November 12, 2013
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
City, State
Michigan
Year, Model & Trim Level
Ford Explorer Limited 2.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94-FTyjjwBA

Is this what you are talking about Principal ?

YUP! This video looks like the same kind of deception - Spend $1k on the 2.0L and you'll get better fuel economy than the other Explorers.

I think everyone would agree that the EPA test cycles are the same for all vehicles. So when the Ex V6 AWD is hwy rated @ 23 mpg, and the Ex V6 FWD is hwy rated @ 24 mpg, and the Ex 2.0L is hwy rated @ 28 mpg - it's all done under the exact same cycle and conditions. So, by comparison, one should expect that the 2.0L will get better fuel economy under similar conditions that are somewhat different than the EPA test cycle, such as steady cruising at 60 mph, 65 mph or even 70 mph.

My best comparison is with the Consumers Reports testing of the AWD V6 which was done at a steady 65 mph and it achieved 26 mpg. Our 2.0L consistently gets 26 mpg at a steady 65 mph. Is it wrong to expect the 2.0L to do better than the V6 AWD? Maybe expecting 5 mpg better as the EPA testing comparison would suggest could be a little optimistic, but it should be better than 26. My comparisons with other Ex V6 FWD are more subjective in that I am relying on what other owners tell me about what they get and how fast they drive, but still the claims from them is that they get ~24 mpg at steady cursing speeds of 70-75 mph. We also got that same fuel economy on our test drive of a V6 FWD. Being that our 2.0L usually gets the same 24 mpg, it is wrong to expect that, by comparison, that we should do better? Once again, perhaps 4 mpg better may be a bit optimistic, but something better is not unreasonable. Someone suggested that I should have test driven or even rented an Ex 2.0L. If one had been available, I would have. We test drive an Edge with the 2.0L, but it was a fairly short test drive with a salesperson with us.

Now perhaps we need to consider that EPA testing allows for manufacturers to use testing results for other vehicles with the same drive train to be used for other models such as what Ford did for the Fusion Hybrid and the C-Max hybrid. You may recall that Ford has owned up to the fact that ALL of their hybrids testing for fuel economy was faulty. Perhaps this is also true for the Ex 2.0L.

Some have implied that I am "whining" or "upset" and I can assure you that is not the case. I am trying to hold Ford accountable. For the record, we do like our Ex with the exception of the fuel economy (and its size when I wax it, like I did yesterday). I tell people that Ex is a good choice, just don't waste your money on the 2.0L.

I have even been accused of faulty math for my calculations of overall savings of the fuel economy. In reality, I was being more pessimistic in my assumption of future fuel costs. We have paid as much as $4.25/gal for gas in the past and my assumption is that by 2019 we could see that price or even higher. My crystal ball is not clear enough to tell.

Another poster has even suggested that any discount off the MSRP is compensation for the lost savings in fuel economy. REALLY! Does anyone actually pay MSRP for a vehicle as common as the Ex? If they do I feel sorry for them.

Now I expect that some will continue to slam me on this is some way shape or form. As far as I am concerned, we are done.
 
<



jmr061

Explorer Addict
Joined
August 24, 2014
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
179
City, State
Wisconsin
Year, Model & Trim Level
16 Exp Sport
YUP! This video looks like the same kind of deception - Spend $1k on the 2.0L and you'll get better fuel economy than the other Explorers.

No deception. You don't understand EPA ratings. Quit complaining....we don't want to hear it and you won't get sympathy here. You say your issue is how they handled your complaint but you keep coming back to the EPA issue and what your vehicle gets. I already said you should have gotten personal response not a form letter. Agree with you there.

Go drive for 10 miles with a warm motor at 48 mph with no air conditioning and moderate outside air temp. Don't forget to measure your MPG properly. Not with reported value in the IPC. Then if you are well below EPA standards come back and complain.
 
<



Halwg

Well-Known Member
Joined
February 5, 2012
Messages
900
Reaction score
40
City, State
WV
Year, Model & Trim Level
2018 Explorer Base 2.3L E
Sell the car. End of discussion. :hammer:
 
<



wifes2011xlt

Well-Known Member
Joined
February 11, 2014
Messages
390
Reaction score
4
City, State
IL/WI border
Year, Model & Trim Level
2015 Limited (wife's)
Sell the car. End of discussion. :hammer:
+1 and the OP should sell the new owner on how the OP did extensive testing and gets 26mpg. Then when the new owner comes back to the OP saying that he only gets 22mpg, I'm sure the OP would "deliver on that promise" as he advertised.
 
<



jmr061

Explorer Addict
Joined
August 24, 2014
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
179
City, State
Wisconsin
Year, Model & Trim Level
16 Exp Sport
I think everyone would agree that the EPA test cycles are the same for all vehicles. So when the Ex V6 AWD is hwy rated @ 23 mpg, and the Ex V6 FWD is hwy rated @ 24 mpg, and the Ex 2.0L is hwy rated @ 28 mpg - it's all done under the exact same cycle and conditions. So, by comparison, one should expect that the 2.0L will get better fuel economy under similar conditions that are somewhat different than the EPA test cycle, such as steady cruising at 60 mph, 65 mph or even 70 mph.


Um....you edited/added after I posted so I feel compelled to reply to this segment. Your thinking is seriously flawed. While test cycles are the same the rest is WRONG. So you think that the HWY testing which has a 48 MPH average over 10 miles should mathematically equate to the same at 65 or 70 MPH, a full 17 to 22 MPH over the test cycle average MPH.

Lets think about this for a minute. Every motor has that "sweet spot" of best MPG. Do you honestly think that a 4 cylinder engine and 6 cylinder engine will continue to get the same correlated MPG at 17 to 22 MPH over the EPA testing. DOUBT IT.

Ever consider that the sweet spot for the 4 cylinder may be at 55 MPH while the sweet spot for the 6 cylinder is at 65 MPH.

The point here is you made an assumption based upon what you thought would be correct. There is no problem with that. Turns out you were wrong and your not getting the MPG you suspected. That's something you need to live with.

Ford is correct in telling you they won't do anything. Sure they could be nicer about it but that is their choice.
 
<



Dr Plastic

Well-Known Member
Joined
July 10, 2005
Messages
579
Reaction score
2
City, State
Newport News, Virginia
Year, Model & Trim Level
'15 Limited FWD
I am trying to understand why you are trying to hold Ford accountable. Why? Because your mileage does not match what Ford/EPA has ESTIMATED? Every car will get different mileage when compared to EPA "ESTIMATES". They are only ESTIMATES! You will never NEVER get exactly what they ESTIMATE to be what the mileage will be. Every car is driven differently no matter where they are driven. As long as every driving condition is different then you cannot hold Ford accountable just because you are getting lower that ESTIMATED MPG's. Unless you drive using the same EXACT test loop (that Ford and the EPA used) using the same exact fuel and using the same application of pedal you will always get worse numbers that what Ford ESTIMATES the MPG's to be! So there is no court in the land that would hold Ford accountable for this!
 
<



ember1205

Member
Joined
October 5, 2014
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
City, State
Northern Central CT
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Ford Explorer
I am trying to understand why you are trying to hold Ford accountable. Why? Because your mileage does not match what Ford/EPA has ESTIMATED? Every car will get different mileage when compared to EPA "ESIMATES". they are only ESTIMATES! you will never NEVER get exactly what they ESTIMATE to be whet the mileage will be. Every car is driven differently no matter where they are driven. As long as every driving condition is different then you cannot hold Ford accountable just because you are getting lower that ESTIMATED MPG's. Unless you drive using the same test loop[ using the same exact fuel and using the same application of pedal you will always get worse numbers that what ford ESTIMATES the MPG's to be! So there is no court in the land that would hold Ford accountable for this!

Take it a step further...

Why would FORD do anything about what the EPA had determined to be an ESTIMATE? Instead of griping at the manufacturer that built the thing, the OP should go after the politicians that he elected that are directly responsible for what methodology the EPA uses to create these estimates in the first place.
 
<



amd2800barton

Well-Known Member
Joined
July 3, 2014
Messages
180
Reaction score
1
Year, Model & Trim Level
2014 Explorer Sport
He also went a step further further. He said (summarizing):

One test of the V6 AWD Explorer managed to eek out 26MPG. According to the EPA, my 2.0L Ecoboost Explorer is 5MPG better than the V6 AWD Explorer. If I add the (already optimistic) EPA ratings information to the one anecdotal data point, and disregard all other statistical data, I have 26MPG plus 5MPG which is 31MPG.

My Explorer isn't getting the predicted (horribly flawed) 31MPG when I travel at high speed where nobody gets the EPA rated fuel economy, let alone above it. GASP! Ford LIED to me. And when I complain to them, they respond, but I want treatment better than what everyone else would get (even though I have a non-issue).

I know its a total straw-man, but honestly, its the gist of his complaints so far. He has the gall to horribly overestimate his expected fuel economy, and then be upset at Ford when he fails to see the results they didn't promise. Lets all just move along. There's nothing to see here. Whiners gotta whine.
 
<



<



blwnsmoke

Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
February 25, 2011
Messages
5,841
Reaction score
1,296
City, State
Moderator
Year, Model & Trim Level
2020 Explorer ST
Um....you edited/added after I posted so I feel compelled to reply to this segment. Your thinking is seriously flawed. While test cycles are the same the rest is WRONG. So you think that the HWY testing which has a 48 MPH average over 10 miles should mathematically equate to the same at 65 or 70 MPH, a full 17 to 22 MPH over the test cycle average MPH.

Lets think about this for a minute. Every motor has that "sweet spot" of best MPG. Do you honestly think that a 4 cylinder engine and 6 cylinder engine will continue to get the same correlated MPG at 17 to 22 MPH over the EPA testing. DOUBT IT.

Ever consider that the sweet spot for the 4 cylinder may be at 55 MPH while the sweet spot for the 6 cylinder is at 65 MPH.

The point here is you made an assumption based upon what you thought would be correct. There is no problem with that. Turns out you were wrong and your not getting the MPG you suspected. That's something you need to live with.

Ford is correct in telling you they won't do anything. Sure they could be nicer about it but that is their choice.


You hit the nail on the head there.. I was about to post the same thing.

Not only will the sweet spot be different between 2 different motors but the HP and TQ curves are different with varying RPMs. The V6 can be more efficient at higher RPMS..

Not only that, GEAR ratios are different between the 2.0L and 3.5L which also has an effect on MPG at the same speeds between both.

------

To the OP, the reason for the EPA estimates are to see what each vehicle is capable of achieving in optimum conditions when they are even across the board (test wise). Once you change the variables (IE - speed), you can no longer compare 2 different vehicles and motors.

Once again - gear ratios, hp curve, torque curve.. all this can vary your mpg at both higher and lower speeds then the tested ones by the EPA.

Nobody is going to take this complaint seriously.. My V6 AWD (non sport) gets 20-20.5mpg average with it being 70/30% highway/city driving.
 
<



Top